I am presently reading a 1993 piece by Rogers M. Smith titled Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America. The standard narrative of American society, says Smith, is that it was founded on democratic liberalism; and even when America fails to live up to its principles, as during the slavery years for example, the principles themselves continue to guide national behavior and gradually eradicate all of the illiberal hypocrisies of society.
Smith argues that Tocqueville and his adherents failed to account for the various illiberal elements such as racism or sexism, that actually coexisted and competed with liberalism within the American psyche. Therefore, the standard narrative of American society is flawed and does not capture the truth of the matter, and should be expunged from the hallowed halls of learning (more or less).
This seems to be a trend in academia, where some scholar will examine an ideal, enumerate all the ways in which the ideal was not lived up to, sweepingly declare the ideal to be hypocritical, and smugly demolish yet another pillar of the national consciousness. As much as this sort of work contributes to a deeper understanding of the past, in some fashion, at the same time it is undermining society's best mechanisms for producing a better future.
Jefferson owned slaves. Should we then declare the Declaration of Independence to be a work of hypocrisy and banish it from the schools? What sacrilege! Jefferson's words would live on to inspire generations of noble men and women to fight for justice and freedom, not least among them Dr. Martin Luther King and his comrades. The same is true of all the other liberal ideas that such reckless academics as Smith would so casually condemn. What these people don't seem to understand is that the purpose of an ideal is to guide future behavior, so that it conforms more and more closely to that ideal.
What would have the more beneficial outcome for America? That we believe our nation to be founded on undying principles of liberty and justice? Or that we believe our nation to be constructed based on the narrow racial or sexist concerns of a few men? One belief would present all Americans with the torch of justice, passed down from our Founding Fathers with the sacred duty that we continue to guard its flame and have it burn ever higher. The other belief would provoke disgust and scorn for America as being the warped child of bitter seed.
And through this shadowy valley tromp the postmodernists, neo-feminists, neo-Marxists, race-relations specialists, and all of their ilk, blissfully unconcerned with the damage that they do to America and the entire world. And I find it particularly abhorrent that they should do so now, when most of the injustices that they rail against have already been rectified. Never forget that scientific theories of race and gender were continually promoted in the universities, at the same time as the struggle for equality under the law was being waged in society. Now that the fighting has died down, the lizards creep out from under their rocks waving deconstructionist histories of America, as if to say, "Sorry we missed the show, lads, but take comfort in the fact that everyone is really just as immoral as we are."
As for me, I shall continue to look up to an ideal of American virtue, even if I should fall short of it at one time or another. For I cannot hope to hit a target unless I aim for it; and it is the function of American idealism to provide a target at which all peoples can aim. Nobody should dare to deny us that chance; nobody should dare to wantonly destroy the inspiration for our goodness.
1/27/2005
Quote of the Day
By no possibility could equality ultimately fail to penetrate into the sphere of politics as everywhere else. One cannot imagine that men should remain perpetually unequal in just one respect though equal in all others; within a certain time they are bound to become equal in all respects.—Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Now, I know of only two ways of making equality prevail in the political sphere; rights must be given either to every citizen or to nobody.
So, for a people who have reached the Anglo-Americans' social state, it is hard to see any middle course between the sovereignty of all and the absolute power of one man.
One must not disguise it from oneself that the social state I have just described may lead as easily to the one as to the other of these results.
1/26/2005
Reforming American Government
First day of classes for the new semester today; altogether very interesting. In my American Politics class, we will be ending the semester with an Oxford-Union debate with the following proposition: "RESOLVED: the American political system is illiberal, undemocratic, and in need of serious reform." As luck (or irony) would have it, I landed on the affirmative side. This is hardly my usual position, as I tend to think that the American government is reasonably effective at what it does. But I think I will have fun with this position, as it lets me try out some verrry interesting ideas for rebuilding the government.
Tonight's target: Congress!
I think we can all agree that a parliamentary system filled with blowhards who make pompous speeches that nobody cares about, votes on legislation that they haven't even read, and generally is for sale to the largest donors needs a serious overhaul. Going with the premise that the present system is undemocratic, I think we should strip Congress of most of its functions and devolve them directly onto the people. This has the decided advantage of cutting the congressional staffers out of the loop; I find it rather appalling that most of the legislation is drawn up by unelected bureaucrats, albeit at the direction of the congressmen. But how many times have staffers slipped nasty legal revisions into monstrous bills that are only discovered once they are passed, if ever?
The major functions of Congress are power of the purse, and passing Federal law. (Things like "advise and consent" or declarations of war are largely ceremonial and can safely be ignored [heh].) In an age of secure internet banking, I see no logistical reason why citizens could not be expected to vote on law or budgets on a systematic basis, remotely via secure networks.
A few minor points would have to be cleared up. There have to be some checks on the power to propose legislation, or else people will be blizzarded by millions of new bills a day. Call it legislative spam. Additionally, there would have to be rules for the length of time that a proposal would be open for debate, and then for vote. I think a month for debate followed by a few days for voting should be quite enough for the new class of savvy voters that this system would spawn. (Not everyone would vote regularly, of course; but given that voting rates for national elections are at about 50%, you could say, by extension, that the same is already true in Congress.)
Moreover, a supermajority of 67% would be necessary to pass new legislation. This is in order to safeguard against abuses of the system inherent in pure democracies, making the classic 51/49 tyranny impossible. Besides, as Heinlein noted in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, if two thirds of the country can't agree on something, is it really such a good idea in the first place?
I see a few different models for how budgeting could work:
1. Each citizen would allot his own tax payments among the various federal programs as he sees fit, being guided by the previous year's allotments, the programs' funding requests, and public lobbying for or against various programs, and his own views. This would be time-consuming, but one could also employ funding templates drawn up by policy analysts, columnists, geeks, demagogues, etc, which would be thoroughly vetted by the online community; of course, you can modify these templates as you see fit.
At all times, a running total would be visible, so that people can see serious funding imbalances and adjust their own choices accordingly.
Issues: Boring or obscure programs could get underfunded. There would be no consistent methodology for the budget, barring a consensus arising out of the open-source model. A citizen's budgetary power is directly proportional to his wealth; what about the poor? What about noncitizens who pay taxes? What about people who don't vote; what happens to their money?
2. Same as above, except tax revenues are divided equally among voters.
Issues: Straight-up income redistribution. Socialist paradise, here we come... Other issues as above.
3. Standard voting, program by program; different proposals would be considered and eliminated until one has a 67% majority.
Issues: Very tedious.
4. Standard voting, department by department, as above.
Issues: Less flexibility over individual programs. This would be counteracted, presumably, from the multiplicity of proposals, each with a different policy mix.
5. Standard voting, one whole package.
Issues: Are you kidding??
******
This has been quite entertaining. I'm looking forward to follow-up posts, where I'll look at other areas of civic America in need of overhaul.
Tonight's target: Congress!
I think we can all agree that a parliamentary system filled with blowhards who make pompous speeches that nobody cares about, votes on legislation that they haven't even read, and generally is for sale to the largest donors needs a serious overhaul. Going with the premise that the present system is undemocratic, I think we should strip Congress of most of its functions and devolve them directly onto the people. This has the decided advantage of cutting the congressional staffers out of the loop; I find it rather appalling that most of the legislation is drawn up by unelected bureaucrats, albeit at the direction of the congressmen. But how many times have staffers slipped nasty legal revisions into monstrous bills that are only discovered once they are passed, if ever?
The major functions of Congress are power of the purse, and passing Federal law. (Things like "advise and consent" or declarations of war are largely ceremonial and can safely be ignored [heh].) In an age of secure internet banking, I see no logistical reason why citizens could not be expected to vote on law or budgets on a systematic basis, remotely via secure networks.
A few minor points would have to be cleared up. There have to be some checks on the power to propose legislation, or else people will be blizzarded by millions of new bills a day. Call it legislative spam. Additionally, there would have to be rules for the length of time that a proposal would be open for debate, and then for vote. I think a month for debate followed by a few days for voting should be quite enough for the new class of savvy voters that this system would spawn. (Not everyone would vote regularly, of course; but given that voting rates for national elections are at about 50%, you could say, by extension, that the same is already true in Congress.)
Moreover, a supermajority of 67% would be necessary to pass new legislation. This is in order to safeguard against abuses of the system inherent in pure democracies, making the classic 51/49 tyranny impossible. Besides, as Heinlein noted in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, if two thirds of the country can't agree on something, is it really such a good idea in the first place?
I see a few different models for how budgeting could work:
1. Each citizen would allot his own tax payments among the various federal programs as he sees fit, being guided by the previous year's allotments, the programs' funding requests, and public lobbying for or against various programs, and his own views. This would be time-consuming, but one could also employ funding templates drawn up by policy analysts, columnists, geeks, demagogues, etc, which would be thoroughly vetted by the online community; of course, you can modify these templates as you see fit.
At all times, a running total would be visible, so that people can see serious funding imbalances and adjust their own choices accordingly.
Issues: Boring or obscure programs could get underfunded. There would be no consistent methodology for the budget, barring a consensus arising out of the open-source model. A citizen's budgetary power is directly proportional to his wealth; what about the poor? What about noncitizens who pay taxes? What about people who don't vote; what happens to their money?
2. Same as above, except tax revenues are divided equally among voters.
Issues: Straight-up income redistribution. Socialist paradise, here we come... Other issues as above.
3. Standard voting, program by program; different proposals would be considered and eliminated until one has a 67% majority.
Issues: Very tedious.
4. Standard voting, department by department, as above.
Issues: Less flexibility over individual programs. This would be counteracted, presumably, from the multiplicity of proposals, each with a different policy mix.
5. Standard voting, one whole package.
Issues: Are you kidding??
******
This has been quite entertaining. I'm looking forward to follow-up posts, where I'll look at other areas of civic America in need of overhaul.
1/25/2005
A Conservative Critique of the War
The Adventures of Chester has a very long, valuable post on views from the conservative end of the spectrum about how the Iraq War was mishandled, particularly those of Mark Halperin. As one can expect, Halperin's critique is hardly the same as that of the anti-war left; he says, rather, that our war aims were all wrong, and that our methods were also wrong as a result. Rather than "regime change," Halperin believes that we should have simply flattened Iraq in a massive display of power, as an object lesson to other would-be dictators. He is skeptical that Iraq can be democratized, and in any event doesn't want to try. Money quote:
Why have we not done this at present? Politically, it would be next to impossible. The President is already getting a great deal of opposition to the increases he has slated for the military, which, although significant, are not anywhere near as big as Halperin would like. This is due, incidentally, to the legacy of Clinton, as Halperin notes:
Our presence is already forcing considerable shifts in the status quo. Syria is redeploying forces out of Lebanon, where they had enforced a Syrian protectorate for over two decades, not because of a newfound appreciation for the universal rights of man, but because Bashar Assad is concerned about possible military action into Syria by the US. Meanwhile, the Iranian students are becoming more and more restless for change, and look to the United States for logistical and moral support of a kind which would have been far more difficult before the invasion.
Fundamentally, however, Halperin does not appreciate the power of ideas. Iraq shares a border with all of the worst offenders in Middle-East tyranny (with the possible exception of Egypt). We are now five days away from free elections, with hunderds of different political parties and thousands of candidates. If the elections are successful, and if the resulting government is effective, we may begin to see a new wave of resentment against the brutal regimes of the Middle East, which with luck may lead to some momentous shifts in power.
And as President Bush noted in his inaugural speech, America has come to the realization that the spread of democracy is in our best interest, militarily, politically, and economically. For all of Halperin's worries, we will have done more to secure our interest by promoting democracy than a scorched-earth war could ever have done instead.
*****
On a lighter note: I just returned to New York yesterday. It is much, much too cold for this California boy. On the bright side, I remembered to bring some Paddy for the election bash that I plan to have next week. Mmmm... Irish whiskey...
From the beginning, the scale of the war was based on the fundamental strategic misconception that the primary objective was Iraq rather than the imagination of the Arab World, which, if sufficiently stunned, would tip itself back into the heretofore easily induced fatalism that makes it hesitate to war against the West. After the true shock and awe of a campaign of massive surplus, as in the Gulf War, no regime would have risked its survival by failing to go after the terrorists within its purview. But a campaign of bare sufficiency, that had trouble punching through even ragtag irregulars, taught the Arabs that we could be effectively opposed.As much as Halperin is correct within his chosen guidelines, I think that the guidelines themselves are suspect. His primary worry is that our occupation is consuming resources that would otherwise go towards containing China and North Korea. Yet he himself notes that the US can easily double the size of the military, based on historical spending levels; indeed, that was his prescription for Iraq.
Mistakenly focused on physical control of Iraq, we could not see that, were we to give it up, the resultant anarchy might find a quicker resolution than the indefinite prolonged agony through which our continuing presence has nursed it.
Why have we not done this at present? Politically, it would be next to impossible. The President is already getting a great deal of opposition to the increases he has slated for the military, which, although significant, are not anywhere near as big as Halperin would like. This is due, incidentally, to the legacy of Clinton, as Halperin notes:
For someone of the all-too-common opinion that a strong defense is the cause of war, a favorite trick is to advance a wholesale revision of strategy, so that he may accomplish his depredations while looking like a reformer....Neville Chamberlain...starved the army and navy on the theory that the revolution in military affairs of his time made the only defense feasible that of a "Fortress Britain" protected by the Royal Air Force--and then failed in building up the air force. Bill Clinton...who came into office calling for the discontinuance of heavy echelons in favor of power projection, simultaneously pressed for a severe reduction in aircraft carriers, the sine qua non of power projection. Later, he and his strategical toadies embraced the revolution in military affairs not for its virtues but because even the Clinton-ravished military "may be unaffordable," and "advanced technology offers much greater military efficiency."Essentially, it was impossible for the United States to wage the sort of war in 2003 that Halperin is advocating. That does not address the question of whether a full-scale occupation and regime change was the correct course of action. In my view, Halperin is both needlessly pessimistic about the chances for democracy, and ignoring the geopolitical implications of an American presence in Iraq. We now have a large concentration of force sitting on the border of both Syria and Iran, which would have been impossible without Iraqi bases; consider the refusal by Turkey to allow American forces passage into Iraq.
Our presence is already forcing considerable shifts in the status quo. Syria is redeploying forces out of Lebanon, where they had enforced a Syrian protectorate for over two decades, not because of a newfound appreciation for the universal rights of man, but because Bashar Assad is concerned about possible military action into Syria by the US. Meanwhile, the Iranian students are becoming more and more restless for change, and look to the United States for logistical and moral support of a kind which would have been far more difficult before the invasion.
Fundamentally, however, Halperin does not appreciate the power of ideas. Iraq shares a border with all of the worst offenders in Middle-East tyranny (with the possible exception of Egypt). We are now five days away from free elections, with hunderds of different political parties and thousands of candidates. If the elections are successful, and if the resulting government is effective, we may begin to see a new wave of resentment against the brutal regimes of the Middle East, which with luck may lead to some momentous shifts in power.
And as President Bush noted in his inaugural speech, America has come to the realization that the spread of democracy is in our best interest, militarily, politically, and economically. For all of Halperin's worries, we will have done more to secure our interest by promoting democracy than a scorched-earth war could ever have done instead.
*****
On a lighter note: I just returned to New York yesterday. It is much, much too cold for this California boy. On the bright side, I remembered to bring some Paddy for the election bash that I plan to have next week. Mmmm... Irish whiskey...
1/23/2005
Al-Qa'ida Running Out of Money?
Powerline has a post quoting the AP report on the two al-Qa'ida terrorists just arrested in Germany. The really interesting part is that the two were also planning to commit insurance fraud, taking out a million-dollar policy on one of the men, who would later fake his death. The money would have been transferred to higher-ups in the al-Qa'ida network.
