When would-be reformers go through the law code looking for bad laws to attack, often they are simply paralyzed by the sheer volume of damaging laws. Priorities must be set; given scarce resources, one must decide to change this law before that one. Yet as far as I know, no one has tried to categorize laws by what they do, so that they could be compared to each other qualitatively or quantitatively.
Such a system, if it were clearly defined and accepted, could work wonders in getting people to agree on what needs changing now, and what later. While I have no idea how the quantitative aspect could work, I have some thoughts on how to categorize law.
Fundamentally, law can do three things:
1. Law can make a statement of morality, i.e. say that such-and-such is good or bad in itself. Example: laws against child abuse.
2. Law can regulate and promote civil order (or, less generously, create unintended consequences in society), without necessarily making a moral judgement on the things being regulated. Example: traffic laws.
3. Law can privilege one actor or group of actors over another. Example: agriculture subsidies.
Now, most laws have components of all three of these elements. For example, families with children get a tax writeoff for their children because our culture considers childraising to be a great good, and in order to keep the population growing fast enough to avoid a deflationary spiral. In the process, families with children are privileged over families without children.
But by taking a law, determining the totality of its effects, and classifying these effects using the above three components, one may more easily analyze its effects or identify the underlying assumptions of the law. One these are clarified, one may more easily ask whether the law is good or bad.
This is about the point where I should ideally demonstrate this method (say, on the Accredited Investor laws), but it's late and my brain is running on empty. I'll get around to a demo soon.
11/30/2005
11/29/2005
Propoganda Techniques
Strategy Page provides a detailed list of the most effective and commonly used forms of propoganda. As they write, "If you spend any time at all consuming mass media, you will find these techniques familiar." Check it out.
Strategy Page is incredibly useful for anyone who wants to better understand modern warfare and strategy. Especially interesting are the "DLS" articles in the sidebar, which stand for Dirty Little Secrets.
Strategy Page is incredibly useful for anyone who wants to better understand modern warfare and strategy. Especially interesting are the "DLS" articles in the sidebar, which stand for Dirty Little Secrets.
11/27/2005
D.C. Summer: A Retrospective
[Yes, I finally got around to it…]
This past summer was spent in Washington D.C. doing a program run by the Fund for American Studies (TFAS), where I studied part of the day at Georgetown and interned at an NGO for the rest. (Check my June and July 2005 archives for some posts referencing my experiences.) I have been asked a few times to summarize my impressions of the way government works.
The NGO I interned at was relatively small and not intimately connected to the halls of power; but it was very much a part of the "vast right-wing consipracy," so to speak. Our major financial backer was one of the big names of the libertarian/conservative movement, and much of our board was composed of Heritage Foundation members. The NGO officers attended the Wednesday roundtables given by Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform. These roundtables served to brief all the major libertarian/conservative organizations in town, and coordinate their lobbying activities in Congress. While much of the gathering's goals matched those of the Bush Administration (and in the one roundtable I attended, an administration official was actually there to talk about Hugo Chavez), this was emphatically not a Republican alliance per se. They wanted deregulation and small government, and the President was giving them precious little to feel good about except for CAFTA.
In that room, I had the sense of a great deal of frustrated power. These people were all representing large constituencies of people who thought that government was too big, too intrusive, and out of control. Yet they could do nothing about it without the Senate, and while they certainly had influence in the House of Representatives, the Senate was much more hostile to their goals. In particular, the gathering's support for CAFTA was small potatoes compared to the direct lobbying by the President, and in the end the people around the room could do little but make their phone calls and hope that the President came through. In the end, of course, CAFTA passed.
TFAS arranged many events for the students; we visited the Federal Reserve, the State Department, the CIA. Everywhere we went, I got the same impression from the staff: they were generally competent people, working incredibly hard for relatively little pay because they genuinely wanted to serve the country. They were cynical as only government workers can be, and sometimes resentful of their low salaries, but they all did the work because they felt a calling, or because they loved being a part of Washington (in which sense that was true is a disturbing question).
(A word on the salaries. Looking at government salaries in the abstract, they don't seem too bad. But D.C. is possibly the most expensive city in America to live in. To get an tiny apartment on a starting government salary, you needed at least three other roommates. Yet the city is filled with people doing just that, in order to work at the center of government.)
At the same time, you could tell a lot about a particular agency by looking at where it was housed. The Federal Reserve is located in one of the great neoclassical edifices, and lavishly appointed in the old style. Inside, one got a tremendous sense of gravity and history. The deliberations of its members cannot help but be influenced by a sense of responsibility for the country whose money they control, as it should be.
The State Department, on the other hand, is located in a terribly ugly building in Foggy Bottom. It seems like something out of a 1950's "This is the Future" exhibit. There are no windows once you get inside, and the main conference room is closed off from the outside world. The employees gave off a vague sense of being out of touch, whether it was the outdated clothing worn by the secretaries or the way that people seemed to blink just a bit too quickly when confronted by a group of mostly well-behaved college students.
I was surprised to find that many midlevel government appointees are selected solely because of their work during election campaigns. One of the speakers who came to TFAS's career day was a midlevel member of the Treasury Department, who described how he had started working campaigns on the state level, eventually becoming a key member of the President's reelection team for his state. Because of that election job, he was given his post in the Treasury. While he was certainly qualified for the position, I was unsettled by the whole idea.
This official invited a few of us to a shindig he had arranged at Capital City Brewery. I was the only one to make it due to a terrible rainstorm, but I got to watch him work a long table filled with Washington professionals. They were senior congressional aides, or else midlevel officials like himself in other agencies. He had brought them together to outline plans for a lobbying organization he was setting up to get Federal funding for a poor area of his state; I suspect that at least part of his intent was to lay the groundwork for an eventual run for elected office. I was certainly not the only one to think so; the others spent the night making connections to this dynamic figure who promised to go far in politics.
My overall impression of how the government works, from my extremely limited vantage point, was that Washington is full of decent, hardworking people who love their country and serve it by playing according to the sometimes corrupt, sometimes nasty, sometimes hypocritical rules of the game. There is far too much money going around, as can be seen by the hordes of lobbying organizations that infest every decent-looking highrise, and that will skew people's behavior. One wonders how the system can ever be tamed, simply because it has become so tightly interdependent and full of incestuous linkages. But at any rate, I have much more respect for the average Washingtonian now than before the summer.
One final note: the Jewish Community Center looked like some sort of miniature neoclassical fortress. It gave off a sense of pathetic pretensions to wealth and power on the one hand, and a deep and abiding insecurity on the other. It may illuminate much about the mindset of the average Jewish lobbyist or politico. (On the other hand, the food was quite good, though I ate more often at Eli's Deli on 20th and N. Mmm, Capital Sandwich…)
This past summer was spent in Washington D.C. doing a program run by the Fund for American Studies (TFAS), where I studied part of the day at Georgetown and interned at an NGO for the rest. (Check my June and July 2005 archives for some posts referencing my experiences.) I have been asked a few times to summarize my impressions of the way government works.
The NGO I interned at was relatively small and not intimately connected to the halls of power; but it was very much a part of the "vast right-wing consipracy," so to speak. Our major financial backer was one of the big names of the libertarian/conservative movement, and much of our board was composed of Heritage Foundation members. The NGO officers attended the Wednesday roundtables given by Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform. These roundtables served to brief all the major libertarian/conservative organizations in town, and coordinate their lobbying activities in Congress. While much of the gathering's goals matched those of the Bush Administration (and in the one roundtable I attended, an administration official was actually there to talk about Hugo Chavez), this was emphatically not a Republican alliance per se. They wanted deregulation and small government, and the President was giving them precious little to feel good about except for CAFTA.
In that room, I had the sense of a great deal of frustrated power. These people were all representing large constituencies of people who thought that government was too big, too intrusive, and out of control. Yet they could do nothing about it without the Senate, and while they certainly had influence in the House of Representatives, the Senate was much more hostile to their goals. In particular, the gathering's support for CAFTA was small potatoes compared to the direct lobbying by the President, and in the end the people around the room could do little but make their phone calls and hope that the President came through. In the end, of course, CAFTA passed.
TFAS arranged many events for the students; we visited the Federal Reserve, the State Department, the CIA. Everywhere we went, I got the same impression from the staff: they were generally competent people, working incredibly hard for relatively little pay because they genuinely wanted to serve the country. They were cynical as only government workers can be, and sometimes resentful of their low salaries, but they all did the work because they felt a calling, or because they loved being a part of Washington (in which sense that was true is a disturbing question).
(A word on the salaries. Looking at government salaries in the abstract, they don't seem too bad. But D.C. is possibly the most expensive city in America to live in. To get an tiny apartment on a starting government salary, you needed at least three other roommates. Yet the city is filled with people doing just that, in order to work at the center of government.)
At the same time, you could tell a lot about a particular agency by looking at where it was housed. The Federal Reserve is located in one of the great neoclassical edifices, and lavishly appointed in the old style. Inside, one got a tremendous sense of gravity and history. The deliberations of its members cannot help but be influenced by a sense of responsibility for the country whose money they control, as it should be.
The State Department, on the other hand, is located in a terribly ugly building in Foggy Bottom. It seems like something out of a 1950's "This is the Future" exhibit. There are no windows once you get inside, and the main conference room is closed off from the outside world. The employees gave off a vague sense of being out of touch, whether it was the outdated clothing worn by the secretaries or the way that people seemed to blink just a bit too quickly when confronted by a group of mostly well-behaved college students.