This would be very good news; it means that the terrorists are getting desperate. Insurance payments have a very well-defined paper trail, and are very risky to scam. The terrorists must be running out of options, and this will make it much easier to detect them in the future.
We may draw a few tenative conclusions:
1. The funding networks are getting closed down, especially the Saudi charities.
2. Al-Qa'ida is becoming much less popular in Saudi Arabia now that they are attacking Saudis, and not just Americans. In fact, there hasn't been an al-Qa'ida attack against the US for a long time now, and the attacks on the Saudi royal family are fresher in the mind of the Arab world. Certainly few Saudis like the royal family, but I think that nobody wants to see Usama bin-Laden as an actual head of state.
3. Al-Qa'ida is running out of reserves, or else they have been frozen or confiscated, which amounts to the same thing.
4. The Taliban is no longer cooperating with them, or else they would be getting a cut out of the opium trade in Afghanistan.
5. Hizbullah is not cooperating with them, or else they would be getting money from Hizbullah's hashish business, or else from Hizbullah's friends in the Latin-American cocaine business.
If my speculations are anywhere close, it means that al-Qa'ida is becoming increasingly isolated even in the terrorist world. Of course, we still need to worry about Hizbullah and all the other terror groups; but it's a start.
This would be very good news; it means that the terrorists are getting desperate. Insurance payments have a very well-defined paper trail, and are very risky to scam. The terrorists must be running out of options, and this will make it much easier to detect them in the future.
We may draw a few tenative conclusions:
1. The funding networks are getting closed down, especially the Saudi charities.
2. Al-Qa'ida is becoming much less popular in Saudi Arabia now that they are attacking Saudis, and not just Americans. In fact, there hasn't been an al-Qa'ida attack against the US for a long time now, and the attacks on the Saudi royal family are fresher in the mind of the Arab world. Certainly few Saudis like the royal family, but I think that nobody wants to see Usama bin-Laden as an actual head of state.
3. Al-Qa'ida is running out of reserves, or else they have been frozen or confiscated, which amounts to the same thing.
4. The Taliban is no longer cooperating with them, or else they would be getting a cut out of the opium trade in Afghanistan.
5. Hizbullah is not cooperating with them, or else they would be getting money from Hizbullah's hashish business, or else from Hizbullah's friends in the Latin-American cocaine business.
If my speculations are anywhere close, it means that al-Qa'ida is becoming increasingly isolated even in the terrorist world. Of course, we still need to worry about Hizbullah and all the other terror groups; but it's a start.
1/22/2005
Ending Poverty, UN-style
The Diplomad has a post calling attention to a new UN document, spanning some 3,000 pages, which purports to hold the key to ending world poverty. While a noble goal, which should be advanced by all peoples, it is worth noting that many have tried and failed to reduce poverty. The UN's proposal seems to be no more likely to succeed; judging by their "10 key recommendations," the bulk of the proposal is for developed nations to greatly increase their "official development assistance (ODA)," in other words pour more money down the sinkhole. I would be far more supportive of foreign aid if it were more effective; charity is an obligation on all peoples, provided that it actually improves the situation. Unfortunately, most foreign aid to the Third World goes directly into the pockets of the local Presidents for Life, with a little off the top for the various middlemen (read: United Nations bureaucrats).
To the report's credit, it does advocate the reduction of trade barriers via the Doha round of negotiations. Trade barriers have their place in statecraft, but are less and less justified as the state becomes more affluent. Furthermore, the critical infrastructure needed in the poor countries will only be built if a great deal of investment comes flowing in, not through the hands of government officials. And private companies will only put down infrastructure in a country if they can sell their goods, there or elsewhere.
Unfortunately, a lot of the language in the report seems to revolve around coordination, agencies, programs, strategies, central plans, et cetera, et cetera. Once again, the UN is missing the point. Central plans were the great contribution of the Soviet Union, and look what happened to them. A much better basis for a sustained growth in wealth would be the cumulative actions of individuals acting to better themselves, with taken in total would produce staggering changes.
In this regard, I am a fan of microlending as a way of giving local entreprenuers the capital they need. The classic example is for a poor family to get a small loan to buy livestock, and repay the loans over time with proceeds from the milk or offspring. Loans to individuals also force a level of fiscal discipline which is noticeably absent in recipients of aid payments.
More importantly, microfinance is built on individual initiative, industry, personal choice and the growth of commerce. These all promote moral virtues and responsibility, as opposed to simple aid grants which promote a mentality of dependency and sloth. Of course, one could argue that dependency and sloth are exactly what the governments of the world want in their citizens...
To the report's credit, it does advocate the reduction of trade barriers via the Doha round of negotiations. Trade barriers have their place in statecraft, but are less and less justified as the state becomes more affluent. Furthermore, the critical infrastructure needed in the poor countries will only be built if a great deal of investment comes flowing in, not through the hands of government officials. And private companies will only put down infrastructure in a country if they can sell their goods, there or elsewhere.
Unfortunately, a lot of the language in the report seems to revolve around coordination, agencies, programs, strategies, central plans, et cetera, et cetera. Once again, the UN is missing the point. Central plans were the great contribution of the Soviet Union, and look what happened to them. A much better basis for a sustained growth in wealth would be the cumulative actions of individuals acting to better themselves, with taken in total would produce staggering changes.
In this regard, I am a fan of microlending as a way of giving local entreprenuers the capital they need. The classic example is for a poor family to get a small loan to buy livestock, and repay the loans over time with proceeds from the milk or offspring. Loans to individuals also force a level of fiscal discipline which is noticeably absent in recipients of aid payments.
More importantly, microfinance is built on individual initiative, industry, personal choice and the growth of commerce. These all promote moral virtues and responsibility, as opposed to simple aid grants which promote a mentality of dependency and sloth. Of course, one could argue that dependency and sloth are exactly what the governments of the world want in their citizens...
1/20/2005
Those Dirty War-Profiteering... Europeans?
I suppose when you're France and Germany, and you have stagnant economies and large arms-manufacturing industries, and your best customer gets himself regime-changed and is passing the time in an undisclosed location, then you would be anxious to find new customers for your products.
Which explains why the EU is lifting the arms embargo on China, despite (or perhaps because of?) a heated U.S. response. America has no desire to see the Chinese military get any better than it is already; neither do Japan or Taiwan.
On the other hand, the Chinese weapons industry has been getting much better on its own in the past few years, and in any event China has been buying significant weaponry from Israel. Israeli firms may well lose market share to the French and Germans, which is unfortunate, but I wonder whether the weapons embargo has not been counterproductive, from an American standpoint. Without it, perhaps the Chinese would have had less incentive to develop their own military technology. But I don't know enough to say yes or no.
From a purely diplomatic standpoint, France seems intent on aligning the E.U. with China, which would necessarily put them against the United States in some fashion. This would particularly be true if the Taiwan issue heated up enough to lead to a major crisis. I don't know what the French are thinking, but their foreign policy has been remarkably shortsighted for a long time now. What exactly are they trying to acccomplish by permanently angering the world's greatest power?
Which explains why the EU is lifting the arms embargo on China, despite (or perhaps because of?) a heated U.S. response. America has no desire to see the Chinese military get any better than it is already; neither do Japan or Taiwan.
On the other hand, the Chinese weapons industry has been getting much better on its own in the past few years, and in any event China has been buying significant weaponry from Israel. Israeli firms may well lose market share to the French and Germans, which is unfortunate, but I wonder whether the weapons embargo has not been counterproductive, from an American standpoint. Without it, perhaps the Chinese would have had less incentive to develop their own military technology. But I don't know enough to say yes or no.
From a purely diplomatic standpoint, France seems intent on aligning the E.U. with China, which would necessarily put them against the United States in some fashion. This would particularly be true if the Taiwan issue heated up enough to lead to a major crisis. I don't know what the French are thinking, but their foreign policy has been remarkably shortsighted for a long time now. What exactly are they trying to acccomplish by permanently angering the world's greatest power?
1/19/2005
If It Bleeds (American Blood), It Leads...
Powerline reports on ABC News's desire to balance out coverage of the President's inauguration with a report on military funerals. Note that ABC is only looking for funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, Korea, or anywhere else:
Now, ABC has every right to do all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth it wants over the Iraq war. But I wonder just how long people are going to keep watching. I, for one, wonder why so much attention is being paid to Iraq, when practically none is given to the genocide in Darfur, the mass starvation and extermination camps in N. Korea, the massive outbreak of malaria across Africa, and so on.
As artsy as such a pairing of stories might be, for ABC to cover a military funeral along with the inauguration is a blatant exhibition of the political nature of the war opposition. There is so much misery in the world that could easily be prevented by public action, and for the MSM to focus so myopically on the relatively minor hardships of the war is a disgrace. I do not lessen the sacrifices of the men and women who have fallen by any means; but the slaughter in Darfur is not going away, and is many times worse than anything that has happened since the Iraq invasion. Where is the outrage? Where is the continuing coverage? Where are the protests? Where is the furious lobbying to get the U.S. involved?
But for the U.S. to get involved with Darfur would be to confirm for all the world to see, again, that the Bush Doctrine is essentially valid, that the use of force is sometimes justified, and that the United Nations is incapable of fulfilling its supposed mission of securing world tranquility. The chattering classes, many of whom populate the halls of the MSM, are terrified of the prospect. They would much rather scream "Bush is Hitler!" and feel pleased with their own daring, like a four-year-old child sticking his tongue out at his parents.
So the media war continues. But I wonder how many of them truly fail to understand that the greatest weapon of a terrorist is media attention, or that America's center of gravity (the most vulnerable aspect of a state at war) is public opinion. I hope that the media elites are indeed ignorant, because the alternative is that they are knowingly giving the enemy material aid in their fight against America. In an earlier age, that would be called "treason."
Jan. 19, 2005 — For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below...
Now, ABC has every right to do all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth it wants over the Iraq war. But I wonder just how long people are going to keep watching. I, for one, wonder why so much attention is being paid to Iraq, when practically none is given to the genocide in Darfur, the mass starvation and extermination camps in N. Korea, the massive outbreak of malaria across Africa, and so on.
As artsy as such a pairing of stories might be, for ABC to cover a military funeral along with the inauguration is a blatant exhibition of the political nature of the war opposition. There is so much misery in the world that could easily be prevented by public action, and for the MSM to focus so myopically on the relatively minor hardships of the war is a disgrace. I do not lessen the sacrifices of the men and women who have fallen by any means; but the slaughter in Darfur is not going away, and is many times worse than anything that has happened since the Iraq invasion. Where is the outrage? Where is the continuing coverage? Where are the protests? Where is the furious lobbying to get the U.S. involved?
But for the U.S. to get involved with Darfur would be to confirm for all the world to see, again, that the Bush Doctrine is essentially valid, that the use of force is sometimes justified, and that the United Nations is incapable of fulfilling its supposed mission of securing world tranquility. The chattering classes, many of whom populate the halls of the MSM, are terrified of the prospect. They would much rather scream "Bush is Hitler!" and feel pleased with their own daring, like a four-year-old child sticking his tongue out at his parents.
So the media war continues. But I wonder how many of them truly fail to understand that the greatest weapon of a terrorist is media attention, or that America's center of gravity (the most vulnerable aspect of a state at war) is public opinion. I hope that the media elites are indeed ignorant, because the alternative is that they are knowingly giving the enemy material aid in their fight against America. In an earlier age, that would be called "treason."
1/18/2005
A Belated MLK Post...
"[W]henever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent." Martin Luther King, one day before his assassination.
Reverend King was a remarkable man, combining powerful oratory with a blinding moral clarity and vision that led him to fight societal racism on the one hand, and black racism and extremism on the other. More than that, King's words remain a rallying-cry to the cause of human dignity and justice, no matter on whose behalf.
In the dark days since his passing, America has never seen his equal. Yet the fight against racism rages on, twisted beyond recognition in ways that Rev. King would have been horrified to see. When Hillary Clinton can say, "If we don't take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves," and be in full agreement with political orthodoxy simply because she is speaking in support of "affirmative action," we may be sure that the old vision of a colorblind society has been pushed to the side in favor of what Ayn Rand called "pressure politics."
How sad it is that both sides of this struggle claim to be acting in the name of Martin Luther King. He himself has already told us what he would have thought of the matter: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Sen. Clinton's semantic dodge notwithstanding, it is clear that he meant exactly what he said.
Reverend King was a remarkable man, combining powerful oratory with a blinding moral clarity and vision that led him to fight societal racism on the one hand, and black racism and extremism on the other. More than that, King's words remain a rallying-cry to the cause of human dignity and justice, no matter on whose behalf.
In the dark days since his passing, America has never seen his equal. Yet the fight against racism rages on, twisted beyond recognition in ways that Rev. King would have been horrified to see. When Hillary Clinton can say, "If we don't take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves," and be in full agreement with political orthodoxy simply because she is speaking in support of "affirmative action," we may be sure that the old vision of a colorblind society has been pushed to the side in favor of what Ayn Rand called "pressure politics."
How sad it is that both sides of this struggle claim to be acting in the name of Martin Luther King. He himself has already told us what he would have thought of the matter: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Sen. Clinton's semantic dodge notwithstanding, it is clear that he meant exactly what he said.
1/17/2005
The Meme Wars Get Ugly
A new and disturbing trend seems to be emerging in the online world. A lot of people have been shocked and frightened by the ability of the blogosphere to counteract the usual distortions of the mainstream media (MSM, for short), as CBS was smacked down over the forged documents, the U.N. gets savaged almost daily at sites like the Diplomad, and the New York Times is held up to constant ridicule. A great deal of anger has arisen against the more conservative end of the blogosphere, especially from the "Deaniacs," the Web-savvy supporters of Howard Dean who still can't get a grip on reality.
Most of this anger has been expressed verbally, in the form of posts to their own blogs, or (less politely) crude hate-mail directed towards individual bloggers. (If you're really that curious, check out Michelle Malkin's hate mail. WARNING: Extremely coarse and vulgar language.) But recently it seems that the hostilities are escalating.
First, Little Green Footballs was hit with a Denial of Service Attack. (LGF played a major role in the Dan Rather takedown, producing a flash animation comparing the supposed documents with a duplicate document made with MS Word with the default system settings.) Then, just today the site of Tim Blair, Australian purveyor of sarcasm and common sense, was hacked. At this time all posts and archives have been deleted, and Tim's password details have been corrupted, so he is shut out of the system.
I have no idea who launched these attacks, but this is clearly not the work of a bored adolescent, attacking random websites. LGF and Tim Blair were key members of the blogosphere. Whoever attacked them has fallen back on the last refuge of the failing demagogue, wanton violence against the oppposition. And make no mistake, this is indeed an act of violence as bad as arson. Tim Blair's writings, dating back years, have been vaporized. His intellectual property has been destroyed.
I don't know how we should respond, besides doing frequent backups and installing better security when possible. Certainly we cannot retaliate against major blogs on the Left; vandalism does not excuse vandalism. If we could track down the scum who did this, however...
This is a sad day for the blogosphere. The thug wing of the Left has reemerged, and is tarnishing a glorious bastion of free speech and free-market exchange of ideas.
UPDATE (2:44): Tim Blair is back online. I linked to an article citing the thoughts of Theodore Dalrymple, as he prepares to retire from treating welfare cases in Britain. Highlights:
Check out Tim's site. He does good work.
UPDATE (Jan 18): Tim says that the hacking was not malicious, but the result of a software glitch of some kind with the host. That makes me feel better; on the other hand, there's still the DOS attack on LGF, which cannot have possibly been an accident.
Most of this anger has been expressed verbally, in the form of posts to their own blogs, or (less politely) crude hate-mail directed towards individual bloggers. (If you're really that curious, check out Michelle Malkin's hate mail. WARNING: Extremely coarse and vulgar language.) But recently it seems that the hostilities are escalating.
First, Little Green Footballs was hit with a Denial of Service Attack. (LGF played a major role in the Dan Rather takedown, producing a flash animation comparing the supposed documents with a duplicate document made with MS Word with the default system settings.) Then, just today the site of Tim Blair, Australian purveyor of sarcasm and common sense, was hacked. At this time all posts and archives have been deleted, and Tim's password details have been corrupted, so he is shut out of the system.
I have no idea who launched these attacks, but this is clearly not the work of a bored adolescent, attacking random websites. LGF and Tim Blair were key members of the blogosphere. Whoever attacked them has fallen back on the last refuge of the failing demagogue, wanton violence against the oppposition. And make no mistake, this is indeed an act of violence as bad as arson. Tim Blair's writings, dating back years, have been vaporized. His intellectual property has been destroyed.
I don't know how we should respond, besides doing frequent backups and installing better security when possible. Certainly we cannot retaliate against major blogs on the Left; vandalism does not excuse vandalism. If we could track down the scum who did this, however...
This is a sad day for the blogosphere. The thug wing of the Left has reemerged, and is tarnishing a glorious bastion of free speech and free-market exchange of ideas.
UPDATE (2:44): Tim Blair is back online. I linked to an article citing the thoughts of Theodore Dalrymple, as he prepares to retire from treating welfare cases in Britain. Highlights:
When young people want to praise themselves, they describe themselves as "nonjudgmental." For them, the highest form of morality is amorality.
There has been an unholy alliance between those on the Left, who believe that man is endowed with rights but no duties, and libertarians on the Right, who believe that consumer choice is the answer to all social questions, an idea eagerly adopted by the Left in precisely those areas where it does not apply.
Check out Tim's site. He does good work.
UPDATE (Jan 18): Tim says that the hacking was not malicious, but the result of a software glitch of some kind with the host. That makes me feel better; on the other hand, there's still the DOS attack on LGF, which cannot have possibly been an accident.
1/14/2005
A New Sanhedrin?
I was just made aware of a remarkable series of events taking place in Tiberias, Israel. Last October, a distinguished group of rabbis and leaders officially established a new Sanhedrin. Since then, they have been hard at work codifying procedures and drawing up their legal agenda.
A few words of explanation are in order. The Sanhedrin was the high court of the old Jewish legal system, composed of 71 rabbis who were ordained in an unbroken chain stretching back to Moses. Only a court made up of ordained rabbis had the authority to decree corporal or capital punishment for violations of the law, and this court also issued definitive rulings on legal interpretation.
The Sanhedrin was eventually eradicated by the Roman occupiers, and the unbroken chain of ordination was lost. From that point on, the term "rabbi" lost much of its original meaning; but more importantly, there was no longer a single authority for legal practice in the Jewish world. Over time the legal tradition fragmented, first between the Jews of Israel and Babylonia, then Ashkenazi and Sefaradi, until now one can find noticable differences in practice betweeen one city and another.
The 12th-century commentator Maimonides, writing that the formation of a court system was an obligation on every generation, suggested a mechanism for reestablishing the Sanhedrin in its original form and restarting the chain of ordination. But the mechanism was not universally accepted, and when many of the leading rabbis of the 16th century tried to reestablish the court, it did not achieve wide acceptance and was soon disbanded.
Apparently, the new Sanhedrin is going forward under the explicit condition that they gain the full acceptance of the Jewish community, or else their activities should be seen as having no legal force. The court contains a number of towering figures of Jewish law and community, such as R' Adin Steinsaltz, R' Yishai Ba'avad, and R' Avraham Toledano. It has received the endorsement of R' Ovadya Yosef, the preeminent authority of the Sefardi world, and R' Kaminetsky, a leading figure of the Chareidi community.
What is the significance of a new Sanhedrin? First of all, it would have the power to harmonize the many different legal traditions that have grown up around the world, thus eliminating a constant source of friction and bad feeling between communities. Second, in many aspects of Jewish law today, we have a habit of erring on the side of stringency whenever there is a question of the law, simply because we have no final authority. If we have a final authority again, then the process of legal decisions can become more balanced and more open to leniency.
Third, a Sanhedrin could conceivably give religious standing to the State of Israel, helping to convince the Chareidi commmunity in America to become more involved with Israel despite its socialist origins. A Sanhedrin could also coordinate with the Israeli judiciary, laying out appropriate areas of authority for each, which should make the debate over judicial activism in Israel much more pleasant.
Finally, in Jewish tradition, the Messiah must be a prophet; and only the Sanhedrin could declare someone to be a true prophet. Without the Sanhedrin's approval, no one can claim the authority of prophecy. Therefore, a reconstituted Sanhedrin is a necessary prerequisite for the coming of the Messiah.
My first worry about this development is whether the Jewish world is ready to submit to a higher authority and to change some very old and established traditions to follow its dictates. Such a thing is necessary eventually, but I wonder whether people are willing to do it now. But I hope that the new Sanhedrin is successful. For too long we have not been a single people, but rather several diffferent communities divided from each other by legal practice. It is past time for us to become whole again.
That brings me to my second worry, which is how the more liberal communities of Jews, such as then Reform and Conservative movements, will react. Fundamentally, many Jews today reject the principle of the Torah and the Oral Torah as binding law. Until now, much of the observant community has tried to maintain some sort of dialogue with them, despite their rejection of the law; but what happens once we have reconstituted a fulll religious court, that administers punishments for violating the law? I worry that this may end up being the moment of truth for everyone. The Sanhedrin will need to draw dividing lines of some kind, and I do not look forward to the day that it happens. It would be akin to amputating a limb on a body.
But to be honest, that day is inevitable and has been since the very beginnings of the Reform movement. And we do have precedent to look at in the troubles with Karaite Judaism, a thousand years ago. It is my deepest wish that our brethren realize the terrible cost of remaining outside the tradition, and make such amputation unnecessary. But I doubt it will be that easy.
Regardless, I will be watching the progress of the new Sanhedrin with great anticipation. It could well herald the start of a new age, one that has been a long time coming.
A few words of explanation are in order. The Sanhedrin was the high court of the old Jewish legal system, composed of 71 rabbis who were ordained in an unbroken chain stretching back to Moses. Only a court made up of ordained rabbis had the authority to decree corporal or capital punishment for violations of the law, and this court also issued definitive rulings on legal interpretation.
The Sanhedrin was eventually eradicated by the Roman occupiers, and the unbroken chain of ordination was lost. From that point on, the term "rabbi" lost much of its original meaning; but more importantly, there was no longer a single authority for legal practice in the Jewish world. Over time the legal tradition fragmented, first between the Jews of Israel and Babylonia, then Ashkenazi and Sefaradi, until now one can find noticable differences in practice betweeen one city and another.
The 12th-century commentator Maimonides, writing that the formation of a court system was an obligation on every generation, suggested a mechanism for reestablishing the Sanhedrin in its original form and restarting the chain of ordination. But the mechanism was not universally accepted, and when many of the leading rabbis of the 16th century tried to reestablish the court, it did not achieve wide acceptance and was soon disbanded.
Apparently, the new Sanhedrin is going forward under the explicit condition that they gain the full acceptance of the Jewish community, or else their activities should be seen as having no legal force. The court contains a number of towering figures of Jewish law and community, such as R' Adin Steinsaltz, R' Yishai Ba'avad, and R' Avraham Toledano. It has received the endorsement of R' Ovadya Yosef, the preeminent authority of the Sefardi world, and R' Kaminetsky, a leading figure of the Chareidi community.
What is the significance of a new Sanhedrin? First of all, it would have the power to harmonize the many different legal traditions that have grown up around the world, thus eliminating a constant source of friction and bad feeling between communities. Second, in many aspects of Jewish law today, we have a habit of erring on the side of stringency whenever there is a question of the law, simply because we have no final authority. If we have a final authority again, then the process of legal decisions can become more balanced and more open to leniency.
Third, a Sanhedrin could conceivably give religious standing to the State of Israel, helping to convince the Chareidi commmunity in America to become more involved with Israel despite its socialist origins. A Sanhedrin could also coordinate with the Israeli judiciary, laying out appropriate areas of authority for each, which should make the debate over judicial activism in Israel much more pleasant.
Finally, in Jewish tradition, the Messiah must be a prophet; and only the Sanhedrin could declare someone to be a true prophet. Without the Sanhedrin's approval, no one can claim the authority of prophecy. Therefore, a reconstituted Sanhedrin is a necessary prerequisite for the coming of the Messiah.
My first worry about this development is whether the Jewish world is ready to submit to a higher authority and to change some very old and established traditions to follow its dictates. Such a thing is necessary eventually, but I wonder whether people are willing to do it now. But I hope that the new Sanhedrin is successful. For too long we have not been a single people, but rather several diffferent communities divided from each other by legal practice. It is past time for us to become whole again.
That brings me to my second worry, which is how the more liberal communities of Jews, such as then Reform and Conservative movements, will react. Fundamentally, many Jews today reject the principle of the Torah and the Oral Torah as binding law. Until now, much of the observant community has tried to maintain some sort of dialogue with them, despite their rejection of the law; but what happens once we have reconstituted a fulll religious court, that administers punishments for violating the law? I worry that this may end up being the moment of truth for everyone. The Sanhedrin will need to draw dividing lines of some kind, and I do not look forward to the day that it happens. It would be akin to amputating a limb on a body.
But to be honest, that day is inevitable and has been since the very beginnings of the Reform movement. And we do have precedent to look at in the troubles with Karaite Judaism, a thousand years ago. It is my deepest wish that our brethren realize the terrible cost of remaining outside the tradition, and make such amputation unnecessary. But I doubt it will be that easy.
Regardless, I will be watching the progress of the new Sanhedrin with great anticipation. It could well herald the start of a new age, one that has been a long time coming.
1/13/2005
No Teaching Fad Left Behind
Michelle Malkin devotes a post to the problems with the government's No Child Left Behind program for school accountability. Most worrying to me is that the program mandates not only student performance, but also the classroom teaching methods available for the teachers. Worse, it seems that the methods in question are rather suspect, as reported by a 4th grade teacher in Detroit:
My class in primary school had the misfortune of being taught with whole language. It took the students a long time to achieve proficiency. I saw firsthand how inadequate whole language is for instilling basic reading skill.
This illustrates nicely the problem with a government-run education system. Methods, allocations, priorities, are set on the basis of the bureaucratic imperatives from a central office, and not necessarily the needs of the students. The teachers lose autonomy, and must conform to the governmental mold. This is a particular problem with regard to the teaching of history, which has become watered-down enough to avoid offending interest groups of all kinds. If you have the chance, take a look at a middle-school history or civics textbook (after removing fragile objects from your immediate vicinity), and see how the sweeping narrative of discovery, struggle, heroism and pain has become sterile and bland.
I see no reason at all why teaching methods must be mandated; so long as the teacher gets results, why worry about how? But education academics have to justify all that research funding somehow, and so they militate in favor of their system, to the exclusion of all others. Were public education not so rigidly centalized, it would not be such a problem. But as it is, there are few alternatives to charter schools, private schools, or homeschooling if you wish your children to escape the stultifying atmosphere of government-approved education. And these are rare or expensive.
Which brings us to vouchers.
Most of the voucher proposals I have seen would value them at about $4,000, which is considerably less than most school districts spend per child. Not only would they save the government money, but it would allow parents to have free choice of education. And that, of course, is what America is all about, right?
Unfortunatly, the teachers' unions are large, powerful, and hopping mad over vouchers, which would cripple the public-education system. I grant that all people want to protect their livelihood. (I may blog later about a fascinating conference call I heard with a lobbyist for the retirement-plan industry.) But the unions are putting their own interests in front of the needs of their students, in order to perpetuate a school system built on coercion and not choice. For a teacher, that seems excrable.
We need to institute vouchers in order to provide an effective spur to public schools to get their act together, or else they will continue to churn out mediocre educations to half-trained children, secure in their government subsidies and near-monopoly. To get vouchers, it seems we need to bring the unions around, or else break them. After all... it's for the children!
Calling the Pinkertons...
After battling administrators, I was finally able to bring trainers into the district to teach a phonetic language arts method....NCLB comes along. Our reading coordinator smells the money, and applies for a Reading First grant. She's approved and we're stuck using a government-approved, whole-language reading series.
My class in primary school had the misfortune of being taught with whole language. It took the students a long time to achieve proficiency. I saw firsthand how inadequate whole language is for instilling basic reading skill.
This illustrates nicely the problem with a government-run education system. Methods, allocations, priorities, are set on the basis of the bureaucratic imperatives from a central office, and not necessarily the needs of the students. The teachers lose autonomy, and must conform to the governmental mold. This is a particular problem with regard to the teaching of history, which has become watered-down enough to avoid offending interest groups of all kinds. If you have the chance, take a look at a middle-school history or civics textbook (after removing fragile objects from your immediate vicinity), and see how the sweeping narrative of discovery, struggle, heroism and pain has become sterile and bland.
I see no reason at all why teaching methods must be mandated; so long as the teacher gets results, why worry about how? But education academics have to justify all that research funding somehow, and so they militate in favor of their system, to the exclusion of all others. Were public education not so rigidly centalized, it would not be such a problem. But as it is, there are few alternatives to charter schools, private schools, or homeschooling if you wish your children to escape the stultifying atmosphere of government-approved education. And these are rare or expensive.
Which brings us to vouchers.
Most of the voucher proposals I have seen would value them at about $4,000, which is considerably less than most school districts spend per child. Not only would they save the government money, but it would allow parents to have free choice of education. And that, of course, is what America is all about, right?
Unfortunatly, the teachers' unions are large, powerful, and hopping mad over vouchers, which would cripple the public-education system. I grant that all people want to protect their livelihood. (I may blog later about a fascinating conference call I heard with a lobbyist for the retirement-plan industry.) But the unions are putting their own interests in front of the needs of their students, in order to perpetuate a school system built on coercion and not choice. For a teacher, that seems excrable.
We need to institute vouchers in order to provide an effective spur to public schools to get their act together, or else they will continue to churn out mediocre educations to half-trained children, secure in their government subsidies and near-monopoly. To get vouchers, it seems we need to bring the unions around, or else break them. After all... it's for the children!
Calling the Pinkertons...
1/10/2005
Sensitivity Training
Semester break just started for me a few days ago, and I'm spending it in California with my family. Today I was glancing through the Saturday, Jan. 8 issue of the Los Angeles Times (yes, I know, I know) when I came across this astounding paragraph in an article about the continuing U.N. sex abuses in the Congo:
Many of the allegations are difficult to prove and the U.N. is powerless to discipline perpetrators, so abuse continues despite sensitivity training for troops and multiple investigations, the report says.
Can anything serve to better capture all that is wrong about the U.N.? These "peacekeepers" are abusing 12-year-old girls in exchange for "a dollar or two eggs" or similar pittances, taking full advantage of the starvation and poverty of the region, and the official response is to provide sensitivity training?
To be fair, those pedophiles who were identified were sent back to their own countries and turned over to the authorities; yet in many such cases the matter is dropped by the authorities in question. And even if that were not true, even if every criminal to ever serve under the U.N. colors were sent back to a hangman's noose in his native land, it would still be a disgrace to the United Nations that repatriation would even be necessary.
The United Nations was founded ostensibly to serve as the international arbiter of geopolitics, and has since taken on the supposed role of guardian of human rights. Yet how can the U.N. do either, how can it dare to appoint itself as judge over the world, when it does not even have the institutional checks and balances with which to judge itself? What kind of justice can be meted out by an organization whose secretary-general can peremptorily end a sexual abuse investigation into a high-ranking official, who just happens to be a close personal friend? What kind of justice can one expect when the U.N. cannot even enforce discipline among the soldiers wearing blue helmets? What kind of justice can be had from an organization whose highest-level officials in Turtle Bay delight in violating New York laws, hiding smug and secure behind their diplomatic immunity?