I was surprised to find that many midlevel government appointees are selected solely because of their work during election campaigns. One of the speakers who came to TFAS's career day was a midlevel member of the Treasury Department, who described how he had started working campaigns on the state level, eventually becoming a key member of the President's reelection team for his state. Because of that election job, he was given his post in the Treasury. While he was certainly qualified for the position, I was unsettled by the whole idea.
This official invited a few of us to a shindig he had arranged at Capital City Brewery. I was the only one to make it due to a terrible rainstorm, but I got to watch him work a long table filled with Washington professionals. They were senior congressional aides, or else midlevel officials like himself in other agencies. He had brought them together to outline plans for a lobbying organization he was setting up to get Federal funding for a poor area of his state; I suspect that at least part of his intent was to lay the groundwork for an eventual run for elected office. I was certainly not the only one to think so; the others spent the night making connections to this dynamic figure who promised to go far in politics.
My overall impression of how the government works, from my extremely limited vantage point, was that Washington is full of decent, hardworking people who love their country and serve it by playing according to the sometimes corrupt, sometimes nasty, sometimes hypocritical rules of the game. There is far too much money going around, as can be seen by the hordes of lobbying organizations that infest every decent-looking highrise, and that will skew people's behavior. One wonders how the system can ever be tamed, simply because it has become so tightly interdependent and full of incestuous linkages. But at any rate, I have much more respect for the average Washingtonian now than before the summer.
One final note: the Jewish Community Center looked like some sort of miniature neoclassical fortress. It gave off a sense of pathetic pretensions to wealth and power on the one hand, and a deep and abiding insecurity on the other. It may illuminate much about the mindset of the average Jewish lobbyist or politico. (On the other hand, the food was quite good, though I ate more often at Eli's Deli on 20th and N. Mmm, Capital Sandwich…)
11/26/2005
How Does One Practice That?
A practitioner of Chi Gong (or Qigong) performed an amazing (and slightly off-color) feat of strength the other day in Fremont, California. Read about it here (rated R). The article seems not to have any quotation marks, but you can figure it out without much trouble.
At one point the article describes the body part in question as "look[ing] ready to burst." This is consistent with videos I have seen of other Chi Gong demonstrations, in which the practitioners appear to have swelled up significantly. You can also see a hint of this in the movie "Kung Fu Hustle"; compare the normal appearance of the tailor, Iron Fist, to his appearance while he is fighting. His skin appears to puff out, particularly his face and chest.
This was just too cool to pass up. Hat tip to Ace of Spades.
At one point the article describes the body part in question as "look[ing] ready to burst." This is consistent with videos I have seen of other Chi Gong demonstrations, in which the practitioners appear to have swelled up significantly. You can also see a hint of this in the movie "Kung Fu Hustle"; compare the normal appearance of the tailor, Iron Fist, to his appearance while he is fighting. His skin appears to puff out, particularly his face and chest.
This was just too cool to pass up. Hat tip to Ace of Spades.
11/22/2005
Rafah Crossing
The United States has just pressured Israel into transferring the Rafah crossing in Gaza to the control of the Palestinian Authority. This will almost certainly lead to increased weapons-smuggling into Gaza, as even while the Israelis are still there they routinely find sophisticated tunnels through which smugglers transport weapons, explosives, and people.
Is the objective of the exercise to guarantee Israeli security? Or is it to give the Palestinians a state? We cannot do both with any certainty, and which of the two options we prefer will dictate our response to issues like the Rafah crossing. A sovereign state must by definition control its own borders; the present Israeli checkpoints are a clear violation of any forecasted Palestinian sovereignty. Therefore, if the powers-that-be are serious about Palestinian statehood, the borders must eventually revert to Palestinian control.
But doing so threatens Israeli security, does it not? Yes, unless you happen to believe that the key for eventual peace lies in Palestinian statehood. Then the handover takes on the characteristics of an investment, in which you sacrifice security in the short-term for the sake of greater security in the long-term.
The flaw in such an argument, of course, is that it presumes that a sovereign Palestinian state will be a good neighbor. While I would be thrilled if such a thing were to come about, I see no evidence that a free Palestine would be anything other than a forward-base for Hamas, Hizbullah, and al-Qa'ida. But the optimists will not be satisfied until the whole experiment blows up in—well, not their faces exactly (except for the delusional Israeli left), but the faces of the poor schlubs on the front line.
In that sense, perhaps the transfer of the Rafah crossing is a good thing. Either it will work as intended, helping to usher the Palestinians into a new era of peace and goodwill, or it will hasten the day when the failure of Oslo becomes so spectacular, so all-encompassing, that Israel will finally discard its delusions, put away the olive branch and unsheathe the sword.
Is the objective of the exercise to guarantee Israeli security? Or is it to give the Palestinians a state? We cannot do both with any certainty, and which of the two options we prefer will dictate our response to issues like the Rafah crossing. A sovereign state must by definition control its own borders; the present Israeli checkpoints are a clear violation of any forecasted Palestinian sovereignty. Therefore, if the powers-that-be are serious about Palestinian statehood, the borders must eventually revert to Palestinian control.
But doing so threatens Israeli security, does it not? Yes, unless you happen to believe that the key for eventual peace lies in Palestinian statehood. Then the handover takes on the characteristics of an investment, in which you sacrifice security in the short-term for the sake of greater security in the long-term.
The flaw in such an argument, of course, is that it presumes that a sovereign Palestinian state will be a good neighbor. While I would be thrilled if such a thing were to come about, I see no evidence that a free Palestine would be anything other than a forward-base for Hamas, Hizbullah, and al-Qa'ida. But the optimists will not be satisfied until the whole experiment blows up in—well, not their faces exactly (except for the delusional Israeli left), but the faces of the poor schlubs on the front line.
In that sense, perhaps the transfer of the Rafah crossing is a good thing. Either it will work as intended, helping to usher the Palestinians into a new era of peace and goodwill, or it will hasten the day when the failure of Oslo becomes so spectacular, so all-encompassing, that Israel will finally discard its delusions, put away the olive branch and unsheathe the sword.
11/20/2005
Zarqawi Dead?
According to reports now hitting the wires (for example, read here and here) US forces surrounded a house containing eight senior al-Qaida members, most of whom detonated themselves to avoid capture. There is reason to believe, but no confirmation yet, that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was one of them.
Combined with the continued success of Operation Steel Curtain and Zarqawi's being made outcast from his own clan, prudent onlookers can conclude that we have long since passed the point of inevitable victory in Iraq. That victory will not be painless—as Churchill reminded the US Congress during World War 2, more Union soldiers died after Gettysburg than before, though the end was no longer in doubt—but it will come, unless we choose to quit the field and let the enemy win by default.
Be steadfast, America. Hold on to your weapons for just a little longer.
For a little perspective, check out the devastating political cartoons of Dr. Seuss during World War 2. Many of them could easily have been ripped out of today's headlines.
Combined with the continued success of Operation Steel Curtain and Zarqawi's being made outcast from his own clan, prudent onlookers can conclude that we have long since passed the point of inevitable victory in Iraq. That victory will not be painless—as Churchill reminded the US Congress during World War 2, more Union soldiers died after Gettysburg than before, though the end was no longer in doubt—but it will come, unless we choose to quit the field and let the enemy win by default.
Be steadfast, America. Hold on to your weapons for just a little longer.
For a little perspective, check out the devastating political cartoons of Dr. Seuss during World War 2. Many of them could easily have been ripped out of today's headlines.
11/18/2005
A Free-Market Approach to Reducing the National Debt
Much ink has been spilled and much hot air has gusted about concerning our expanding national debt. Everyone agrees that the debt is a bad thing; it makes us beholden to large holders of Treasuries such as China or Japan, it drives up the inflation rate, it takes more and more of our budget just to service existing debt, it makes borrowing more expensive, it weakens the dollar, et cetera.
With all the talk, not much has actually been done about paying it down. To do so requires some combination of revenue increases and spending decreases (though given the government's unprecedented revenue growth at all levels, many would say our main problem is with spending). Raising taxes would stifle the economy and be politically unpopular, and lowering spending would leave the old and the poor hanging, which is even more politically unpopular. That something needs to be done anyway is not enough for our Congress, which would rather spend its time on "cultural" issues of negligible fiscal significance than actually risk angering the interest groups.
So the debt continues to grow. And increasing taxes are hardly a solution, given that additional revenues would likely be used for more programs and not to plug the hole in our budget. At any rate, there is no guarantee that Congress would use additional revenues the way we want them to.
Is there anything we citizens can do? Actually, yes. I just learned today that the Bureau of the Public Debt has a program whereby individuals can donate money to the Treasury for the express purpose of retiring public debt. Apparently these donations are tax-deductible, though this is not immediately apparent from the BPD link.
People have a meaningful choice between sending money into the general revenues to pay for who-knows-what, or making a small sacrifice to devote money exclusively to paying down the national debt—while denying tax revenue to the budget. Donating towards paying down the debt could become not only an act of civic patriotism, but a powerful protest against Washington budget politics at the same time. Best of all, it is totally voluntary.
What's not to like?