None. None at all.
What can we expect? Why, sensitivity training, of course! Everyone just has to be a little more sensitive, that's all! You just need to understand that it's not really nice to coerce young girls into having sex, and then we can all live happily ever after. After all, we're sure that you are really a nice person, and never intended to hurt anybody, so once we explain everything to you we know that you'll behave yourself from now on. Big smiles, everybody!
What surprises me is how many people continue to think of the U.N. as it was intended to be, and not as it actually is. So many people associate the United Nations with the dreams of mankind to eradicate war and suffering and to make the world a better place, and they cannot bear to see the twisted, evil, corrupt mass of disease that actually sits in Turtle Bay. They simply stop listening, holding firmly to their dreams and refusing to call the sickness by name.
I have no such associations. Whatever the United Nations was at its beginnings, by the time of my birth it had come down firmly on the side of despotism and tyranny masquerading as international consensus, like the proverbial two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. I shall not shrink from saying what should have been obvious to everyone long ago, and is only now finding the support that the idea merits:
United Nations Delenda Est. The United Nations must be destroyed.
Many of the allegations are difficult to prove and the U.N. is powerless to discipline perpetrators, so abuse continues despite sensitivity training for troops and multiple investigations, the report says.
Can anything serve to better capture all that is wrong about the U.N.? These "peacekeepers" are abusing 12-year-old girls in exchange for "a dollar or two eggs" or similar pittances, taking full advantage of the starvation and poverty of the region, and the official response is to provide sensitivity training?
To be fair, those pedophiles who were identified were sent back to their own countries and turned over to the authorities; yet in many such cases the matter is dropped by the authorities in question. And even if that were not true, even if every criminal to ever serve under the U.N. colors were sent back to a hangman's noose in his native land, it would still be a disgrace to the United Nations that repatriation would even be necessary.
The United Nations was founded ostensibly to serve as the international arbiter of geopolitics, and has since taken on the supposed role of guardian of human rights. Yet how can the U.N. do either, how can it dare to appoint itself as judge over the world, when it does not even have the institutional checks and balances with which to judge itself? What kind of justice can be meted out by an organization whose secretary-general can peremptorily end a sexual abuse investigation into a high-ranking official, who just happens to be a close personal friend? What kind of justice can one expect when the U.N. cannot even enforce discipline among the soldiers wearing blue helmets? What kind of justice can be had from an organization whose highest-level officials in Turtle Bay delight in violating New York laws, hiding smug and secure behind their diplomatic immunity?
None. None at all.
What can we expect? Why, sensitivity training, of course! Everyone just has to be a little more sensitive, that's all! You just need to understand that it's not really nice to coerce young girls into having sex, and then we can all live happily ever after. After all, we're sure that you are really a nice person, and never intended to hurt anybody, so once we explain everything to you we know that you'll behave yourself from now on. Big smiles, everybody!
What surprises me is how many people continue to think of the U.N. as it was intended to be, and not as it actually is. So many people associate the United Nations with the dreams of mankind to eradicate war and suffering and to make the world a better place, and they cannot bear to see the twisted, evil, corrupt mass of disease that actually sits in Turtle Bay. They simply stop listening, holding firmly to their dreams and refusing to call the sickness by name.
I have no such associations. Whatever the United Nations was at its beginnings, by the time of my birth it had come down firmly on the side of despotism and tyranny masquerading as international consensus, like the proverbial two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. I shall not shrink from saying what should have been obvious to everyone long ago, and is only now finding the support that the idea merits:
United Nations Delenda Est. The United Nations must be destroyed.
Blogroll Updates
I've reorganized my blogroll on the side of the page, and added a few new faces. Head, author of the Head's Bunker blog, was kind enough to link to me, and I'm returning the favor; Head writes about firearms and the politics of the Second Amendment. But I am especially interested by the Counterterrorism Blog, which has a truly eminent contributing staff that hails from prestigious think tanks and academic institutions (you can read their bios on the site). Given that I'm preparing to write a thesis on counterterrorism, I suspect that I will be a frequent visitor.
The Rubberstamp is written by one of my colleagues at school, and makes for a fun read. It's guaranteed to send 4 out of 5 pacifists into a coma.
If you have not read Instapundit, the Diplomad, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, or any of the other pundits, you should start today. They are among the towering giants of the blogosphere; my listing is by no means adequate, but from their blogs you can branch out into all corners of the web, and all of the amazing talent that it holds.
The Rubberstamp is written by one of my colleagues at school, and makes for a fun read. It's guaranteed to send 4 out of 5 pacifists into a coma.
If you have not read Instapundit, the Diplomad, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, or any of the other pundits, you should start today. They are among the towering giants of the blogosphere; my listing is by no means adequate, but from their blogs you can branch out into all corners of the web, and all of the amazing talent that it holds.
1/05/2005
Hugo Chavez, Thief
It should not be a surprise to anyone, but Venezuelan socialist thug Hugo Chavez is trying to confiscate land belonging to British nationals. This combination of wanton disrespect for property-rights and vicious Jew-baiting (see previous post) is more and more disturbing. In retrospect, the Bush Administration's error in endorsing Chavez's "election" is all the more aggregious. Granted, we have a great deal at stake in a stable flow of Venezuelan oil, and the election came at a bad time for the commodities market; but that was a short-term problem, which we have traded for a long-term problem. I believe that Chavez will only leave office feet-first or at gunpoint, and given the many signs of his dangerous ambition, I say that we should speedily see him out the door.
As an aside: one could say that Jimmy Carter was serving as a proxy for the State Department when he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Chavez and announced to the world that the election was free and fair, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Regardless, I wonder how the man can bear to sleep at night, given his unending love-affairs with Leftist tyrants, terrorists, and murderers of all stripes. It takes a great deal of talent to bungle up your foreign-policy as badly as did Carter during his time in office, and it seems that he learned nothing from the experience.
As an aside: one could say that Jimmy Carter was serving as a proxy for the State Department when he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Chavez and announced to the world that the election was free and fair, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Regardless, I wonder how the man can bear to sleep at night, given his unending love-affairs with Leftist tyrants, terrorists, and murderers of all stripes. It takes a great deal of talent to bungle up your foreign-policy as badly as did Carter during his time in office, and it seems that he learned nothing from the experience.
1/04/2005
To the Stars
We have just passed the first aniversary of the rover Spirit's landing on Mars. Spirit and its twin Opportunity were designed to function for 90 days; yet both are still going strong, with no end in sight. I am particularly happy with the tremendous success of the Mars '04 mission, since a member of my family was on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory team that worked the mission. In fact, he played a big part in finding and correcting the memory bug that threatened to derail the mission in its first few weeks. But enough kvelling…
My support for JPL may seem odd, given that in many ways I tend toward Libertarianism. How can I reconcile my general views of small government and free-market capitalism, with a government-sponsored organization that uses our tax-dollars (well, your tax-dollars, unfortunately) to fund costly projects which boil down to taking machinery worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and shooting it up into space on rockets?
To be honest, this specific program is relatively easy to defend. JPL is proud to say that it is the only branch of NASA that pays for itself, by means of joint projects with commercial businesses which generate a lot of money for the economy. But that avoids the real issue. The real issue is that governments have certain capabilities that private companies lack, which allow them to do things that most businesses cannot do.
Because governments have access to vast resources and wealth (collected from the people, to be sure), they can bring together talent and skill that would dwarf anything the private-sector can do. Consider the Manhattan Project, the greatest collection of physicists and engineers that the world had ever seen.
Governments have no need to return a profit, which is usually a bad thing, but it also allows them to take on tasks that would provide immeasurable benefits to the state, but would return no profits in any conceivable timeframe. Virtually all roads, highways, and sewers in the world are built by governments; the few privately-owned roads that exist would be useless without the massive network of public roads connected to it. The many research-programs run by the government, such as DARPA or the space-program, have all thrown off innovations which have revolutionized society. The Internet was created by DARPA. The first computers were built to count the U.S. census. Miniature computer-chips were first developed for the NASA space-missions. GPS was developed for the military.
What we are seeing now with the sudden emergence of private sub-orbital craft, such as Burt Rutan's "Space Ship One," is analogous to the beginnings of the airplane industry. But it is worth remembering that the first party to show interest in the Wright Brothers' creation was the United States military. Similarly, NASA needed to demonstrate that space-flight was possible before any private parties could even consider investing the massive sums and taking the significant risks that space-flight requires.
Essentially, what I believe is that governments should only be involved in a particular activity if they can do it better than private industry, for inherent structural reasons. Long-range research or large-scale endeavors without an obvious commercial payoff seem to be part of those activities. (The only similar project in the private sector that I can think of is Bell Labs, formerly owned by AT&T; since they were spun off with Lucent, the direction of their research was ruthlessly redirected into projects with immediate commercial applications, and the world was dimmed thereby.)
Besides, it would take a truly unimaginative libertarian to decry the space program as being out of the proper purview of government. Granted, such idiocies as the International Space Station deserve to be mothballed; but there will come a day in the not-so-distant future when mankind shall set foot on Mars; and that day is immeasurably closer on account of government funding. Or rather, on account of the collective will and ingenuity of the American people, united behind a dream of exploring the stars. There is poetry in that.
My support for JPL may seem odd, given that in many ways I tend toward Libertarianism. How can I reconcile my general views of small government and free-market capitalism, with a government-sponsored organization that uses our tax-dollars (well, your tax-dollars, unfortunately) to fund costly projects which boil down to taking machinery worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and shooting it up into space on rockets?
To be honest, this specific program is relatively easy to defend. JPL is proud to say that it is the only branch of NASA that pays for itself, by means of joint projects with commercial businesses which generate a lot of money for the economy. But that avoids the real issue. The real issue is that governments have certain capabilities that private companies lack, which allow them to do things that most businesses cannot do.
Because governments have access to vast resources and wealth (collected from the people, to be sure), they can bring together talent and skill that would dwarf anything the private-sector can do. Consider the Manhattan Project, the greatest collection of physicists and engineers that the world had ever seen.
Governments have no need to return a profit, which is usually a bad thing, but it also allows them to take on tasks that would provide immeasurable benefits to the state, but would return no profits in any conceivable timeframe. Virtually all roads, highways, and sewers in the world are built by governments; the few privately-owned roads that exist would be useless without the massive network of public roads connected to it. The many research-programs run by the government, such as DARPA or the space-program, have all thrown off innovations which have revolutionized society. The Internet was created by DARPA. The first computers were built to count the U.S. census. Miniature computer-chips were first developed for the NASA space-missions. GPS was developed for the military.
What we are seeing now with the sudden emergence of private sub-orbital craft, such as Burt Rutan's "Space Ship One," is analogous to the beginnings of the airplane industry. But it is worth remembering that the first party to show interest in the Wright Brothers' creation was the United States military. Similarly, NASA needed to demonstrate that space-flight was possible before any private parties could even consider investing the massive sums and taking the significant risks that space-flight requires.
Essentially, what I believe is that governments should only be involved in a particular activity if they can do it better than private industry, for inherent structural reasons. Long-range research or large-scale endeavors without an obvious commercial payoff seem to be part of those activities. (The only similar project in the private sector that I can think of is Bell Labs, formerly owned by AT&T; since they were spun off with Lucent, the direction of their research was ruthlessly redirected into projects with immediate commercial applications, and the world was dimmed thereby.)
Besides, it would take a truly unimaginative libertarian to decry the space program as being out of the proper purview of government. Granted, such idiocies as the International Space Station deserve to be mothballed; but there will come a day in the not-so-distant future when mankind shall set foot on Mars; and that day is immeasurably closer on account of government funding. Or rather, on account of the collective will and ingenuity of the American people, united behind a dream of exploring the stars. There is poetry in that.
1/02/2005
The End of Textile Quotas
With the start of 2005, one of the most aggregious examples of Western protectionism came to an end. Textile quotas first negotiated by John F. Kennedy have been phased out, as agreed by the U.S. and Europe during the creation of the WTO over a decade ago.
The quotas meant that each country could only export a stated amount of textiles into the West. This prevented large countries such as China or India from producing up to potential; on the other hand, it gave smaller countries like Bangladesh a chance to build their own textile industries to fill excess demand. While most of the smaller countries such as the Philippines have managed to climb the technological ladder somewhat, and no longer rely on textiles for the bulk of their trade, Bangladesh will be hurt badly by the end of the quotas. But Bangladeshi garment-manufacturers have known that the quotas would end for a long time, and failed to prepare adequately as did the Pilippines, Columbia, or Vietnam, all of which consolidated their industries and boosted productivity in order to stay competitive in the new environment. In a world without artificial government controls, inefficiency is punished and flexibility rewarded.
The big winners will be China and India. This should be seen as a good thing. India is a firm ally of the U.S. and Israel, helping to counterbalance China's regional ambitions, and fighting against Islamofascism along the Indo-Pakistani border. Increasing the Indian textile industry will go a long way towards alleviating the wide gap between the Indian poor and middle-class, and will increase India's economic power in general.
China's gains are good also, to the extent that one believes in the Trading States thesis of geopolitics—that is, that states that trade with each other are less likely to go to war. Additionally, a growing textile-industry will put more money in the hands of the Chinese people; the consensus is that once the Chinese middle-class becomes large enough, the Communist government will fall victim to endlessly-rising expectations, pushing China towards democracy. Since democratization is the only feasible way to permanently solve the China problem, it should be advanced at every opportunity.
Meanwhile, the cost of clothing is expected to drop by about 20%. This is great news for the poor of the West, who spend a large fraction of their income on clothing. Until now they have essentially been forced to overpay for clothing, courtesy of government trade-barriers. Now that these barriers are coming down, the poor will have more disposable income at the end of the day, which they can use to increase their standard of living, or perhaps even to leverage themselves out of poverty.
That this comes at the expense of others in Bangladesh, for example, should not be too distressing; the world was given fair warning that this would happen, and Bangladesh and Indonesia chose not to react. Their industries, wasteful and inefficient as they are, owe their existence to government protectionism that effectively stole money from the poorest members of society. Now that protectionism is ended, and the world should rejoice. Next up: agricultural caps!
The quotas meant that each country could only export a stated amount of textiles into the West. This prevented large countries such as China or India from producing up to potential; on the other hand, it gave smaller countries like Bangladesh a chance to build their own textile industries to fill excess demand. While most of the smaller countries such as the Philippines have managed to climb the technological ladder somewhat, and no longer rely on textiles for the bulk of their trade, Bangladesh will be hurt badly by the end of the quotas. But Bangladeshi garment-manufacturers have known that the quotas would end for a long time, and failed to prepare adequately as did the Pilippines, Columbia, or Vietnam, all of which consolidated their industries and boosted productivity in order to stay competitive in the new environment. In a world without artificial government controls, inefficiency is punished and flexibility rewarded.
The big winners will be China and India. This should be seen as a good thing. India is a firm ally of the U.S. and Israel, helping to counterbalance China's regional ambitions, and fighting against Islamofascism along the Indo-Pakistani border. Increasing the Indian textile industry will go a long way towards alleviating the wide gap between the Indian poor and middle-class, and will increase India's economic power in general.
China's gains are good also, to the extent that one believes in the Trading States thesis of geopolitics—that is, that states that trade with each other are less likely to go to war. Additionally, a growing textile-industry will put more money in the hands of the Chinese people; the consensus is that once the Chinese middle-class becomes large enough, the Communist government will fall victim to endlessly-rising expectations, pushing China towards democracy. Since democratization is the only feasible way to permanently solve the China problem, it should be advanced at every opportunity.