Yes, Congress can easily borrow more money to make up for the shortfall, but since donations would be tax-deductible and not credited to taxes entirely, the total debt would go down more than the size of the shortfall. Moreover, if such donations became widespread enough it would be a stunning condemnation of our present budgeting culture, which may encourage a new crop of enterprisng politicans intent on cleaning house.
And to tell the truth, even if Congress would not reform in the face of such humiliation, we no longer have the luxury of waiting for them to act. If it takes concerted action by the people ourselves to get this country out of debt, then so be it. I am not convinced that a war with China is inevitable, but just the chance of it happening raises the spectre of economic warfare in which China drops the Treasury Bomb and destroys the dollar. We have a civic duty to protect this country from that threat, and the many other corrosive effects of a national debt.
With all the talk, not much has actually been done about paying it down. To do so requires some combination of revenue increases and spending decreases (though given the government's unprecedented revenue growth at all levels, many would say our main problem is with spending). Raising taxes would stifle the economy and be politically unpopular, and lowering spending would leave the old and the poor hanging, which is even more politically unpopular. That something needs to be done anyway is not enough for our Congress, which would rather spend its time on "cultural" issues of negligible fiscal significance than actually risk angering the interest groups.
So the debt continues to grow. And increasing taxes are hardly a solution, given that additional revenues would likely be used for more programs and not to plug the hole in our budget. At any rate, there is no guarantee that Congress would use additional revenues the way we want them to.
Is there anything we citizens can do? Actually, yes. I just learned today that the Bureau of the Public Debt has a program whereby individuals can donate money to the Treasury for the express purpose of retiring public debt. Apparently these donations are tax-deductible, though this is not immediately apparent from the BPD link.
People have a meaningful choice between sending money into the general revenues to pay for who-knows-what, or making a small sacrifice to devote money exclusively to paying down the national debt—while denying tax revenue to the budget. Donating towards paying down the debt could become not only an act of civic patriotism, but a powerful protest against Washington budget politics at the same time. Best of all, it is totally voluntary.
What's not to like?
Yes, Congress can easily borrow more money to make up for the shortfall, but since donations would be tax-deductible and not credited to taxes entirely, the total debt would go down more than the size of the shortfall. Moreover, if such donations became widespread enough it would be a stunning condemnation of our present budgeting culture, which may encourage a new crop of enterprisng politicans intent on cleaning house.
And to tell the truth, even if Congress would not reform in the face of such humiliation, we no longer have the luxury of waiting for them to act. If it takes concerted action by the people ourselves to get this country out of debt, then so be it. I am not convinced that a war with China is inevitable, but just the chance of it happening raises the spectre of economic warfare in which China drops the Treasury Bomb and destroys the dollar. We have a civic duty to protect this country from that threat, and the many other corrosive effects of a national debt.
11/17/2005
What Does it Take?
Here is a news report video concerning a member of the National Guard who attempted to pass to al-Qaida strategies on how best to kill the crews of armored vehicles, without destroying the vehicles themselves so that they can be captured by al-Qaida. The man was caught in a sting by Federal agents, during which he offered to defect from his unit and join al-Qaida in Iraq, and was just sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in 19 years.
Many on the blogosphere are asking, "Why is this man not being executed for treason?"
He intended for his fellow soldiers to die; he offered to fight for the enemy; he gave information that would have placed our soldiers in great danger. He would seem to meet every standard for execution, with the sole mitigating factor being that the men he spoke to were not actually enemies of this country, as he believed them to be. Yet the actual effect of his treason should be irrelevant; that he acted to harm his brothers in arms should be enough.
In the United States, the death penalty is for all practical purposes restricted to cases of murder. While this limitation is logical enough, given a particular line of thought, it ends up mitigating the perceived severity of monstrous crimes that leave their victims alive. One who kidnaps a young child and commits unspeakable crimes, physical and sexual, over an arbitrarily long period would not be liable for the death penalty. Neither, apparently, would a traitor to his country and comrades who had the good fortune to be caught before he killed anyone personally.
The death penalty has many justifcations; chief among them, I think, is that it serves to identify a class of crimes worthy of the worst punishment society can offer. By that standard, America considers premeditated murder of a single victim to be qualitatively worse that treason to the whole, such that the murderer may be executed and the traitor may not. To be sure, the murderer is worthy of death; but to say that the traitor is not, is to say that America as a whole is less valuable than the least of its citizens.
Jewish law prescribes the death penalty for a range of crimes beyond murder. Many of these crimes threaten the very fabric of society; examples are adultery, and kidnapping persons and selling them into slavery. Similarly, in the Philippines drug trafficking is a capital offense. In my view, it is deeply irresponsible for America to restrict the death penalty as it has; while execution must surely be used sparingly and with great care, we have an obligation to defend our society just as surely as those who live in it.
Why have we become unwilling to say that our society is sacrosanct?
Many on the blogosphere are asking, "Why is this man not being executed for treason?"
He intended for his fellow soldiers to die; he offered to fight for the enemy; he gave information that would have placed our soldiers in great danger. He would seem to meet every standard for execution, with the sole mitigating factor being that the men he spoke to were not actually enemies of this country, as he believed them to be. Yet the actual effect of his treason should be irrelevant; that he acted to harm his brothers in arms should be enough.
In the United States, the death penalty is for all practical purposes restricted to cases of murder. While this limitation is logical enough, given a particular line of thought, it ends up mitigating the perceived severity of monstrous crimes that leave their victims alive. One who kidnaps a young child and commits unspeakable crimes, physical and sexual, over an arbitrarily long period would not be liable for the death penalty. Neither, apparently, would a traitor to his country and comrades who had the good fortune to be caught before he killed anyone personally.
The death penalty has many justifcations; chief among them, I think, is that it serves to identify a class of crimes worthy of the worst punishment society can offer. By that standard, America considers premeditated murder of a single victim to be qualitatively worse that treason to the whole, such that the murderer may be executed and the traitor may not. To be sure, the murderer is worthy of death; but to say that the traitor is not, is to say that America as a whole is less valuable than the least of its citizens.
Jewish law prescribes the death penalty for a range of crimes beyond murder. Many of these crimes threaten the very fabric of society; examples are adultery, and kidnapping persons and selling them into slavery. Similarly, in the Philippines drug trafficking is a capital offense. In my view, it is deeply irresponsible for America to restrict the death penalty as it has; while execution must surely be used sparingly and with great care, we have an obligation to defend our society just as surely as those who live in it.
Why have we become unwilling to say that our society is sacrosanct?
11/16/2005
Of Senators and Horses
I only take cheap shots at politicians on this blog for special occasions, and boy is this one ever special. Our distinguished Senator Barbara Boxer has apparently written a work of fiction called "A Time to Run" about a liberal senator trying to prevent the nomination of a conservative Supreme Court justice (sound familiar?). John J. Miller reviews it here (rated R), and the excerpts he notes are just awful.
Most amusing to me is the Hot! Equine! Action! passage, which takes absurdity to a new level. I have been around horses for most of my life, and I have never yet seen a horse that weighed "a ton." The author's inattention to detail screams out from every sentence.
Look upon her works, ye mighty, and despair!
Most amusing to me is the Hot! Equine! Action! passage, which takes absurdity to a new level. I have been around horses for most of my life, and I have never yet seen a horse that weighed "a ton." The author's inattention to detail screams out from every sentence.
Look upon her works, ye mighty, and despair!
11/15/2005
Quote of the Day
The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute—get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed.—Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love
11/13/2005
Misguided Parenting Advice
On The High Road is a discussion about this article on parenting by clinical psychologist Dr. Ruth Peters. The general advice in the article, dealing with setting limits for your child's social activities, is reasonable if a bit more risk-averse than I care for. Of interest to the High Road crowd, naturally, is that the first scenario Dr. Peters presents concerns playing with toy guns:
I tend to be skeptical of bans on toy guns; while parents are free to have such bans, I suspect that they will be ineffective.
When I was six, we would play with other kids specifically to get our hands on their toys. Which is why few kids ever wanted to come to our house, since we didn't have a game console, high-powered computer, swimming pool, et cetera. If this hypothetical six-year-old really wanted his friend's company, he would have invited him over to the parent's house to begin with.
My broader problem with this piece is Dr. Peters's assumption that good parents keep their homes gun-free. Violence is an ugly thing, but so is passivity in the face of evil. Some parents prefer to discourage the former, some the latter—and some do both, for there is nothing contradictory about a disciplined approach to violence. But Dr. Peters seems to believe that violence is the greatest of evils, no matter what its form. Such an attitude is acceptable for the usual business of society, but fails catastrophically in times of danger and upheaval. In such times, the warrior must once again come to the fore. And those who train their children to be warriors should not be given the brand of shame by a society that increasingly places the burden of its defense on them.
Your six-year-old son wants to play with the kid down the block who appears to be a ballistics expert. He always seems to be in the front yard shooting cans with his BB gun, owns three (count them, three) fake hand grenades and brags that his father has rifles in the house. You have a standing family rule for all of your kids that guns, even toy ones, are off-limits. Your child, who has recently become interested in all things military, accuses you of being unfair.When my brother and I were young, our parents forbid toy guns in the house, and also did not let us watch violent movies. So far as we can tell, we were in a completely gun-free environment—until my brother and I started constructing weapons out of Legos, at which point our parents conceded defeat. My mother is convinced that affinity for guns is genetic.
I tend to be skeptical of bans on toy guns; while parents are free to have such bans, I suspect that they will be ineffective.