Meanwhile, the cost of clothing is expected to drop by about 20%. This is great news for the poor of the West, who spend a large fraction of their income on clothing. Until now they have essentially been forced to overpay for clothing, courtesy of government trade-barriers. Now that these barriers are coming down, the poor will have more disposable income at the end of the day, which they can use to increase their standard of living, or perhaps even to leverage themselves out of poverty.
That this comes at the expense of others in Bangladesh, for example, should not be too distressing; the world was given fair warning that this would happen, and Bangladesh and Indonesia chose not to react. Their industries, wasteful and inefficient as they are, owe their existence to government protectionism that effectively stole money from the poorest members of society. Now that protectionism is ended, and the world should rejoice. Next up: agricultural caps!
12/23/2004
Hubbub over Haifa Street
Interesting doings over at Belmont Club, where Wretchard has gotten into a shooting war with the Associated Press over the photos of the three Iraqi election officials who were killed on Haifa St, Baghdad. Wretchard noted the oddity that the cameraman was able to witness the event at all, given that he should not have known about it beforehand, and took several steady pictures from a standing position while thirty or so terrorists were firing machine-guns and throwing grenades. He drew no explicit conclusion, leaving that to the excellent community of Comments-denizens: that the cameraman was tipped off by the terrorists, and was furthermore assured of safe conduct during the hit.
So far, so good. This would hardly be the first time something like this has happened. But then sources at the AP chose to respond to Wretchard in print, which only gave him more ammunition.
Silly AP people. You have violated the cardinal rule of public-relations: NEVER let them see you bleed.
Check it out.
So far, so good. This would hardly be the first time something like this has happened. But then sources at the AP chose to respond to Wretchard in print, which only gave him more ammunition.
Silly AP people. You have violated the cardinal rule of public-relations: NEVER let them see you bleed.
Check it out.
12/22/2004
Global Warming and Kyoto
The problem of enviromentalism in an industrial world is already tricky enough when we restrict the debate to the realm of fact. The world's transportation, and much of its power generation, is based on the consumption of fossil-fuels. These fuels must be extracted from the earth, which causes a certain amount of damage to the surroundings; more importantly, when they are burned in power plants or automobiles, they produce various waste-products which detract from human health, and perhaps contribute to global climate-change (though this last point is hotly disputed).
Obviously, the world would be much improved if an alternate energy-source such as hydrogen could be put into place, and the private-sector is furiously researching technologies for producing and storing hydrogen. But the technology will come when it comes, and in the meanwhile many enviromentalist groups have arisen calling for sharp cutbacks in the use of fossil-fuels. This must be done, they say, to avert the spectre of "global warming" (never mind that two decades ago, everyone was worried about a new Ice Age).
A major step in this fight against global warming was the creation of the Kyoto Accords, which mandates steep cuts in the production of greenhouse gases, relative to the 1990-level, by the year 2012. In all probability, that time-frame is too short to allow for the significant influence of new technologies—consider the massive effort required to convert every gas station in the world to a hydrogen-pumping station, even if it were feasible today—so the only ways to cut emissions in time are to deploy expensive "scrubbing" equipment, or reduce the use of fossil-fuels.
At this point we must ask the obvious question: is it worth it?
For my premise, I assume that we will transition over to a hydrogen-based economy within thirty years, which is being generous. The hydrogen will be refined using power generated by solar power, fission power, and perhaps even fusion power (there are plans for the construction of an experimental fusion reactor in Japan by 2009). Additionally, solar technology will progress to the point that many homes generate their own power. In other words, greenhouse gases will cease to be a problem.
How much damage can the modern economy do to the world in thirty years? I submit that the answer is negligible. How much damage can the poorly-designed Kyoto Accords do to the people of the world? It depends.
First, it is important to realize that at present, fuel use is proportional to energy use. Hence, as China and India continue industrializing, their use of oil will skyrocket. China is not a signatory to the Kyoto Accords. Therefore, the ability of the Kyoto Accords to really limit greenhouse-gas production is limited at best.
Second, at present oil is the cheapest, most portable and energy-dense form of power that we possess. Until the technology exists to replace it, oil is the only thing allowing the modern world to have easy transportation and manufacturing, which have been the cause of so much good for humanity. Granted that there is significant room for more efficient use of oil, particularly with respect to American cars; but to push this process to the point where it is no longer economical translates into wasted money, that could have otherwise gone towards easing human suffering.
Finally, it is hardly certain that global warming is in fact a problem at all. (As I sit here in New York City, I devoutly wish that the temperature would rise a few degrees.) Atmospheric data collected by NASA have shown time and again that the temperature-changes in the Earth have slowed to a crawl; moreover, the polar ice caps are actually growing. Environmentalists tend to disregard atmospheric data, preferring instead to use surface-data. But such data is tainted by the Heat-Island Effect, which is simply a byproduct of urban crowding and construction. Perhaps this is why this data is preferred by environmentalists…
There are many good reasons to transition away from fossil-fuels, and I will applaud the day when it happens (and if I get access to the capital, I intend to work to bring that day closer). But we cannot allow our analysis of the costs and benefits of fossil-fuels to be skewed by questionable science, no matter how many people believe in it. There was a time when everybody was convinced that the world was flat, in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. In many ways, we have regressed to that time.
Obviously, the world would be much improved if an alternate energy-source such as hydrogen could be put into place, and the private-sector is furiously researching technologies for producing and storing hydrogen. But the technology will come when it comes, and in the meanwhile many enviromentalist groups have arisen calling for sharp cutbacks in the use of fossil-fuels. This must be done, they say, to avert the spectre of "global warming" (never mind that two decades ago, everyone was worried about a new Ice Age).
A major step in this fight against global warming was the creation of the Kyoto Accords, which mandates steep cuts in the production of greenhouse gases, relative to the 1990-level, by the year 2012. In all probability, that time-frame is too short to allow for the significant influence of new technologies—consider the massive effort required to convert every gas station in the world to a hydrogen-pumping station, even if it were feasible today—so the only ways to cut emissions in time are to deploy expensive "scrubbing" equipment, or reduce the use of fossil-fuels.
At this point we must ask the obvious question: is it worth it?
For my premise, I assume that we will transition over to a hydrogen-based economy within thirty years, which is being generous. The hydrogen will be refined using power generated by solar power, fission power, and perhaps even fusion power (there are plans for the construction of an experimental fusion reactor in Japan by 2009). Additionally, solar technology will progress to the point that many homes generate their own power. In other words, greenhouse gases will cease to be a problem.
How much damage can the modern economy do to the world in thirty years? I submit that the answer is negligible. How much damage can the poorly-designed Kyoto Accords do to the people of the world? It depends.
First, it is important to realize that at present, fuel use is proportional to energy use. Hence, as China and India continue industrializing, their use of oil will skyrocket. China is not a signatory to the Kyoto Accords. Therefore, the ability of the Kyoto Accords to really limit greenhouse-gas production is limited at best.
Second, at present oil is the cheapest, most portable and energy-dense form of power that we possess. Until the technology exists to replace it, oil is the only thing allowing the modern world to have easy transportation and manufacturing, which have been the cause of so much good for humanity. Granted that there is significant room for more efficient use of oil, particularly with respect to American cars; but to push this process to the point where it is no longer economical translates into wasted money, that could have otherwise gone towards easing human suffering.
Finally, it is hardly certain that global warming is in fact a problem at all. (As I sit here in New York City, I devoutly wish that the temperature would rise a few degrees.) Atmospheric data collected by NASA have shown time and again that the temperature-changes in the Earth have slowed to a crawl; moreover, the polar ice caps are actually growing. Environmentalists tend to disregard atmospheric data, preferring instead to use surface-data. But such data is tainted by the Heat-Island Effect, which is simply a byproduct of urban crowding and construction. Perhaps this is why this data is preferred by environmentalists…
There are many good reasons to transition away from fossil-fuels, and I will applaud the day when it happens (and if I get access to the capital, I intend to work to bring that day closer). But we cannot allow our analysis of the costs and benefits of fossil-fuels to be skewed by questionable science, no matter how many people believe in it. There was a time when everybody was convinced that the world was flat, in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. In many ways, we have regressed to that time.
12/12/2004
Weimar Russia?
Ex-KGB boss Vladimir Putin has spent years quietly eroding the newly-established democratic framework of Russia. Now, it seems he is no longer being quiet about it.
Presently, Russia's governors are chosen by popular election. Under the new law that Putin just got rubberstamped by the feckless Federation Council, all governors will henceforth be appointed by Putin directly, and confirmed by the regional parliaments. Should a parliament refuse to confirm Putin's candidate, it could be dissolved and a "temporary" governor will be set up in its absence.
Equally alarming is a second law that has yet to be voted on, which would end the direct election of national legislatures.
With this stroke, Putin has for all practical purposes ended democracy in Russia. President Bush is tolerating this development for the moment because he has a full plate already; besides, it is difficult to dictate terms to a former superpower with a large nuclear arsenal. But I suspect that Bush is paying very close attention to the recent developments. Condoleeza Rice, incoming Secretary of State and a long-time advisor to the President, has been a specialist in Soviet affairs for all of her academic career, and much of her professional career as well. I have speculated before that Rice's appointment to SecState implies that our policy is going to reorient towards Russia. These latest moves by Putin have me totally convinced. We can no longer afford to assume that Russia will take care of itself.
One could ask, granted that a reemerging dictatorship is not a good thing; but why is it such a huge problem now? After all, Putin shows no inclination of returning to Communism, and is apparently an ally in the War on Terror. So long as we remain on civil terms, can't we just focus on the Middle East and let Russia alone?
Unfortunately, Russia is not as much of an ally as some think. Remember that the Iranian nuclear reactor in Busheir is being built by Russia. In fact, the project began even while Boris Yeltsin was still in power. It is claimed that the reactor is intended for power-generation; this statement is absurd, given that Iran is sitting on massive reserves of oil, and is not especially known for its eco-friendly attitudes. More likely is that the reactor is meant to curb the expansion of American influence in the Middle East.
Russia has not yet come to terms with its declining power. It still hopes to regain its former status as a superpower by building alliances with other nations, particularly in the Middle East. Also vital would be an alliance with China against the United States. Such an alliance is the single greatest danger facing the United States today, terrorism notwithstanding, bcause a Sino-Russian alliance could quite possibly expel the United States from Southeast Asia, leaving exposed the island of Taiwan (among other things). If you don't consider this important, consider that many of the components inside your computer are produced in Taiwan.
Putin's authoritarian plans are incredibly dangerous. If the Russian people cannot secure their own rights and freedoms, then it is imperative that the United States work to prevent an alliance between Russia and China. If we can keep those two seperate (or even, be still my beating heart, hostile to each other!), then it would be difficult for Putin to mount a serious challenge to our interests. Russia today is weaker than the Soviet Union ever was, though that could change as they build up their economy. Of course, Putin's actions are quickly driving away foreign investment.
On the other hand, Putin expended a huge amount of political capital in his ill-fated attempt to rule Ukraine by proxy, through his stooge Yankovitch. If Yuschenko ends up defeating Yankovitch in the new balloting, Putin may never recover. It would be nice, anyway.
Presently, Russia's governors are chosen by popular election. Under the new law that Putin just got rubberstamped by the feckless Federation Council, all governors will henceforth be appointed by Putin directly, and confirmed by the regional parliaments. Should a parliament refuse to confirm Putin's candidate, it could be dissolved and a "temporary" governor will be set up in its absence.
Equally alarming is a second law that has yet to be voted on, which would end the direct election of national legislatures.
With this stroke, Putin has for all practical purposes ended democracy in Russia. President Bush is tolerating this development for the moment because he has a full plate already; besides, it is difficult to dictate terms to a former superpower with a large nuclear arsenal. But I suspect that Bush is paying very close attention to the recent developments. Condoleeza Rice, incoming Secretary of State and a long-time advisor to the President, has been a specialist in Soviet affairs for all of her academic career, and much of her professional career as well. I have speculated before that Rice's appointment to SecState implies that our policy is going to reorient towards Russia. These latest moves by Putin have me totally convinced. We can no longer afford to assume that Russia will take care of itself.
One could ask, granted that a reemerging dictatorship is not a good thing; but why is it such a huge problem now? After all, Putin shows no inclination of returning to Communism, and is apparently an ally in the War on Terror. So long as we remain on civil terms, can't we just focus on the Middle East and let Russia alone?
Unfortunately, Russia is not as much of an ally as some think. Remember that the Iranian nuclear reactor in Busheir is being built by Russia. In fact, the project began even while Boris Yeltsin was still in power. It is claimed that the reactor is intended for power-generation; this statement is absurd, given that Iran is sitting on massive reserves of oil, and is not especially known for its eco-friendly attitudes. More likely is that the reactor is meant to curb the expansion of American influence in the Middle East.
Russia has not yet come to terms with its declining power. It still hopes to regain its former status as a superpower by building alliances with other nations, particularly in the Middle East. Also vital would be an alliance with China against the United States. Such an alliance is the single greatest danger facing the United States today, terrorism notwithstanding, bcause a Sino-Russian alliance could quite possibly expel the United States from Southeast Asia, leaving exposed the island of Taiwan (among other things). If you don't consider this important, consider that many of the components inside your computer are produced in Taiwan.
Putin's authoritarian plans are incredibly dangerous. If the Russian people cannot secure their own rights and freedoms, then it is imperative that the United States work to prevent an alliance between Russia and China. If we can keep those two seperate (or even, be still my beating heart, hostile to each other!), then it would be difficult for Putin to mount a serious challenge to our interests. Russia today is weaker than the Soviet Union ever was, though that could change as they build up their economy. Of course, Putin's actions are quickly driving away foreign investment.
On the other hand, Putin expended a huge amount of political capital in his ill-fated attempt to rule Ukraine by proxy, through his stooge Yankovitch. If Yuschenko ends up defeating Yankovitch in the new balloting, Putin may never recover. It would be nice, anyway.
12/08/2004
Trouble in Venezuela?
Powerline posted a letter from a Venezuelan blogger who claims that the police in Caracas performed a sweep of a Jewish dayschool at 6:30 AM, just as kids were arriving. The blogger, Daniel Duquenal, termed this "our very first anti-semitic incident." Free Republic confirms this with a news report, adding that the state-run television network Venezolana de Television has been claiming for weeks that the Mossad assassinated a state prosecutor, Danilo Anderson. Anderson had been "investigating" 400 people accused of accepting funding from the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy during the election debacle.
Hugo Chavez has spent the last few years turning a once-proud state into a virtual dictatorship. He has instituted a massive military buildup, nationalized many key industries, and become a close partner of Fidel Castro, importing many thousands of Cuban "advisors" to help him in rigging the elections. But a descent into Jew-baiting crosses the final red-line (if any more were necessary). The Jews have always been the bellweather for how moral a society was: if the Jews are treated fairly, then all peoples could expect fair treatment (eventually) because the society is fundamentally inclusive. But the reverse is also true: a society that will abuse its Jews, will abuse anyone they can get away with.
Columbia has accused Chavez of providing support for the many guerrilla forces terrorizing that country, and Chavez has likewise ratcheted up the rhetoric towards Columbia. It has become clear that Chavez is the greatest threat to the stability of South America today; acts of anti-semitism only confirm the danger. Besides, the Venezuelan government has now made this very personal. An attack on one Jew should be seen as an attack on all, and we have a duty to our brethren in Venezuela to help remove this would-be Simon Bolivar from power.
[EDIT: I just heard rumors that Chavez is presently on a state-visit to Iran, where the mullahs erected a statue of him. It would not surprise me one bit. ]
Hugo Chavez has spent the last few years turning a once-proud state into a virtual dictatorship. He has instituted a massive military buildup, nationalized many key industries, and become a close partner of Fidel Castro, importing many thousands of Cuban "advisors" to help him in rigging the elections. But a descent into Jew-baiting crosses the final red-line (if any more were necessary). The Jews have always been the bellweather for how moral a society was: if the Jews are treated fairly, then all peoples could expect fair treatment (eventually) because the society is fundamentally inclusive. But the reverse is also true: a society that will abuse its Jews, will abuse anyone they can get away with.
Columbia has accused Chavez of providing support for the many guerrilla forces terrorizing that country, and Chavez has likewise ratcheted up the rhetoric towards Columbia. It has become clear that Chavez is the greatest threat to the stability of South America today; acts of anti-semitism only confirm the danger. Besides, the Venezuelan government has now made this very personal. An attack on one Jew should be seen as an attack on all, and we have a duty to our brethren in Venezuela to help remove this would-be Simon Bolivar from power.
[EDIT: I just heard rumors that Chavez is presently on a state-visit to Iran, where the mullahs erected a statue of him. It would not surprise me one bit. ]
12/06/2004
Support Israel: Buy Amazon!
I'm starting a new program with my Amazon ad in the sidebar. I will be donating 2% of all purchases made through the link on my site to charities in Israel.
How can you participate? When you want to shop on Amazon.com, simply start from this site, click on the Amazon ad, and then shop normally. Two percent of every purchase will go to aid worthy causes in Israel; Amazon issues payments quarterly, and I will post how much charity-money I received and where it was sent. This is possibly the easiest way for you to give to charity: you pay zero extra money, and the only effort required is one extra mouseclick.
At present I am considering donating to the JNF, Od Yosef Chai (which distributes food to the needy), and youth centers for cancer patients. Other charities will be considered, funds permitting.
So if you have anything you were planning to buy from Amazon, whether books, or software, or clothes, start from this site and two percent of your purchases will go to worthy causes in Israel. You pay nothing extra. It's that simple.
Please spread the word, and help make this drive a success. Thank you, and happy Chanuka!
How can you participate? When you want to shop on Amazon.com, simply start from this site, click on the Amazon ad, and then shop normally. Two percent of every purchase will go to aid worthy causes in Israel; Amazon issues payments quarterly, and I will post how much charity-money I received and where it was sent. This is possibly the easiest way for you to give to charity: you pay zero extra money, and the only effort required is one extra mouseclick.
At present I am considering donating to the JNF, Od Yosef Chai (which distributes food to the needy), and youth centers for cancer patients. Other charities will be considered, funds permitting.
So if you have anything you were planning to buy from Amazon, whether books, or software, or clothes, start from this site and two percent of your purchases will go to worthy causes in Israel. You pay nothing extra. It's that simple.
Please spread the word, and help make this drive a success. Thank you, and happy Chanuka!
12/03/2004
Europe, Free-Riding, and the Kantian Peace
Robert Kagan has stirred up a great deal of controversy in recent years for arguing in his book "Of Paradise and Power," that Europe and America have developed fundamentally different worldviews of international relations and the use of force. While America is largely operating in a realist world where force is necessary to preserve security, Europe has entered the world of the Kantian Peace, in which international norms and polite diplomacy determine states' behavior.
Kagan attributes this to two factors. First, the two world wars took place on European soil, and it was mainly to prevent a third war that the European Economic Community was formed, later to become the European Union. Second, Europe has been placed under the American security umbrella, making it unnecessary for European states to maintain large militaries of their own. Thus, Europe no longer has a military option; it must rely on diplomacy, foreign aid, and economic power to achieve its foreign-policy goals. This has shaped their thinking to a great extent.
This divergence of viewpoints has caused significant problems for the United States. Aside from the cost of maintaining the security umbrella, and of cleaning up European messes like in Bosnia and Kosovo when the Europeans are unable to, the United States can no longer expect Europe to support its foreign-policy. A sort of militant pacifism has taken root in Germany especially, but other places in Europe as well, that sees the realist behavior of the United States as an evil as great as that of her enemies.
But Europe's demilitarization is useful to America as well. First, it removes the possibility of yet another European war, particularly in the case of Germany, which would be extremely threatened by any military buildup in surrounding countries. Germany, in turn, is the most powerful economy in Europe and has no natural borders; if she chose to build up a military, Germany may well feel like she could expand at will. Nobody wants to go through all that again.
Second, a disarmed Europe increases American power. If the American military dwarfs that of Europe, the United States will be less constrained in its actions. Some in Europe, particularly the French, seek to build up a European army for the express purpose of balancing the United States, but I doubt they will get anywhere soon. Even during the Cold War, European countries fell chronically short of their military obligations under the NATO alliance. Moreover, the whole continent is struggling under the weight of their social programs, which are putting them deep into debt. A rebuilt military is out of the question, at least for the moment.
But that does not address Old Europe's increasingly-strong pacifism and lack of backbone. This should be worrying to all of us. Consider the difference between our response to the World Trade Center attack, and the Spanish response to the Madrid train-bombing. Our attitude went from complacency to a thirst for vengeance; the Spanish, on the other hand, responded by retracting their foreign involvements. Granted, the situation was different in a few ways, but there was no sense of national anger and resolve such as was found in America. The Spanish government persists in viewing the attack as a criminal act, not as an act of war.
If this corrosive pacifism will not be counteracted by the governments, it is up to the individual citizens of Old Europe to rediscover their will to survive. Much of the problem can also be found on the micro level, and is created by government regulation: in Britain, as is often reported in Samizdata, citizens are forbidden to defend themselves against armed robbery or burglary, and most firearms are likewise forbidden. Naturally, violent crime is skyrocketing, as the criminals are given free rein. Similar situations are found in much of Old Europe.
I believe the best way for Europeans to rediscover their courage would be if the governments lifted their restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. It would do much to reverse the culture of powerlessness and fear, and accustom citizens to the use of force to defend against evil and threats to life and liberty. This new attitude would perhaps spill over into the national arena as well, giving European leaders a badly-needed jolt of fortitude.
Sadly, the governments like their citizens to be disarmed and quiescent. The official hostility to firearms use will likely persist for a long time, and with it, the unfortunate brand of European delusion and pacifism.
Kagan attributes this to two factors. First, the two world wars took place on European soil, and it was mainly to prevent a third war that the European Economic Community was formed, later to become the European Union. Second, Europe has been placed under the American security umbrella, making it unnecessary for European states to maintain large militaries of their own. Thus, Europe no longer has a military option; it must rely on diplomacy, foreign aid, and economic power to achieve its foreign-policy goals. This has shaped their thinking to a great extent.
This divergence of viewpoints has caused significant problems for the United States. Aside from the cost of maintaining the security umbrella, and of cleaning up European messes like in Bosnia and Kosovo when the Europeans are unable to, the United States can no longer expect Europe to support its foreign-policy. A sort of militant pacifism has taken root in Germany especially, but other places in Europe as well, that sees the realist behavior of the United States as an evil as great as that of her enemies.
But Europe's demilitarization is useful to America as well. First, it removes the possibility of yet another European war, particularly in the case of Germany, which would be extremely threatened by any military buildup in surrounding countries. Germany, in turn, is the most powerful economy in Europe and has no natural borders; if she chose to build up a military, Germany may well feel like she could expand at will. Nobody wants to go through all that again.
Second, a disarmed Europe increases American power. If the American military dwarfs that of Europe, the United States will be less constrained in its actions. Some in Europe, particularly the French, seek to build up a European army for the express purpose of balancing the United States, but I doubt they will get anywhere soon. Even during the Cold War, European countries fell chronically short of their military obligations under the NATO alliance. Moreover, the whole continent is struggling under the weight of their social programs, which are putting them deep into debt. A rebuilt military is out of the question, at least for the moment.
But that does not address Old Europe's increasingly-strong pacifism and lack of backbone. This should be worrying to all of us. Consider the difference between our response to the World Trade Center attack, and the Spanish response to the Madrid train-bombing. Our attitude went from complacency to a thirst for vengeance; the Spanish, on the other hand, responded by retracting their foreign involvements. Granted, the situation was different in a few ways, but there was no sense of national anger and resolve such as was found in America. The Spanish government persists in viewing the attack as a criminal act, not as an act of war.
If this corrosive pacifism will not be counteracted by the governments, it is up to the individual citizens of Old Europe to rediscover their will to survive. Much of the problem can also be found on the micro level, and is created by government regulation: in Britain, as is often reported in Samizdata, citizens are forbidden to defend themselves against armed robbery or burglary, and most firearms are likewise forbidden. Naturally, violent crime is skyrocketing, as the criminals are given free rein. Similar situations are found in much of Old Europe.
I believe the best way for Europeans to rediscover their courage would be if the governments lifted their restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. It would do much to reverse the culture of powerlessness and fear, and accustom citizens to the use of force to defend against evil and threats to life and liberty. This new attitude would perhaps spill over into the national arena as well, giving European leaders a badly-needed jolt of fortitude.
Sadly, the governments like their citizens to be disarmed and quiescent. The official hostility to firearms use will likely persist for a long time, and with it, the unfortunate brand of European delusion and pacifism.
11/24/2004
The United Nations: Graft 101
An fascinating blog, "The Diplomad" (so called because its posters are current and former diplomats with the State Department), has posted an excellent article on the U.N. which dovetails nicely with the news coming out about the Oil-for-Bureaucrats scandal.
Also note the discussion taking place in the Comments section.
One idea raised in class recently, which I think has a lot of merit, is that we should attempt to set up parallel and competing international organizations, that would give nations an alternative to the increasingly sclerotic and corrupt U.N. (In particular, I believe that one of these organizations should be made up solely of liberal democracies.) The basic argument is that the United States and other nations benefit if they have a number of channels of communication, so that they could choose the most advantageous method for any given need. To lump everything together under one roof leads to bloat.
The other issue is that the U.N. presents, in theory, the danger of a true world government. (I doubt they could achieve it in practice, because the U.N. has shown itself to be breathtakingly incompetent for all of its history.) A world government would have its power completely unchecked, leading inexorably to tyranny, especially if it is begun from such flawed material as the U.N. By creating multiple parallel organizations, this threat is mitigated.
The first step, of course, is to recognize that the United Nations is truly an evil. Many people still base their views of the U.N. on its professed mission to bring about world peace and alleviate human suffering. Such goals are laudible; but we must see clearly that the U.N. is not actually working to accomplish them, and has not been for some time. It has instead become a mechanism for autocracies and illiberal democracies to gain access to world legitimacy, international (largely American) money, and a club with which to strike America.
America founded the U.N. in large part to make the rest of the world comfortable with its hegemony, by artificially constraining American power under the rules of the U.N. Charter. Now other member-nations hostile to the U.S. have been exploiting the U.N. in order to tie down the American giant with chains of paper. This in itself makes many question why we should remain a member ourselves. But for this to be compounded with such naked greed, corruption, and callous disregard for the people who need U.N. support (such as the people of Iraq during the Oil-for-Food program) is an abomination.
It is in the interest of the world to construct many, many international organizations which can compete directly with this sinkhole of evil, so that the U.N. will either be forced to reform itself or die a miserable, and richly-deserved, death.
Also note the discussion taking place in the Comments section.
One idea raised in class recently, which I think has a lot of merit, is that we should attempt to set up parallel and competing international organizations, that would give nations an alternative to the increasingly sclerotic and corrupt U.N. (In particular, I believe that one of these organizations should be made up solely of liberal democracies.) The basic argument is that the United States and other nations benefit if they have a number of channels of communication, so that they could choose the most advantageous method for any given need. To lump everything together under one roof leads to bloat.
The other issue is that the U.N. presents, in theory, the danger of a true world government. (I doubt they could achieve it in practice, because the U.N. has shown itself to be breathtakingly incompetent for all of its history.) A world government would have its power completely unchecked, leading inexorably to tyranny, especially if it is begun from such flawed material as the U.N. By creating multiple parallel organizations, this threat is mitigated.
The first step, of course, is to recognize that the United Nations is truly an evil. Many people still base their views of the U.N. on its professed mission to bring about world peace and alleviate human suffering. Such goals are laudible; but we must see clearly that the U.N. is not actually working to accomplish them, and has not been for some time. It has instead become a mechanism for autocracies and illiberal democracies to gain access to world legitimacy, international (largely American) money, and a club with which to strike America.
America founded the U.N. in large part to make the rest of the world comfortable with its hegemony, by artificially constraining American power under the rules of the U.N. Charter. Now other member-nations hostile to the U.S. have been exploiting the U.N. in order to tie down the American giant with chains of paper. This in itself makes many question why we should remain a member ourselves. But for this to be compounded with such naked greed, corruption, and callous disregard for the people who need U.N. support (such as the people of Iraq during the Oil-for-Food program) is an abomination.
It is in the interest of the world to construct many, many international organizations which can compete directly with this sinkhole of evil, so that the U.N. will either be forced to reform itself or die a miserable, and richly-deserved, death.
11/16/2004
The Palestinian Authority: Endgame
Those of us observing the aftermath of Arafat's passing got our first taste of what is to come when Mahmoud Abbas, acting head of the Palestinian Authority, was nearly assassinated while he and Muhammad Dahlan were visiting Arafat's mourning-tent. Two bodyguards were killed and several mourners wounded. The attackers were apparently from the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades (recently renamed the Arafat Martyrs Brigades).
Abbas had announced plans for an election to be held on January 9. That date will mark a fundamental breakdown in the Palestinian government, no matter what happens, for the simple reason that any free and fair election will almost certainly be won by Hamas, the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas has a great deal of popular support in the PA, and is hostile to the PLO and utterly opposed to Israel's existence.
Abbas is tremendously unpopular even among the PLO. He is tagged as an American lapdog, and is rumored to have poisoned Arafat himself. Even before the election he faces the opposition of several prominent PLO members, notably Farouk Kaddoumi, who publicly rejected the Oslo Accords and remained outside of the Territories in protest. Assuming Abbas stays alive and in power long enough to reach the January 9 elections, he is faced with several bad options if Hamas looks like it will win:
1. Accept the outcome of the elections and transfer power peacefully.
Given past history, the chances of this happening are nil. Not only does Abbas want power, but if Hamas ever does take over the leadership Israel will be forced to crush the PA once and for all. Israel cannot afford to let Hamas, who didn't even go through the charade of negotiations as did the PLO, gain international legitimacy in any way.
2. Declare Hamas an invalid participant in the elections.
Political (and literal) suicide.
3. Declare a state of emergency and pospone the elections for trumped-up reasons.
Almost as bad as option 2.
The most likely scenario is that we will see a rash of assassinations of leaders on all sides; I doubt Abbas will live long, and eventually things will settle down with a strong dictator taking power. That's the "best-case" scenario. The other thing we could see is all-out civil war between Hamas and the PLO, with street battles and casualties in the thousands. That's assuming that Iran doesn't begin thinking that it could take control, and bringing their proxy Hizbullah into the mix.
What can America and Israel do about it? Not much. The man they would prefer to see in power, Abbas, is a condemned man. I believe the most prudent course of action would be to stay out of the way and hope the fighting ends quickly.
Abbas had announced plans for an election to be held on January 9. That date will mark a fundamental breakdown in the Palestinian government, no matter what happens, for the simple reason that any free and fair election will almost certainly be won by Hamas, the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas has a great deal of popular support in the PA, and is hostile to the PLO and utterly opposed to Israel's existence.
Abbas is tremendously unpopular even among the PLO. He is tagged as an American lapdog, and is rumored to have poisoned Arafat himself. Even before the election he faces the opposition of several prominent PLO members, notably Farouk Kaddoumi, who publicly rejected the Oslo Accords and remained outside of the Territories in protest. Assuming Abbas stays alive and in power long enough to reach the January 9 elections, he is faced with several bad options if Hamas looks like it will win:
1. Accept the outcome of the elections and transfer power peacefully.
Given past history, the chances of this happening are nil. Not only does Abbas want power, but if Hamas ever does take over the leadership Israel will be forced to crush the PA once and for all. Israel cannot afford to let Hamas, who didn't even go through the charade of negotiations as did the PLO, gain international legitimacy in any way.