What to do? First, be sure that you’ve listened to your son’s entire argument, and if there’s room for compromise, do it. Perhaps you can allow his friend to come to your house to play with your son’s toys and games — it may turn out that the lure is not really the play weapons, but his buddy’s fun presence.Um, no.
When I was six, we would play with other kids specifically to get our hands on their toys. Which is why few kids ever wanted to come to our house, since we didn't have a game console, high-powered computer, swimming pool, et cetera. If this hypothetical six-year-old really wanted his friend's company, he would have invited him over to the parent's house to begin with.
Many families do not allow their children to play with toy weapons, as the parents believe that these toys are “gateways” to the real McCoy…Uh-huh. Right. If I had to make a guess, I would say the opposite: most kids with toy guns end up getting bored with them in a few months or years; and some families who own guns do not allow their children to have toy guns, believing that they teach bad safety habits. The parents just start their kids right away on the real thing.
Ask the boy's mom or dad if they possess a gun and how it is stored. If you feel even the least bit uncomfortable with the answer — don’t allow your child to visit their home.It's one thing if the parents leave their guns around within reach of their children, or store the guns inside their liquor closet or something as bad. But I suspect that the target audience of this article would feel "the least bit uncomfortable" with the mere presence of guns, thanks in no small part to articles such as this one that demonize all guns and gunowners. Many gunowners complain that their children are stigmatized by other parents, who refuse to let their children come play simply because somewhere in the house is a self-aware, malicious, devious firearm just itching to crawl over to some innocent children and pull its own trigger at them.
My broader problem with this piece is Dr. Peters's assumption that good parents keep their homes gun-free. Violence is an ugly thing, but so is passivity in the face of evil. Some parents prefer to discourage the former, some the latter—and some do both, for there is nothing contradictory about a disciplined approach to violence. But Dr. Peters seems to believe that violence is the greatest of evils, no matter what its form. Such an attitude is acceptable for the usual business of society, but fails catastrophically in times of danger and upheaval. In such times, the warrior must once again come to the fore. And those who train their children to be warriors should not be given the brand of shame by a society that increasingly places the burden of its defense on them.
11/10/2005
Housekeeping
I just added a whole bunch of rich bloggy goodness to my sidebar. In particular, the link to the Belmont Club is now updated. Check it out, they're all good…
Sadly, I decided to remove the Imperial Rottweiler. The site has gone downhill fast. Every post that goes up becomes flooded with comments calling for genocide, and I can get better writing without the idiots over at Protein Wisdom.
I also removed the Amazon ad. It wasn't doing much for me, and besides it's irritating.
That is all.
Sadly, I decided to remove the Imperial Rottweiler. The site has gone downhill fast. Every post that goes up becomes flooded with comments calling for genocide, and I can get better writing without the idiots over at Protein Wisdom.
I also removed the Amazon ad. It wasn't doing much for me, and besides it's irritating.
That is all.
11/08/2005
Logical Conclusions
Tonight, Dr. Daniel Pipes spoke at my college on radical Islam and the War on Terror. Much of what he said I agree with, some of it less so. One of Dr. Pipes's themes is that Islam must undergo a change comparable to the Christian Reformation, or the larger war cannot end. During questions, one student said words to the following effect: given that within our own community [i.e. Orthodox Judaism] we look upon so-called religious moderates with contempt, is it not hypocritical to expect the Muslims to do what we will not?
Now, I have frequently thought about this issue. I know just how resilient Halachic Judaism has been in the face of outside pressure; I also know that there are areas where great philosophical shifts took place, though the process took hundreds of years. Since Islamic law is structurally comparable to our own, I can imagine that a fundamental shift away from radicalism will be very hard to pull off, and will take time.
But that wasn't the way that the particular student asked the question. He was not saying, "Here is a problem with your proposal, which we need to think about and address." He was saying instead, "Here is why your proposal is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, and demonstrates that you are not being fair." The word hypocritical came up several times, as well as some scurrilous comparisons between radical Islam and certain fringe Jewish groups who want a Greater Israel.
This student may have thought he was being clever, or exposing the inauthenticity of a noted conservative voice. But this whole mindset is facile for two reasons. First, hypocrisy is one of the greatest forces for good in society. Nobody is perfect; therefore, everyone is being hypocritical to some degree whenever he acts in any way more elevated than base self-interest. Hypocrisy makes the world go 'round.
Second, the student did not try to challenge Dr. Pipes's view that radical Islam is the problem, and is growing ever stronger in the Muslim world. In that case, the only conceivable alternatives to a religious reformation within Islam are total capitulation by the West, or else genocide.
To repeat: if their religion cannot change, then every Muslim would necessarily become a threat to the West. Genocide is the logical end to this line of reasoning.
By advocating a religious reformation, Dr. Pipes is not being hypocritical or imperialistic to the Muslim world. He is instead arguing for its very survival. That the Left cannot see this is just one more proof of their fundamental unseriousness on the whole issue.
Now, I have frequently thought about this issue. I know just how resilient Halachic Judaism has been in the face of outside pressure; I also know that there are areas where great philosophical shifts took place, though the process took hundreds of years. Since Islamic law is structurally comparable to our own, I can imagine that a fundamental shift away from radicalism will be very hard to pull off, and will take time.
But that wasn't the way that the particular student asked the question. He was not saying, "Here is a problem with your proposal, which we need to think about and address." He was saying instead, "Here is why your proposal is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, and demonstrates that you are not being fair." The word hypocritical came up several times, as well as some scurrilous comparisons between radical Islam and certain fringe Jewish groups who want a Greater Israel.
This student may have thought he was being clever, or exposing the inauthenticity of a noted conservative voice. But this whole mindset is facile for two reasons. First, hypocrisy is one of the greatest forces for good in society. Nobody is perfect; therefore, everyone is being hypocritical to some degree whenever he acts in any way more elevated than base self-interest. Hypocrisy makes the world go 'round.
Second, the student did not try to challenge Dr. Pipes's view that radical Islam is the problem, and is growing ever stronger in the Muslim world. In that case, the only conceivable alternatives to a religious reformation within Islam are total capitulation by the West, or else genocide.
To repeat: if their religion cannot change, then every Muslim would necessarily become a threat to the West. Genocide is the logical end to this line of reasoning.
By advocating a religious reformation, Dr. Pipes is not being hypocritical or imperialistic to the Muslim world. He is instead arguing for its very survival. That the Left cannot see this is just one more proof of their fundamental unseriousness on the whole issue.
11/05/2005
Mediocrity vs. Moderation
[This is adapted from a dvar Torah given by one of my fellow students last night. He cited the Maharal of Prague and the Shem mi-Shumel for different parts of the whole, but I no longer remember which part went with whom, so just keep that in mind.]
At the end of this week's Torah portion, we see for the first time the family of Avram (who would later become Avraham, forefather of the Jewish people). The narrative speaks briefly of his brother Haran, saying only that he "died before the face of his father."
A well-established tradition expands on the narrative in the text to explain what happened. (While there is little evidence for the expanded version in the Torah itself, it is accepted as authoritative history by even the arch-rationalist Maimonides.) According to this tradition, King Nimrod had set up a cult of the god-king based around himself. Avram, having already reasoned out the existence of God, refused to worship Nimrod or any other idol and was thrown into a furnace in punishment. Haran was watching at the time, and not having Avram's faith was afraid to intervene. God saved Avram from death and eventually he was retrieved from the furnace.
At this point there are two variants. In one, Haran saw that Avram survived and immediately announced that he too would not worship Nimrod—at which point he too was thrown in the furnace, and was consumed in the fire. In the other variant, God strikes Haran down directly for his lack of faith, again with fire. In either case, Haran dies because he lacks true beliefs and just goes where the wind blows.
If you look at the three letters of his name, "hei reish nun," you find something interesting. The numerical value of "hei" is five, i.e. midway between one and ten (on the low side). The value of "nun" is fifty, i.e. midway between ten and a hundred (again on the low side). The value of "reish" is two hundred, midway between one hundred and four hundred (only four letters are valued in the hundredths-place).
Essentially, Haran was the ultimate example of mediocrity. His instinct was to converge on the center, with no other purpose than to avoid standing out in either direction. When it seemed that Nimrod was the ultimate power, Haran acquiesced to Nimrod's orders. When it seemed that Avram had bested Nimrod, Haran immediately switches over to Avram's side. But his inconstancy is his undoing and he ultimately perishes. But the story is not done.
According to a kabbalistic tradition, Aharon the Priest, brother of Moshe (Moses), was a gilgul of Haran. In simplistic terms, this means that Aharon's soul had the same "spiritual DNA" as that of Haran, and was sent to the world in part to rectify Haran's mistakes.
Aharon's name contains all the letters of Haran's name, with the additional letter "aleph." This implies that Aharon shared the same instinct towards the center that Haran did, with the difference that his centrism was dedicated towards the service of God (hence the aleph). Aharon was the great peacemaker of Israel, called by Hillel "a lover of peace and a pursuer of peace." He was especially known in the tradition for reconciling two good friends who had quarreled, or a husband and wife who had marital discord.
Several times in the Torah we see Aharon taking great risks to head off disaster. During the episode of the Golden Calf, Aharon acquiesces to the demands of the mob and actually facilitates their idolatry, but in such a way as to delay them and contain their lawlessness; in the end, the damage to the people was lessened by Aharon's actions and he was pardoned. In another instance, Aharon intercedes when God sets loose a plague amongst the people, and the plague is halted.
The difference between simple mediocrity and a true spirit of moderation, it seems, is that the mediocre man has no firm principles animating his conduct. His every action is geared towards his own advancement or self-preservation, with no higher aim. The true moderate, on the other hand, seeks to bring other people together for a higher purpose—in this case to serve God and to promote peace among the community. To do so he may take great risks, but they are always in order to increase fellowship and peace. May we see fewer examples of mediocrity, and more examples of true moderation motivated by the service of God and humanity.
At the end of this week's Torah portion, we see for the first time the family of Avram (who would later become Avraham, forefather of the Jewish people). The narrative speaks briefly of his brother Haran, saying only that he "died before the face of his father."
A well-established tradition expands on the narrative in the text to explain what happened. (While there is little evidence for the expanded version in the Torah itself, it is accepted as authoritative history by even the arch-rationalist Maimonides.) According to this tradition, King Nimrod had set up a cult of the god-king based around himself. Avram, having already reasoned out the existence of God, refused to worship Nimrod or any other idol and was thrown into a furnace in punishment. Haran was watching at the time, and not having Avram's faith was afraid to intervene. God saved Avram from death and eventually he was retrieved from the furnace.
At this point there are two variants. In one, Haran saw that Avram survived and immediately announced that he too would not worship Nimrod—at which point he too was thrown in the furnace, and was consumed in the fire. In the other variant, God strikes Haran down directly for his lack of faith, again with fire. In either case, Haran dies because he lacks true beliefs and just goes where the wind blows.
If you look at the three letters of his name, "hei reish nun," you find something interesting. The numerical value of "hei" is five, i.e. midway between one and ten (on the low side). The value of "nun" is fifty, i.e. midway between ten and a hundred (again on the low side). The value of "reish" is two hundred, midway between one hundred and four hundred (only four letters are valued in the hundredths-place).
Essentially, Haran was the ultimate example of mediocrity. His instinct was to converge on the center, with no other purpose than to avoid standing out in either direction. When it seemed that Nimrod was the ultimate power, Haran acquiesced to Nimrod's orders. When it seemed that Avram had bested Nimrod, Haran immediately switches over to Avram's side. But his inconstancy is his undoing and he ultimately perishes. But the story is not done.
According to a kabbalistic tradition, Aharon the Priest, brother of Moshe (Moses), was a gilgul of Haran. In simplistic terms, this means that Aharon's soul had the same "spiritual DNA" as that of Haran, and was sent to the world in part to rectify Haran's mistakes.
Aharon's name contains all the letters of Haran's name, with the additional letter "aleph." This implies that Aharon shared the same instinct towards the center that Haran did, with the difference that his centrism was dedicated towards the service of God (hence the aleph). Aharon was the great peacemaker of Israel, called by Hillel "a lover of peace and a pursuer of peace." He was especially known in the tradition for reconciling two good friends who had quarreled, or a husband and wife who had marital discord.
Several times in the Torah we see Aharon taking great risks to head off disaster. During the episode of the Golden Calf, Aharon acquiesces to the demands of the mob and actually facilitates their idolatry, but in such a way as to delay them and contain their lawlessness; in the end, the damage to the people was lessened by Aharon's actions and he was pardoned. In another instance, Aharon intercedes when God sets loose a plague amongst the people, and the plague is halted.
The difference between simple mediocrity and a true spirit of moderation, it seems, is that the mediocre man has no firm principles animating his conduct. His every action is geared towards his own advancement or self-preservation, with no higher aim. The true moderate, on the other hand, seeks to bring other people together for a higher purpose—in this case to serve God and to promote peace among the community. To do so he may take great risks, but they are always in order to increase fellowship and peace. May we see fewer examples of mediocrity, and more examples of true moderation motivated by the service of God and humanity.
11/03/2005
Creative Translation (Updated)
Posting has been light as I gear up for the big push on my thesis. During my research, I just came across something interesting. The official name of Osama bin Laden's umbrella organization is usually given in the news as the "World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders." I have just seen the Arabic (in a transliterated form) for the first time. Here it is:
Al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qitaal al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin
Notice a word missing? Nowhere in the name is the word "Jihad" mentioned. The word that was apparently translated as "Jihad" is actually a verbal noun derived from the root QaTaLa, "to kill." So a better translation would be, "World Islamic Front for the Killing of Jews and Crusaders."
Puts a bit of a different spin on it, huh?
In all the years that we have known of this organization, why have the media and the government never once translated its name correctly?
UPDATE (Nov. 14): I mentioned this to my Arabic teacher, and he said that Qitaal is properly a verbal noun of Qaatil, "to try to kill," or better, "to fight." So the translation should be "WIF for fighting Jews and Crusaders."
At any rate, there is still no hint of meaning related to Jihad. I suspect some Westerner decided to romanticize the name, and it stuck.
Al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qitaal al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin
Notice a word missing? Nowhere in the name is the word "Jihad" mentioned. The word that was apparently translated as "Jihad" is actually a verbal noun derived from the root QaTaLa, "to kill." So a better translation would be, "World Islamic Front for the Killing of Jews and Crusaders."
Puts a bit of a different spin on it, huh?
In all the years that we have known of this organization, why have the media and the government never once translated its name correctly?
UPDATE (Nov. 14): I mentioned this to my Arabic teacher, and he said that Qitaal is properly a verbal noun of Qaatil, "to try to kill," or better, "to fight." So the translation should be "WIF for fighting Jews and Crusaders."
At any rate, there is still no hint of meaning related to Jihad. I suspect some Westerner decided to romanticize the name, and it stuck.
10/31/2005
Comparative Advantage in a Changing World
Last Friday I attended a luncheon given by the International Business Association and the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce. The keynote speaker was business columnist James Flanigan; in the room were notables from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. A recurring topic of conversation was the need for the ports to upgrade their infrastructure, especially for getting goods out of the harbor and on the road. Imports are coming in so quickly that Long Beach is slowly shifting to a 16-hour schedule to accommodate the traffic.
Much was said about the growth of China, and to a lesser degree India. The schoolteacher across from me spoke of a special magnet program at her school in which students studied international relations and trade, and learned to speak Chinese. The IBA was sponsoring a mission to China, following the lead of Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Villaraigosa. China's growth is seen as a given.
Less openly stated was the fear that as China and India rose, the United States must fall to meet them. I spoke to one man who had just spent nearly four years in China consulting for an American manufacturing firm which had set up a new factory there, to avoid losing its contracts with the big computer makers. The difference in wages is so great as to outweigh many of the costs of doing business in less developed countries; must not the invisible hand relentlessly push down American wages until parity is reached?
Moreover, China and India are both turning out huge numbers of trained engineers and scientists, dwarfing our own output at a time when our whole education system seems to be imploding under the influence of faux-liberal-arts subjects involving no scientific knowledge or even general creativity, threatening to erode our technological edge.
Yet even with these discouraging signs, we still have the preeminent position for the moment and there is no reason why we cannot remain on top. At present, our greatest advantages are a massive pool of money for businesses to use, a well-developed physical infrastructure, and a society and legal system that encourage small businesses, at least to a point. We are uniquely positioned to benefit from the "next big thing," whatever it should be, because we have the resources to quickly transition over to new ways of doing business. The catch is that there must be a reason for the "next big thing" to emerge here first, and not elsewhere.
As I see it, technology is giving even small companies the capabilities once reserved to massive behemoths, at the same time as it penalizes those companies who do not keep up with the times—again, usually the larger companies. The future will belong to small and midsize companies, and we should encourage them and make it easier for such companies to work in the United States. This requires first that our laws stop discriminating against small companies, and second that our students be taught to develop their creative faculties and not to stifle them.
At present, a company with $100,000 in taxable income actually pays a higher tax rate than a company with $100 million in income. Even the larger companies must pay a 35% rate, which is much too high in today's globalized economy. (Highly-educated, English-speaking Ireland's corporate tax rates range from 10% to 12.5% for most businesses—part of why they have become the great success-story of Europe.) Small businesses are also unduly burdened with onerous regulations for accounting and payroll management that huge firms simply shrug off as annoyances. Furthermore, small companies are forbidden to issue public stock by the SEC, and if they are to raise money at all must do so via private placements (as I discuss here), tipping the playing field still further in favor of the big boys.
If we are serious about having a robust economy, we need to remove the shackles from small businesses, which already form the backbone of America. That means dramatically reducing corporate taxes (say to about 20%, for starters) and making them no less burdensome for the big companies as they are for their smaller competitors. It means eliminating the regulatory chokeholds small businesses must deal with, and making the business environment fair and open to all comers.
Fixing the legal environment is only part of the cure. We are presently educating our children using a model developed in the late 1800's, designed to produce good factory workers who knew how to follow directions. Now, we need other talents. We are still in the early stages of the Information Economy, where the skills for success are flexibility, creativity, and the ability to synthesize familiar data to reach novel conclusions. Our schooling must reflect this reality. In particular, at present we are so backward in our thinking that in times of financial shortfall, the first educational programs to get the axe are always fine arts. This even though the arts are the best method for developing just the skills we now need, particularly music. This was common knowledge back as far as the Greeks; Aristotle's Politics emphatically state that music is the best way to train students in proper thinking and morals.