2. Declare Hamas an invalid participant in the elections.
Political (and literal) suicide.
3. Declare a state of emergency and pospone the elections for trumped-up reasons.
Almost as bad as option 2.
The most likely scenario is that we will see a rash of assassinations of leaders on all sides; I doubt Abbas will live long, and eventually things will settle down with a strong dictator taking power. That's the "best-case" scenario. The other thing we could see is all-out civil war between Hamas and the PLO, with street battles and casualties in the thousands. That's assuming that Iran doesn't begin thinking that it could take control, and bringing their proxy Hizbullah into the mix.
What can America and Israel do about it? Not much. The man they would prefer to see in power, Abbas, is a condemned man. I believe the most prudent course of action would be to stay out of the way and hope the fighting ends quickly.
11/13/2004
Red vs. Blue
I don't usually do this, but this post on Orthodox & Heterodox is a wonderful picture of how conservative America views the various hypocrasies of liberal America. (Yes, I know that conservative America has its own hypocrasies. But unless you point me to an equally funny piece on that topic, you're out of luck.)
[Edit: broken link repaired.]
[Edit: broken link repaired.]
11/11/2004
Free Speech
Yesterday, my college had the honor of hosting Salman Rushdie, who held a private Q&A session with a small number of students and faculty (myself among them), before giving a public lecture. It was utterly fascinating in many respects; I will restrict this post to one issue in particular that he brought up.
In the public lecture, Mr. Rushdie said that the defense of free speech is most important when it is speech that disgusts you. He then related the story of a movie which was made after Khomeini had issued the fatwa against him. This movie, called International Guerrillas or something similar, told the story of a group of "guerrillas" (i.e. terrorists) who were determined to hunt down Mr. Rushdie and kill him. Rushdie was portrayed as living a debauched life in a palace in the Philippines, protected by the Israeli secret services. After several acts of cruelty against the guerrillas (not least, reading to them from the Satanic Verses), Rushdie is finally struck down by Allah himself, and thus justice is served.
A copy of this movie was brought over to Britain, and was submitted for certification. The certifying board was advised by their lawyers that this film was inflammatory, and that if Rushdie was attacked as a result of it, he could sue the board. They therefore were set to declare the film banned. Rushdie was placed in the unusual situation of protesting on behalf of a movie that advocated his murder, to ensure that it would stand or fall on its own merits, and not become a "hot item" simply because of the public opposition. (Cf. The Passion.) In the end, the movie opened to empty houses even in the predominantly Muslim areas, because it was a lousy movie.
I found this interesting most of all in light of a comment he had made in the private session about quiesence in the face of extremism. Speaking of the many protests in Britain where public figures called for his murder, Rushdie said with some agitation, "Not one of them was ever arrested."
Apparently, if you make a public statement calling for the death of another, you should be arrested. But if you make a work of art (or something approximating art) calling for the death of another, that art is legitimate and should be allowed.
I am not sure how to respond to this. One could argue this position on practical grounds, i.e. that a banned movie becomes much more powerful because it can remain underground, while public speech is in any event public speech. But I wonder how much of this comes from a poorly-justified elevation of "art" over simple speech. Conceptually, there is very little difference between the two, as far as incitement to murder goes. As an aspiring writer, I can understand why artists and intellectuals would want to secure a special status for their work. But I am skeptical that such a status should automatically exempt art from the "crowded theater" rule.
But I remain undecided on this point.
In other news, David Carr of Samizdata reports in his incomparable style:
Reports from Paris indicate that there has been a marked improvement in the condition of Yasser Arafat.
He's dead.
In the public lecture, Mr. Rushdie said that the defense of free speech is most important when it is speech that disgusts you. He then related the story of a movie which was made after Khomeini had issued the fatwa against him. This movie, called International Guerrillas or something similar, told the story of a group of "guerrillas" (i.e. terrorists) who were determined to hunt down Mr. Rushdie and kill him. Rushdie was portrayed as living a debauched life in a palace in the Philippines, protected by the Israeli secret services. After several acts of cruelty against the guerrillas (not least, reading to them from the Satanic Verses), Rushdie is finally struck down by Allah himself, and thus justice is served.
A copy of this movie was brought over to Britain, and was submitted for certification. The certifying board was advised by their lawyers that this film was inflammatory, and that if Rushdie was attacked as a result of it, he could sue the board. They therefore were set to declare the film banned. Rushdie was placed in the unusual situation of protesting on behalf of a movie that advocated his murder, to ensure that it would stand or fall on its own merits, and not become a "hot item" simply because of the public opposition. (Cf. The Passion.) In the end, the movie opened to empty houses even in the predominantly Muslim areas, because it was a lousy movie.
I found this interesting most of all in light of a comment he had made in the private session about quiesence in the face of extremism. Speaking of the many protests in Britain where public figures called for his murder, Rushdie said with some agitation, "Not one of them was ever arrested."
Apparently, if you make a public statement calling for the death of another, you should be arrested. But if you make a work of art (or something approximating art) calling for the death of another, that art is legitimate and should be allowed.
I am not sure how to respond to this. One could argue this position on practical grounds, i.e. that a banned movie becomes much more powerful because it can remain underground, while public speech is in any event public speech. But I wonder how much of this comes from a poorly-justified elevation of "art" over simple speech. Conceptually, there is very little difference between the two, as far as incitement to murder goes. As an aspiring writer, I can understand why artists and intellectuals would want to secure a special status for their work. But I am skeptical that such a status should automatically exempt art from the "crowded theater" rule.
But I remain undecided on this point.
In other news, David Carr of Samizdata reports in his incomparable style:
Reports from Paris indicate that there has been a marked improvement in the condition of Yasser Arafat.
He's dead.
11/09/2004
Small Arms Balance
The United States armed forces are getting to use their new capabilities to the fullest in the Falluja assault. Networked units, night-vision capability, close air and artillery support are flattening the irregular forces who have no good way to defend against the punishing firepower.
US troops are much safer now as well, thanks to the next generation of Kevlar and ceramic technology found in the new Interceptor Vests, the first body armor capable of stopping a 7.62mm round (used by the AK-47, AK-74, and many types of heavy machine guns favored by guerrilla and terror groups because they are cheap and plentiful).
A friend of mine noted that the present trend in military weapons manufacturing is to develop rounds with less and less power. He theorized that this was to ensure that the advantage stays with the side with the body armor, which is prohibitively expensive for guerrilla-type organizations. (The Interceptor costs over a thousand dollars, while the AK-47 can be bought in some areas of Iraq for less than a hundred.) At the moment, there are some rounds that can still penetrate body armor. These include hunting rounds like the 30-.06, and the .50 Barrett round; but both of these are expensive, and neither of them can produce fully-automatic fire, a necessity against a regular army.
In short, the irregular enemies of the modern army are overwhelmingly outgunned, and are much less capable of injuring their target.
How do they adjust? When possible, they attack easier targets such as the Iraqi police or National Guard, who are not as well equipped as American forces. This is a temporary situation, however, and in any event it does not prevent American troops from counterattacking. Irregulars also rely heavily on roadside bombs and other types of explosives, but the roads are coming under increasing surveillance, making it harder to plant the bombs safely. Moreover, the same advanced Kevlar is now armoring American Humvees and other vehicles, reducing the bombs' effectiveness.
It seems that the weapons-balance has returned to the days of the armored knight, pre-longbow. The army with the greatest budget and support structure is unstoppable.
Of course, nothing will stop the enemy from developing their own capabilities. Hizbullah apparently has developed an unmanned aerial drone, which flew over the Lebanese border a few days ago…
[UPDATE: I have been informed that there are indeed 30-06 and .50 rifles capable of automatic fire. But they remain much less common than the AK family of assault-rifles.]
US troops are much safer now as well, thanks to the next generation of Kevlar and ceramic technology found in the new Interceptor Vests, the first body armor capable of stopping a 7.62mm round (used by the AK-47, AK-74, and many types of heavy machine guns favored by guerrilla and terror groups because they are cheap and plentiful).
A friend of mine noted that the present trend in military weapons manufacturing is to develop rounds with less and less power. He theorized that this was to ensure that the advantage stays with the side with the body armor, which is prohibitively expensive for guerrilla-type organizations. (The Interceptor costs over a thousand dollars, while the AK-47 can be bought in some areas of Iraq for less than a hundred.) At the moment, there are some rounds that can still penetrate body armor. These include hunting rounds like the 30-.06, and the .50 Barrett round; but both of these are expensive, and neither of them can produce fully-automatic fire, a necessity against a regular army.
In short, the irregular enemies of the modern army are overwhelmingly outgunned, and are much less capable of injuring their target.
How do they adjust? When possible, they attack easier targets such as the Iraqi police or National Guard, who are not as well equipped as American forces. This is a temporary situation, however, and in any event it does not prevent American troops from counterattacking. Irregulars also rely heavily on roadside bombs and other types of explosives, but the roads are coming under increasing surveillance, making it harder to plant the bombs safely. Moreover, the same advanced Kevlar is now armoring American Humvees and other vehicles, reducing the bombs' effectiveness.
It seems that the weapons-balance has returned to the days of the armored knight, pre-longbow. The army with the greatest budget and support structure is unstoppable.
Of course, nothing will stop the enemy from developing their own capabilities. Hizbullah apparently has developed an unmanned aerial drone, which flew over the Lebanese border a few days ago…
[UPDATE: I have been informed that there are indeed 30-06 and .50 rifles capable of automatic fire. But they remain much less common than the AK family of assault-rifles.]
10/23/2004
Party hack?
I had a fascinating conversation with a friend of mine from Boston today, this friend being one of the few liberals at my college. (The majority of the students here are conservative, though not Republican; in a voter registration drive held recently, over 95% of the new voters registered independent.) The content of the conversation itself was boring enough, rehashing talking-points about the election. What was fascinating was a comment he made at the end of the discussion, after I said that nationalized health-care would be terrible for the country.
He said, "I hate talking politics with party hacks."
Now, I appreciate the general sentiment, having felt that way myself often enough. But I had told him at least three times in the previous hour or so that I am an independent. He still identified me as a "party hack," presumably for the Republican party. As I understand it, a party hack is loyal to his party above all, regardless of the ideology that the party should be advancing at the time. He will defend policies that he knows to be flawed, simply because they are proposed by his party.
I was almost immediately reminded of a story my father often tells. I no longer remember if the story happened to him, or to a friend of his, but in either event it is instructive. The subject was having a political conversation of some sort with a friend of his, who was considerably more liberal. He was making some point in opposition to the liberal program. The friend grew agitated and said, "You don't really believe that!"
My father took from this the following insight: a liberal believes that his worldview is completely self-evident, and that all people really know deep down that the liberal agenda is the right thing to do. Therefore, nobody can honestly oppose liberalism out of principle, since liberalism is right. Therefore, anyone who opposes liberalism must be doing so selfishly or dishonestly. It is impossible to legitimately hold a philosophical viewpoint opposed to liberalism, and to advocate action based on this philosophy, because such a philosophy is manifestly wrong.
Examples: the Laffer Curve is a fabrication to excuse Tax-Cuts for the Rich™; opposition to Affirmative Action makes you a racist; et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.
Therefore, for me to be advocating ideas opposed to liberalism to my liberal friend, I was by definition doing so not because I thought they were right, but because I was a "party hack."
This attitude is disturbing. I, and most conservatives, can readily accept that most liberals genuinely believe in the validity and righteousness of their views. This allows us to acknowledge that even if their methods are flawed, their hearts are in the right place, and they are generally good people in their way. But if the converse is not true—if the average liberal believes that anyone disagreeing with him is doing so from base motives—then it justifies extreme actions taken against the opposition. Stealing political signs and barricading campaign headquarters, and perhaps worse, are justified because the actions impede the advance of a dishonest agenda.
I am not a party hack. I genuinely believe that capitalism is preferable to government control, that personal responsibility is better in general than dependence on others and the growth of moral hazard, and that people exist in the world who need to be killed for the benefit of all. I do not tie these beliefs to a party platform. Republicans are just as capable of being scum as anyone else; consider Bush the Elder, who incited the Iraqi Shia and Kurds to rebellion and then hung them out to dry, to be slaughtered by Saddam. But Bush the Younger, for all his numerous flaws, has got the essentials right as far as I am concerned. And I honestly believe that too.
He said, "I hate talking politics with party hacks."
Now, I appreciate the general sentiment, having felt that way myself often enough. But I had told him at least three times in the previous hour or so that I am an independent. He still identified me as a "party hack," presumably for the Republican party. As I understand it, a party hack is loyal to his party above all, regardless of the ideology that the party should be advancing at the time. He will defend policies that he knows to be flawed, simply because they are proposed by his party.
I was almost immediately reminded of a story my father often tells. I no longer remember if the story happened to him, or to a friend of his, but in either event it is instructive. The subject was having a political conversation of some sort with a friend of his, who was considerably more liberal. He was making some point in opposition to the liberal program. The friend grew agitated and said, "You don't really believe that!"
My father took from this the following insight: a liberal believes that his worldview is completely self-evident, and that all people really know deep down that the liberal agenda is the right thing to do. Therefore, nobody can honestly oppose liberalism out of principle, since liberalism is right. Therefore, anyone who opposes liberalism must be doing so selfishly or dishonestly. It is impossible to legitimately hold a philosophical viewpoint opposed to liberalism, and to advocate action based on this philosophy, because such a philosophy is manifestly wrong.
Examples: the Laffer Curve is a fabrication to excuse Tax-Cuts for the Rich™; opposition to Affirmative Action makes you a racist; et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.
Therefore, for me to be advocating ideas opposed to liberalism to my liberal friend, I was by definition doing so not because I thought they were right, but because I was a "party hack."
This attitude is disturbing. I, and most conservatives, can readily accept that most liberals genuinely believe in the validity and righteousness of their views. This allows us to acknowledge that even if their methods are flawed, their hearts are in the right place, and they are generally good people in their way. But if the converse is not true—if the average liberal believes that anyone disagreeing with him is doing so from base motives—then it justifies extreme actions taken against the opposition. Stealing political signs and barricading campaign headquarters, and perhaps worse, are justified because the actions impede the advance of a dishonest agenda.
I am not a party hack. I genuinely believe that capitalism is preferable to government control, that personal responsibility is better in general than dependence on others and the growth of moral hazard, and that people exist in the world who need to be killed for the benefit of all. I do not tie these beliefs to a party platform. Republicans are just as capable of being scum as anyone else; consider Bush the Elder, who incited the Iraqi Shia and Kurds to rebellion and then hung them out to dry, to be slaughtered by Saddam. But Bush the Younger, for all his numerous flaws, has got the essentials right as far as I am concerned. And I honestly believe that too.
10/16/2004
Hiatus
With my workload picking up, I have not been able to devote the time necessary to keep this blog up to date. Moreover, I have spent a great deal of time looking at other blogs, detracting from my work. So I'm taking a break, probably for the next month or two. I may end up posting anyway if a subject is of burning interest, so please check back every so often if you like.
I shall use this opportunity to pontificate on matters near to my heart. Take these commands as worth the price of admission:
1. Self-reliance. Learn First Aid and CPR. Know how to cook. Keep disaster-preparedness supplies in your home, especially if you live in earthquake or hurricane country. Do not rely on the availability of fresh water, electricity, or plentiful supplies of gasoline. Ask yourself the following: if basic services were all shut down for a week, would you be able to take care of yourself and your family?
2. Financial Prudence. As Einstein said, the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. If you have savings, this works for you in a big way. Start early. The biggest edge you can get in the savings game is by starting early. If you sock away a little money in Treasury bonds every year from age 25, you will be well ahead of someone who starts investing in nanotech stocks at age 40. But if you are in debt, compound interest works against you. Pay down your credit cards! You are effectively getting a guaranteed return of 12% or more, which is pretty good by any standard. Pay down your other debt too, if you have the free capital—assuming that it doesn't make more sense to invest the money.
3. Charity. Charity is one of the best investments you can make. You are investing in other people's lives, your own soul, and your continued moral refinement. Plus, you can be assured that all the money you give will find its way back to you in the end, only more so.
4. Resolve. Like it or not, we are in the middle stages of a conflict which began generations ago and will last generations more. (Read John Loftus's article on the Muslim Brotherhood for a full account of the Nazi origins of al-Qa'ida.) We cannot allow our innate feelings of mercy to weaken our determination or cloud our judgement. The murder of innocents for political gain must be ended by the systematic annihilation of all who would do such a thing. I am sick of sharing the Earth with these vampires.
And to those who believe that "violence begets violence," and would therefore abstain from this war: to say that we cannot take arms against murderers is to strip human life of its value. It is to say that the evil powers of the world can have their way with the rest of us, killing whoever they wish, because we will not resist. Not this Jew. Not now. The millions who perished in the Holocaust for want of a few brave souls willing to do violence, and the millions who were saved from death because prisoners rose up and destroyed Treblinka and Sobibor, stand before me in my heart and cry warning against submission. A moral nation must only kill others when there can be no other way, but when that moment comes we CANNOT do anything besides bloodying our hands in hopes of saving more than we destroy.
Stay well, and may God bless you in all of your handiwork.
I shall use this opportunity to pontificate on matters near to my heart. Take these commands as worth the price of admission:
1. Self-reliance. Learn First Aid and CPR. Know how to cook. Keep disaster-preparedness supplies in your home, especially if you live in earthquake or hurricane country. Do not rely on the availability of fresh water, electricity, or plentiful supplies of gasoline. Ask yourself the following: if basic services were all shut down for a week, would you be able to take care of yourself and your family?
2. Financial Prudence. As Einstein said, the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. If you have savings, this works for you in a big way. Start early. The biggest edge you can get in the savings game is by starting early. If you sock away a little money in Treasury bonds every year from age 25, you will be well ahead of someone who starts investing in nanotech stocks at age 40. But if you are in debt, compound interest works against you. Pay down your credit cards! You are effectively getting a guaranteed return of 12% or more, which is pretty good by any standard. Pay down your other debt too, if you have the free capital—assuming that it doesn't make more sense to invest the money.
3. Charity. Charity is one of the best investments you can make. You are investing in other people's lives, your own soul, and your continued moral refinement. Plus, you can be assured that all the money you give will find its way back to you in the end, only more so.
4. Resolve. Like it or not, we are in the middle stages of a conflict which began generations ago and will last generations more. (Read John Loftus's article on the Muslim Brotherhood for a full account of the Nazi origins of al-Qa'ida.) We cannot allow our innate feelings of mercy to weaken our determination or cloud our judgement. The murder of innocents for political gain must be ended by the systematic annihilation of all who would do such a thing. I am sick of sharing the Earth with these vampires.
And to those who believe that "violence begets violence," and would therefore abstain from this war: to say that we cannot take arms against murderers is to strip human life of its value. It is to say that the evil powers of the world can have their way with the rest of us, killing whoever they wish, because we will not resist. Not this Jew. Not now. The millions who perished in the Holocaust for want of a few brave souls willing to do violence, and the millions who were saved from death because prisoners rose up and destroyed Treblinka and Sobibor, stand before me in my heart and cry warning against submission. A moral nation must only kill others when there can be no other way, but when that moment comes we CANNOT do anything besides bloodying our hands in hopes of saving more than we destroy.
Stay well, and may God bless you in all of your handiwork.
10/11/2004
Election Turmoil
In Afghanistan, millions of people voted for the first time in defiance of threats from the Taliban (which turned out to be relatively toothless). But it seems that people closer to home are not taking this to heart. Some Americans apparently believe that violence against your political enemies will yield dividends for your cause. Or else, they have stopped caring anymore.
In several cases, Republican campaign offices have been shot at. Others were broken into, with only the computers containing voter data being stolen. Reports of vandalized Bush signs or cars bearing Bush bumper-stickers are numerous. (Kerry signs have also been vandalized, but in far fewer numbers.) These cases, though unprecedented in my living memory, could perhaps be dismissed as the acts of individuals. More troubling are the cases of AFL-CIO thugs attacking Republican campaign offices, with the support and approval of the national organization.
Here we have a dangerous development. A high-profile national organization has carried out acts of violence against a political party espousing differing views. Moreover, the acts are praised and held up as exampes of "voter advocacy." In some of the more noxious corners of the Internet, such as Democratic Underground (I will not link to them out of principle), people post of plans for violent outbreaks should Bush win reelection. We are beginning to see the lawless wing of the Left emerge in all of its rancid glory.
It is telling that despite all of the caterwauling about "right-wing gun nuts," not a single Democratic campaign office has been shot at. Nor have Democratic offices been mobbed by violent crowds sent by the Christian Coalition/Karl Rove/the Evil Neocons. You know things are getting lopsided when even the New York Times attributes the most vileness to the Left.
I wonder at the Democratic Party's wisdom in letting slip the dogs of war in this fashion. I don't see how they expect to convince the American people that they are the best party to run the country this way. Besides, the extremists had better hope that they don't provoke a reaction from the Right. They are, after all, heavily outgunned...
In several cases, Republican campaign offices have been shot at. Others were broken into, with only the computers containing voter data being stolen. Reports of vandalized Bush signs or cars bearing Bush bumper-stickers are numerous. (Kerry signs have also been vandalized, but in far fewer numbers.) These cases, though unprecedented in my living memory, could perhaps be dismissed as the acts of individuals. More troubling are the cases of AFL-CIO thugs attacking Republican campaign offices, with the support and approval of the national organization.
Here we have a dangerous development. A high-profile national organization has carried out acts of violence against a political party espousing differing views. Moreover, the acts are praised and held up as exampes of "voter advocacy." In some of the more noxious corners of the Internet, such as Democratic Underground (I will not link to them out of principle), people post of plans for violent outbreaks should Bush win reelection. We are beginning to see the lawless wing of the Left emerge in all of its rancid glory.
It is telling that despite all of the caterwauling about "right-wing gun nuts," not a single Democratic campaign office has been shot at. Nor have Democratic offices been mobbed by violent crowds sent by the Christian Coalition/Karl Rove/the Evil Neocons. You know things are getting lopsided when even the New York Times attributes the most vileness to the Left.
I wonder at the Democratic Party's wisdom in letting slip the dogs of war in this fashion. I don't see how they expect to convince the American people that they are the best party to run the country this way. Besides, the extremists had better hope that they don't provoke a reaction from the Right. They are, after all, heavily outgunned...
10/05/2004
The Modern "Debate"
Having just watched the Vice-Presidential Debate this evening, my thoughts naturally turn to the merits and flaws of the debate structure presently favored in America. I should say that tonight's debate was unusually good in that it largely turned on real policy differences, and every time Edwards tried to bring up Haliburton, Cheney's voting record from decades ago, and other irrelevancies, he was properly smacked down for it. But the debate still suffered from the usual systemic flaws.
Back in the Good Old Days™ (say, Lincoln-Douglas), debates lasted several hours. The cadidates had the time to lay out comprehensive, structured arguments on their policies and those of their opponents. Statements would often be longer than two hours, as would be the rebuttals. This was all to the good, as we are in theory electing officials to construct policy.
Tonight, the longest either candidate was allowed to speak was two minutes. (Though there were a few blatant violations which the moderator did not interrupt.) Rebuttals were ninety seconds, then thirty seconds. Questions were not known in advance, requiring answers to be entirely off-the-cuff, or else stock answers that had little relevance to the question.
Now I have a little exercise for the reader. Take a stopwatch, set it to two minutes, and within that time do an oral presentation to a friend on why we [should/should not] be in Iraq. You may repeat this exercise for any major policy issue such as Social Security reform, taxes or the lack of same, or why every citizen should own an M1-A Abrams tank. You will quickly find that two minutes is insufficient for presenting anything more than key phrases, broad generalizations, and the bare outlines of any complex topic.
The conventional logic is that the modern debate is intended not to be about policy, but about the candidates. The viewers can see how the candidates react to unscripted situations, and develop a "feel" for who the candidate really is. This logic is partly undermined by artificial debate formats, for example in the first presidential debate where the candidates could not rebut each other. But let us take the argument at face-value.
What skills are being tested by the present format?
1. Proper speaking method and style.
2. Memorization of talking points and key phrases.
3. Rapidly formulating new arguments in response to the question or the opponent's statement.
4. Mastery of the cutting remark.
5. Quick thinking, wit, and self-control.
While these can be valuable to an elected official, it is less important to think quickly than it is to think deeply. Truly deep thinkers pause when they are thinking. They need to examine the subject carefully before formulating a response to it. Deep thought is penalized by the two-minute format in favor of glib speech (which will not always be backed up by coherent thought). More than that, the skills listed above are largely superficial, having little bearing on questions of policy. Modern debates are testing the wrong skills; they should be testing the ability to explain and defend an agenda.
The simplest thing to do would be to allow more time for statements, so that real policy matters can be discussed. Ten minutes per segment would be nice; most college courses on speechmaking, including the one I took, require the student to give a detailed presentation with citations in ten minutes. This simple rule change would get us away from the usual fluff and back on the solid ground of the things that really matter.
For that reason, I think the two-minute segment isn't going away soon. Both parties are pursuing miserable policies and try desperately to divert the attention of the electorate from the long-term trend. Neither side wants to face unpleasant truths such as the looming implosion of Medicare and Social Security, or the failure of the War on Drugs, or the ease with which enemies could circumvent security at the U.S. border or elsewhere. "Policy bad, sound-bite good" seems to be the order of the day.
Back in the Good Old Days™ (say, Lincoln-Douglas), debates lasted several hours. The cadidates had the time to lay out comprehensive, structured arguments on their policies and those of their opponents. Statements would often be longer than two hours, as would be the rebuttals. This was all to the good, as we are in theory electing officials to construct policy.
Tonight, the longest either candidate was allowed to speak was two minutes. (Though there were a few blatant violations which the moderator did not interrupt.) Rebuttals were ninety seconds, then thirty seconds. Questions were not known in advance, requiring answers to be entirely off-the-cuff, or else stock answers that had little relevance to the question.
Now I have a little exercise for the reader. Take a stopwatch, set it to two minutes, and within that time do an oral presentation to a friend on why we [should/should not] be in Iraq. You may repeat this exercise for any major policy issue such as Social Security reform, taxes or the lack of same, or why every citizen should own an M1-A Abrams tank. You will quickly find that two minutes is insufficient for presenting anything more than key phrases, broad generalizations, and the bare outlines of any complex topic.
The conventional logic is that the modern debate is intended not to be about policy, but about the candidates. The viewers can see how the candidates react to unscripted situations, and develop a "feel" for who the candidate really is. This logic is partly undermined by artificial debate formats, for example in the first presidential debate where the candidates could not rebut each other. But let us take the argument at face-value.
What skills are being tested by the present format?
1. Proper speaking method and style.
2. Memorization of talking points and key phrases.
3. Rapidly formulating new arguments in response to the question or the opponent's statement.
4. Mastery of the cutting remark.
5. Quick thinking, wit, and self-control.
While these can be valuable to an elected official, it is less important to think quickly than it is to think deeply. Truly deep thinkers pause when they are thinking. They need to examine the subject carefully before formulating a response to it. Deep thought is penalized by the two-minute format in favor of glib speech (which will not always be backed up by coherent thought). More than that, the skills listed above are largely superficial, having little bearing on questions of policy. Modern debates are testing the wrong skills; they should be testing the ability to explain and defend an agenda.
The simplest thing to do would be to allow more time for statements, so that real policy matters can be discussed. Ten minutes per segment would be nice; most college courses on speechmaking, including the one I took, require the student to give a detailed presentation with citations in ten minutes. This simple rule change would get us away from the usual fluff and back on the solid ground of the things that really matter.
For that reason, I think the two-minute segment isn't going away soon. Both parties are pursuing miserable policies and try desperately to divert the attention of the electorate from the long-term trend. Neither side wants to face unpleasant truths such as the looming implosion of Medicare and Social Security, or the failure of the War on Drugs, or the ease with which enemies could circumvent security at the U.S. border or elsewhere. "Policy bad, sound-bite good" seems to be the order of the day.
10/03/2004
Oil for Graft Program
The news from the Times of London is not especially shocking, except for the sheer scale of corruption in the Oil for Food Program that it reveals. Benon Seven, director of the program, received almost a million dollars from sales of Iraqi oil contracts, provided to him by Saddam at cut-rate prices. A French oil firm linked to Jacques Chirac bribed U.N. inspectors to forge documents. Members of Vladimir Putin's staff were also on the take. Et cetera.
Two thoughts:
1. Well, this explains a lot! I can only imagine how terrified the corrupt officials throughout the U.N. and Europe were that their venal ways would come to light after Saddam's overthrow. I hope that the rule of law will now prevail, and these crawling toads will be thrown out of office (and perhaps in jail?). Of all the crimes that are commited by government officials, accepting bribes is possibly the worst.
2. No leader of a free nation should submit his country's safety to the demands of these clowns. I am in favor of an organization like the United Nations in principle, but episodes such as this prove that the present organization must either clean up its act or be dismantled like any other organization of lawbreakers. This is also a warning against forming a "global government" in which the states would give up sovereignty. Immanuel Kant, in his essay "Perpetual Peace," advocated a federation of independent states, and warned that a true world government would become a "soulless despotism." There is no way to check the power of a world government, which will inevitably encroach on its citizens until it becomes a true tyranny.
In other news...
This essay by Radek Sikorski provides some needed perspective on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. My favorite quote:
Tens of thousands of people died in this country every month in the 1980s during the war with the Soviet Union and it wasn't news. Hundreds died every month in the 1990s from mines and the civil war and that wasn't really news either. Today, casualties are in the dozens most months, and suddenly it is news, taken by some as evidence of imminent collapse. For the first time in a quarter century, more Afghans are now dying in car accidents than in politically motivated violence--a miracle, even allowing for atrocious Afghan driving.
Read the rest, it's quite good.
Two thoughts:
1. Well, this explains a lot! I can only imagine how terrified the corrupt officials throughout the U.N. and Europe were that their venal ways would come to light after Saddam's overthrow. I hope that the rule of law will now prevail, and these crawling toads will be thrown out of office (and perhaps in jail?). Of all the crimes that are commited by government officials, accepting bribes is possibly the worst.
2. No leader of a free nation should submit his country's safety to the demands of these clowns. I am in favor of an organization like the United Nations in principle, but episodes such as this prove that the present organization must either clean up its act or be dismantled like any other organization of lawbreakers. This is also a warning against forming a "global government" in which the states would give up sovereignty. Immanuel Kant, in his essay "Perpetual Peace," advocated a federation of independent states, and warned that a true world government would become a "soulless despotism." There is no way to check the power of a world government, which will inevitably encroach on its citizens until it becomes a true tyranny.
In other news...
This essay by Radek Sikorski provides some needed perspective on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. My favorite quote:
Tens of thousands of people died in this country every month in the 1980s during the war with the Soviet Union and it wasn't news. Hundreds died every month in the 1990s from mines and the civil war and that wasn't really news either. Today, casualties are in the dozens most months, and suddenly it is news, taken by some as evidence of imminent collapse. For the first time in a quarter century, more Afghans are now dying in car accidents than in politically motivated violence--a miracle, even allowing for atrocious Afghan driving.
Read the rest, it's quite good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)