If both of these pillars are in place, we can create an environment in which small businesses can thrive and proliferate. Even foreign companies will want to continue operating here if we can make it more attractive to do so than to operate in China or India instead. That, in turn, increases the chances that the next paradigm-shifting technological advance will occur here and not elsewhere, giving us the first chance to benefit. With our vast wealth and infrastructure, there is no reason why we should tamely submit to an inevitable economic downfall. We simply need to cultivate the proper comparative advantages: a fair regulatory environment and a populace taught to use their native gifts.
Much was said about the growth of China, and to a lesser degree India. The schoolteacher across from me spoke of a special magnet program at her school in which students studied international relations and trade, and learned to speak Chinese. The IBA was sponsoring a mission to China, following the lead of Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Villaraigosa. China's growth is seen as a given.
Less openly stated was the fear that as China and India rose, the United States must fall to meet them. I spoke to one man who had just spent nearly four years in China consulting for an American manufacturing firm which had set up a new factory there, to avoid losing its contracts with the big computer makers. The difference in wages is so great as to outweigh many of the costs of doing business in less developed countries; must not the invisible hand relentlessly push down American wages until parity is reached?
Moreover, China and India are both turning out huge numbers of trained engineers and scientists, dwarfing our own output at a time when our whole education system seems to be imploding under the influence of faux-liberal-arts subjects involving no scientific knowledge or even general creativity, threatening to erode our technological edge.
Yet even with these discouraging signs, we still have the preeminent position for the moment and there is no reason why we cannot remain on top. At present, our greatest advantages are a massive pool of money for businesses to use, a well-developed physical infrastructure, and a society and legal system that encourage small businesses, at least to a point. We are uniquely positioned to benefit from the "next big thing," whatever it should be, because we have the resources to quickly transition over to new ways of doing business. The catch is that there must be a reason for the "next big thing" to emerge here first, and not elsewhere.
As I see it, technology is giving even small companies the capabilities once reserved to massive behemoths, at the same time as it penalizes those companies who do not keep up with the times—again, usually the larger companies. The future will belong to small and midsize companies, and we should encourage them and make it easier for such companies to work in the United States. This requires first that our laws stop discriminating against small companies, and second that our students be taught to develop their creative faculties and not to stifle them.
At present, a company with $100,000 in taxable income actually pays a higher tax rate than a company with $100 million in income. Even the larger companies must pay a 35% rate, which is much too high in today's globalized economy. (Highly-educated, English-speaking Ireland's corporate tax rates range from 10% to 12.5% for most businesses—part of why they have become the great success-story of Europe.) Small businesses are also unduly burdened with onerous regulations for accounting and payroll management that huge firms simply shrug off as annoyances. Furthermore, small companies are forbidden to issue public stock by the SEC, and if they are to raise money at all must do so via private placements (as I discuss here), tipping the playing field still further in favor of the big boys.
If we are serious about having a robust economy, we need to remove the shackles from small businesses, which already form the backbone of America. That means dramatically reducing corporate taxes (say to about 20%, for starters) and making them no less burdensome for the big companies as they are for their smaller competitors. It means eliminating the regulatory chokeholds small businesses must deal with, and making the business environment fair and open to all comers.
Fixing the legal environment is only part of the cure. We are presently educating our children using a model developed in the late 1800's, designed to produce good factory workers who knew how to follow directions. Now, we need other talents. We are still in the early stages of the Information Economy, where the skills for success are flexibility, creativity, and the ability to synthesize familiar data to reach novel conclusions. Our schooling must reflect this reality. In particular, at present we are so backward in our thinking that in times of financial shortfall, the first educational programs to get the axe are always fine arts. This even though the arts are the best method for developing just the skills we now need, particularly music. This was common knowledge back as far as the Greeks; Aristotle's Politics emphatically state that music is the best way to train students in proper thinking and morals.
If both of these pillars are in place, we can create an environment in which small businesses can thrive and proliferate. Even foreign companies will want to continue operating here if we can make it more attractive to do so than to operate in China or India instead. That, in turn, increases the chances that the next paradigm-shifting technological advance will occur here and not elsewhere, giving us the first chance to benefit. With our vast wealth and infrastructure, there is no reason why we should tamely submit to an inevitable economic downfall. We simply need to cultivate the proper comparative advantages: a fair regulatory environment and a populace taught to use their native gifts.
10/24/2005
Nuclear Taboo?
In today's print Wall Street Journal, Thomas Schelling writes about the so-called nuclear taboo, the strong aversion to the use of nuclear weapons that has built up since Nagasaki. He considers this taboo to be a good thing, and shares it himself, asking: "Can we make it through another half dozen decades [without a nuclear war]?" On the face of it, one must wonder why a nuclear war would be so much worse than, say, a war conducted with machetes as in Rwanda; more on this later.
Schelling makes an odd argument in the last segment of his piece, regarding terrorist groups who might soon possess nukes:
We must put Schelling's piece in perspective. The Bush Administration has long been muttering about the use of nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear program, should it be necessary. Schelling, who is horrified by the thought of nuclear weapons used under any circumstances, is trying to turn aside such an approach, by arguing that it's not really so bad if the mullas get nukes anyway. Schelling specifically referred to Iran earlier in the piece, making essentially the same arguments as above.
What is the nuclear taboo based on? What special horror does nuclear weapons possess, that not even terrorists would use them? As I see it, the capabilities of a nuclear bomb are the following:
They kill many people. This, by itself, would not be special grounds for the visceral hatred many people have for nukes; the United States killed far more people in Japan through conventional means than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet they are nearly a footnote in the eyes of the antinuclear brigade. Furthermore, in my lifetime there have been several genocides that have taken place with near-silence from the great powers, while nuclear tests in India and Pakistan harming no one momentarily turned both countries into pariah-states. At any rate, terrorists want nuclear weapons precisely because they kill people, a point which should be obvious.
They kill many people with a disproportionally small effort. Once you have invested the effort to create nukes in the first place, they can be deployed quite easily. This would, theoretically, make their use more attractive. A variant of the same argument is used against the private possession of firearms; for some reason, killing people with a knife is more acceptable, in a sense, than killing them with a gun. Similarly, killing people with tanks and infantrymen is somehow more acceptable than with nukes. Of course, the idea that one can "earn" the right to kill someone simply by expending more effort in the process is absurd. And again, terrorists want nukes precisely because of their ease of use.
They emit radiation. Again, terrorists would desire such an effect, to inflict lasting consequences on their enemies. And for the rest of us, the development of neutron bombs (called by their creator "The most moral weapon ever invented") makes this factor much less important, since such weapons do not produce persistent radiation. (Admittedly, neutron bombs have a limited shelf-life, and are thus more costly to maintain than more typical nukes that do produce radiation.)
In short, there is no reason outside of expediency why a terror group would refrain from using nuclear weapons. Indeed, having expended the vast effort necessary to create the bombs in the first place, terrorists would be under immense pressure to use them quickly and not risk their falling into the hands of an enemy power such as the United States, which would certainly be watching closely for any nuclear programs.
What about established nations? Why do we vest in nuclear weapons all the terrors of our imagination, when the truth is far more banal? With the exception of radiation effects, and the potential for a nuclear detonation to create a massive diplomatic crisis (unless we detonate against another nuclear power, in which case things could get much worse), nuclear wars are no worse than any other kind of war. Indeed, they save the lives of our own soldiers, as does any advance in technology.
I expect some country or other to employ a nuclear weapon within my lifetime. The benefits are just too great, and the drawbacks are meaningless to a country already on the brink of destruction. When considering the issue, we must not let our vision become clouded by wishful thinking of the type employed by Mr. Schelling.
Schelling makes an odd argument in the last segment of his piece, regarding terrorist groups who might soon possess nukes:
[A nuclear program] will require at least six, probably more, highly qualified scientists and numerous machinists and technologists, working in seclusion… with nothing much to talk about except what the "bomb" might be used for, and by whom. They are likely to feel justified to have some claim in deciding the use of the nuclear device [!!!]…. They will discover, over weeks of arguing that the most effective use of the bomb, from a terrorist perspective, will be for influence…. Threatening to use it against military targets, and keeping it intact if the threat is succcessful, may appeal to [terrorists] more than expending it in a destructive act.Schelling has a remarkably egalitarian image of terrorist decisionmaking, in which scientists may hold discourse with murderers from a position of influence. Additionally, he wildly misunderstands the mindset of the Islamic terrorist; they want power, not influence. Al-Qa'ida had a great deal of influence in Saudi Arabia, but attempted to overthrow the monarchy anyway. Now, they are being ruthlessly stamped out. Additionally, nothing excites a terrorist more than "destructive acts," as is clearly shown by their penchant for suicide attacks.
We must put Schelling's piece in perspective. The Bush Administration has long been muttering about the use of nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear program, should it be necessary. Schelling, who is horrified by the thought of nuclear weapons used under any circumstances, is trying to turn aside such an approach, by arguing that it's not really so bad if the mullas get nukes anyway. Schelling specifically referred to Iran earlier in the piece, making essentially the same arguments as above.
What is the nuclear taboo based on? What special horror does nuclear weapons possess, that not even terrorists would use them? As I see it, the capabilities of a nuclear bomb are the following:
They kill many people. This, by itself, would not be special grounds for the visceral hatred many people have for nukes; the United States killed far more people in Japan through conventional means than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet they are nearly a footnote in the eyes of the antinuclear brigade. Furthermore, in my lifetime there have been several genocides that have taken place with near-silence from the great powers, while nuclear tests in India and Pakistan harming no one momentarily turned both countries into pariah-states. At any rate, terrorists want nuclear weapons precisely because they kill people, a point which should be obvious.
They kill many people with a disproportionally small effort. Once you have invested the effort to create nukes in the first place, they can be deployed quite easily. This would, theoretically, make their use more attractive. A variant of the same argument is used against the private possession of firearms; for some reason, killing people with a knife is more acceptable, in a sense, than killing them with a gun. Similarly, killing people with tanks and infantrymen is somehow more acceptable than with nukes. Of course, the idea that one can "earn" the right to kill someone simply by expending more effort in the process is absurd. And again, terrorists want nukes precisely because of their ease of use.
They emit radiation. Again, terrorists would desire such an effect, to inflict lasting consequences on their enemies. And for the rest of us, the development of neutron bombs (called by their creator "The most moral weapon ever invented") makes this factor much less important, since such weapons do not produce persistent radiation. (Admittedly, neutron bombs have a limited shelf-life, and are thus more costly to maintain than more typical nukes that do produce radiation.)
In short, there is no reason outside of expediency why a terror group would refrain from using nuclear weapons. Indeed, having expended the vast effort necessary to create the bombs in the first place, terrorists would be under immense pressure to use them quickly and not risk their falling into the hands of an enemy power such as the United States, which would certainly be watching closely for any nuclear programs.
What about established nations? Why do we vest in nuclear weapons all the terrors of our imagination, when the truth is far more banal? With the exception of radiation effects, and the potential for a nuclear detonation to create a massive diplomatic crisis (unless we detonate against another nuclear power, in which case things could get much worse), nuclear wars are no worse than any other kind of war. Indeed, they save the lives of our own soldiers, as does any advance in technology.
I expect some country or other to employ a nuclear weapon within my lifetime. The benefits are just too great, and the drawbacks are meaningless to a country already on the brink of destruction. When considering the issue, we must not let our vision become clouded by wishful thinking of the type employed by Mr. Schelling.
10/20/2005
Courting Disaster
Lately, the nation has witnessed a series of tremendous storms that continue to ravage the country, leveling all other activity before their gale-force winds.
In other news, we've been getting a lot of hurricanes.
Sadly, I was referring above to the present meltdown over the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. A lot of people have had a lot of problems with her nomination, but things have gone far past tragedy and are rapidly becoming farce. Yesterday, when the Senate Judicial Committee read through her fifty-page questionnaire on issues of jurisprudence, they found it inadequate (and even "insulting" according to Senator Specter) and demanded that she do it over!
This isn't a college essay, this was a preparatory piece for becoming Supreme Court justice! This isn't supposed to be happening. How President Bush could have had the gall to nominate such a profoundly unqualified candidate to the bench is completely beyond my comprehension.
By this point, Miers has the distinction of having bipartisan opposition. It will only get worse once the confirmation hearings begin in earnest. Do us all a favor, Mr. President, and just end the misery. Next time try Judge Janice Rogers Brown.
In other news, we've been getting a lot of hurricanes.
Sadly, I was referring above to the present meltdown over the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. A lot of people have had a lot of problems with her nomination, but things have gone far past tragedy and are rapidly becoming farce. Yesterday, when the Senate Judicial Committee read through her fifty-page questionnaire on issues of jurisprudence, they found it inadequate (and even "insulting" according to Senator Specter) and demanded that she do it over!
This isn't a college essay, this was a preparatory piece for becoming Supreme Court justice! This isn't supposed to be happening. How President Bush could have had the gall to nominate such a profoundly unqualified candidate to the bench is completely beyond my comprehension.
By this point, Miers has the distinction of having bipartisan opposition. It will only get worse once the confirmation hearings begin in earnest. Do us all a favor, Mr. President, and just end the misery. Next time try Judge Janice Rogers Brown.
10/15/2005
History Appreciation
Via Instapundit comes this piece by Michael Barone that succinctly highlights many of the issues that have me worried about the fate of modern democracies:
[I have been asked to write a post summing up my experiences in Washington. It will come soon, I promise.]
[T]he military maintains old units so that soldiers will be motivated to match the deeds of those who came before and prove worthy to those who come after….Most Americans feel a shiver when they hear "The Star-Spangled Banner" played and reflect on the triumphs and tragedies that those serving under that flag have won and suffered over more than 200 years. You're part of something larger than yourself…Read the whole thing.
[But] elites on campuses [have begun] taking an adversary posture toward their own country. Later, with globalization, a transnational mind-set grew among corporate and professional elites. Legal elites, too: Some Supreme Court justices have taken to citing foreign law as one basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
[I have been asked to write a post summing up my experiences in Washington. It will come soon, I promise.]
10/10/2005
The Essence of Humanity
[I'm presently getting packed for my trip back home for the holidays, where I'll finally go watch Serenity with my friends and family (woo hoo!), and put some new strings onto my violin (double woo hoo!). I never could figure out who decided to put the classical music capital of the world in a city with such vicious humidity and temperature swings; not a stringed-instrument player, that's for sure.
At any rate…]
In the future, what will define humanity? What will make it unique?
Soon, we will have the power to design our own DNA to specifications. If humanity is defined by a particular genetic legacy, when do we stop being human and become something else?
Soon, we will share the world with computer AI that would be increasingly comparable to human intelligence, and which will eventually pass us in terms of brute-force computing power. If we define humanity as meeting certain standards of intelligence, would a computer program that meets those standards be called human?
Soon, we will see tighter and tighter integration of organic and robotic components, entering into the realm of true cybernetics. People will enhance themselves with mechanical devices, perhaps replacing entire systems such as the skeleton with stronger or more efficient materials. Conversely, machines could be built around organic components. Can a human stop being a human and become a robot? Can robots ever become human? Are organic components even necessary to humanness?
Science has no answers, because science does not deal with such questions. These are questions of morality, of our understanding of humanity's place in the world. All the more reason to turn first to the Torah.
The commentators debate at length what made Adam the First different from all the creatures that preceeded him, some of whom were even manlike in form. Some say that Adam could create things; some say that Adam could name things, or communicate in general. The explanation that seems best to me, which I think was that of R' Samson Raphael Hirsch (or possibly derived from his teachings by someone else), was that Adam was the first physical being capable of prophecy. That is, Adam was a unique creation because he could transcend the physical world and reach up into the spiritual realms.
Without getting into complicated questions on the nature of the soul, I'll simply note that the experiences I have had (particularly with Tai Chi and the use of the Amidah prayer as meditation) force me to believe in a spiritual realm with which we interact. So I am willing to accept interaction with the spiritual as the definitive quality of humanness. I doubt machines could be spiritual beings; but more importantly, should a machine demonstrate transcendant spirituality, I would seriously consider whether it were not, in fact, human—or perhaps a distinct type of being on a similar level.
I am open to other suggestions, though the whole debate will remain academic for at least the next decade…
At any rate…]
In the future, what will define humanity? What will make it unique?
Soon, we will have the power to design our own DNA to specifications. If humanity is defined by a particular genetic legacy, when do we stop being human and become something else?
Soon, we will share the world with computer AI that would be increasingly comparable to human intelligence, and which will eventually pass us in terms of brute-force computing power. If we define humanity as meeting certain standards of intelligence, would a computer program that meets those standards be called human?
Soon, we will see tighter and tighter integration of organic and robotic components, entering into the realm of true cybernetics. People will enhance themselves with mechanical devices, perhaps replacing entire systems such as the skeleton with stronger or more efficient materials. Conversely, machines could be built around organic components. Can a human stop being a human and become a robot? Can robots ever become human? Are organic components even necessary to humanness?
Science has no answers, because science does not deal with such questions. These are questions of morality, of our understanding of humanity's place in the world. All the more reason to turn first to the Torah.
The commentators debate at length what made Adam the First different from all the creatures that preceeded him, some of whom were even manlike in form. Some say that Adam could create things; some say that Adam could name things, or communicate in general. The explanation that seems best to me, which I think was that of R' Samson Raphael Hirsch (or possibly derived from his teachings by someone else), was that Adam was the first physical being capable of prophecy. That is, Adam was a unique creation because he could transcend the physical world and reach up into the spiritual realms.
Without getting into complicated questions on the nature of the soul, I'll simply note that the experiences I have had (particularly with Tai Chi and the use of the Amidah prayer as meditation) force me to believe in a spiritual realm with which we interact. So I am willing to accept interaction with the spiritual as the definitive quality of humanness. I doubt machines could be spiritual beings; but more importantly, should a machine demonstrate transcendant spirituality, I would seriously consider whether it were not, in fact, human—or perhaps a distinct type of being on a similar level.
I am open to other suggestions, though the whole debate will remain academic for at least the next decade…
10/06/2005
Iran Moves Closer to War Footing
The things I miss over a long Yom Tov:
I do not know whether we actually intend a full-scale invasion, though it seems a ham-handed way to go about things given everything else going on. But if Iran believes that we will invade, it dramatically narrows the possibilities for ending the current standoff, and not in a good way. This could be another self-fulfilling prophecy for war in a depressingly long line of them throughout history.
Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has placed the military firmly in control of his nation's nuclear program, undercutting his government's claim that the program is intended for civilian use, according to a leading opposition group.To translate: military officers have effectively taken over the government. I have seen recurring reports of military officers replacing officials in every level of government over the past few months. Analyses I have read (I don't remember where) suggest that Iran is anticipating a US invasion from the north of Iraq, along with decapitation strikes against the leadership, and is preparing accordingly.
Leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the force created specifically to defend the 1979 Islamic revolution, now dominate Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's top foreign policy-making body under the constitution.
I do not know whether we actually intend a full-scale invasion, though it seems a ham-handed way to go about things given everything else going on. But if Iran believes that we will invade, it dramatically narrows the possibilities for ending the current standoff, and not in a good way. This could be another self-fulfilling prophecy for war in a depressingly long line of them throughout history.
The Failure of Societies
It has seemed to me for a long time that Judaism is in large part a mechanism for passing on moral principles to the next generation. Having a deep understanding of the nature of the world does little good if that understanding dies with you. It is just as well that Judaism focuses so much on educating the young, for it seems that we Jews have tended to neglect such things from the dawn of our history.
Our forefather Yitzhak (Isaac) favored his elder son Eisav over Yaakov, despite the elder son's incredible disregard for spiritual principles and exaggerated preference for the physical, as for example when he sold his birthright for a bowl of "this red, red stuff." Yaakov himself learned little from the experience, playing favorites among his twelve sons and exercising no control over them. Shimon and Levi felt free to exterminate the city of Shechem against their father's wishes; Reuven, though firstborn, apparently was never taught how best to lead and repeatedly used his authority poorly.
Later on we had King David, a warrior-poet and prophet. Yet for all of his prowess in battle and rulership he was remarkably lenient with his own sons, and suffered for it. Several of his sons rose up in rebellion against him; his son Amnon raped his own half-sister. Regarding Adoniyahu, who tried to usurp the throne from his brother Shlomo (Solomon) as David lay dying, the narrative says, "His father had never in all his days saddened him, saying 'Why have you done this?' " And Adoniyahu was born after the rebel Avshalom, so it seems that David had not taken the lesson to heart.
When it came time for him to decide the succession, he promised the kingship to the son of Bathsheva, before he was actually born! That Shlomo turned out to be a good ruler was due more to Divine intervention than anything else; yet even so, he was far too wise for his own good. And again, though Shlomo had 300 wives and presumably many sons, he chose as his successor Rechavam, who was so monumentally stupid as to say to his new subjects, "My father beat you with whips; I shall beat you with scorpions!" During his rule, the Northern Kingdom split off and became a perpetual breeding-ground of idolatry.
This chronic inability to pass on wisdom and security from one generation to the next was mirrored by the greater society. The Jews passed through seemingly endless cycles of descent into idolatry and the fertility cults; and God would threaten them with destruction at the hands of their enemies, at which point there would usually be a return to the Torah. Yet there came a point when this was no longer good enough, when the rot had set in too deeply. That point came during the rule of Menashe, descendent of Hizqiyahu (Hezekiah).
Hizqiyahu is widely praised by the rabbinic tradition, who hold that he merited to be the Messiah had the time been right. He oversaw a religious revival, fighting against the encroaching religion of Assyria. Yet he retained the Assyrian methods of organization and strong central government, which were useful for a monarch; and the upper class all spoke Assyrian more often than Hebrew. Hizqiyahu's son Menashe apparently learned the wrong lesson, for when he took power he began a 55-year campaign to eradicate Judaism and set up the Assyrian cults in its place.
Here, the prophets warned that something had changed. God had decreed that Judah would be destroyed and sent into exile, and could only be swayed to mercy by a total, all-encompassing return to Judaism such as had never happened in our history. Even the reign of Yoshiyahu (Josiah), renowned for his righteousness, only delayed the inevitable for the period of his lifetime. After he died, the Babylonians invaded.
Here it gets interesting. For though Jeremiah the prophet warned against resisting the Babylonians, most of the Jews were adamant in their opposition, continuing to fight even while suffering defeat after defeat. Jeremiah knew that the society as a whole was too diseased to merit rescue, and that the fervent nationalism of the people sprung more from reflex than any real moral and ethical vitality. He was proved right after the diplomat Gedaliah was placed as administrator over Judah for the Babylonians. Nationalists in the army assassinated Gedaliah and all of those with him, and then murdered a passing caravan of pilgrims for good measure, dropping the bodies into the city well and totally filling it up.
At this, the Babylonians razed almost all of Judah and exiled most of its inhabitants. The nationalists were allowed to escape into Egypt, where they became mercenaries and sunk into the worst sorts of heresies. Such was the character of their fervor.
*********
Unless a society can consistently propogate its beliefs and principles to future generations, it will inevitably decay. There may well be an appearance of vigor, and often a prideful nationalism, yet it is ultimately built on sand. For the defenders of such a society are defending nothing deeper or more profound than the status quo, once they have lost contact with the principles around which their nation was formed in the first place.
This, perhaps, is the fatal flaw of democracy. Democracy holds no special reverence for tradition and history; such things quickly become irrelevant. Indeed, this ahistoricism is the source for much of democracy's appeal, given the sheer number of evil traditions in the world. Regardless, what must inevitably result is a society dedicated to nothing more than the needs of the moment, rather than any historical legacy or morality. Consider the overwhelming importance of the national economy in American politics, compared to the deafening silence greeting the rise in illegitimacy.
Can democracies endure? Probably. Can they endure as moral societies? I wonder.
Our forefather Yitzhak (Isaac) favored his elder son Eisav over Yaakov, despite the elder son's incredible disregard for spiritual principles and exaggerated preference for the physical, as for example when he sold his birthright for a bowl of "this red, red stuff." Yaakov himself learned little from the experience, playing favorites among his twelve sons and exercising no control over them. Shimon and Levi felt free to exterminate the city of Shechem against their father's wishes; Reuven, though firstborn, apparently was never taught how best to lead and repeatedly used his authority poorly.
Later on we had King David, a warrior-poet and prophet. Yet for all of his prowess in battle and rulership he was remarkably lenient with his own sons, and suffered for it. Several of his sons rose up in rebellion against him; his son Amnon raped his own half-sister. Regarding Adoniyahu, who tried to usurp the throne from his brother Shlomo (Solomon) as David lay dying, the narrative says, "His father had never in all his days saddened him, saying 'Why have you done this?' " And Adoniyahu was born after the rebel Avshalom, so it seems that David had not taken the lesson to heart.
When it came time for him to decide the succession, he promised the kingship to the son of Bathsheva, before he was actually born! That Shlomo turned out to be a good ruler was due more to Divine intervention than anything else; yet even so, he was far too wise for his own good. And again, though Shlomo had 300 wives and presumably many sons, he chose as his successor Rechavam, who was so monumentally stupid as to say to his new subjects, "My father beat you with whips; I shall beat you with scorpions!" During his rule, the Northern Kingdom split off and became a perpetual breeding-ground of idolatry.
This chronic inability to pass on wisdom and security from one generation to the next was mirrored by the greater society. The Jews passed through seemingly endless cycles of descent into idolatry and the fertility cults; and God would threaten them with destruction at the hands of their enemies, at which point there would usually be a return to the Torah. Yet there came a point when this was no longer good enough, when the rot had set in too deeply. That point came during the rule of Menashe, descendent of Hizqiyahu (Hezekiah).
Hizqiyahu is widely praised by the rabbinic tradition, who hold that he merited to be the Messiah had the time been right. He oversaw a religious revival, fighting against the encroaching religion of Assyria. Yet he retained the Assyrian methods of organization and strong central government, which were useful for a monarch; and the upper class all spoke Assyrian more often than Hebrew. Hizqiyahu's son Menashe apparently learned the wrong lesson, for when he took power he began a 55-year campaign to eradicate Judaism and set up the Assyrian cults in its place.
Here, the prophets warned that something had changed. God had decreed that Judah would be destroyed and sent into exile, and could only be swayed to mercy by a total, all-encompassing return to Judaism such as had never happened in our history. Even the reign of Yoshiyahu (Josiah), renowned for his righteousness, only delayed the inevitable for the period of his lifetime. After he died, the Babylonians invaded.
Here it gets interesting. For though Jeremiah the prophet warned against resisting the Babylonians, most of the Jews were adamant in their opposition, continuing to fight even while suffering defeat after defeat. Jeremiah knew that the society as a whole was too diseased to merit rescue, and that the fervent nationalism of the people sprung more from reflex than any real moral and ethical vitality. He was proved right after the diplomat Gedaliah was placed as administrator over Judah for the Babylonians. Nationalists in the army assassinated Gedaliah and all of those with him, and then murdered a passing caravan of pilgrims for good measure, dropping the bodies into the city well and totally filling it up.
At this, the Babylonians razed almost all of Judah and exiled most of its inhabitants. The nationalists were allowed to escape into Egypt, where they became mercenaries and sunk into the worst sorts of heresies. Such was the character of their fervor.
*********
Unless a society can consistently propogate its beliefs and principles to future generations, it will inevitably decay. There may well be an appearance of vigor, and often a prideful nationalism, yet it is ultimately built on sand. For the defenders of such a society are defending nothing deeper or more profound than the status quo, once they have lost contact with the principles around which their nation was formed in the first place.
This, perhaps, is the fatal flaw of democracy. Democracy holds no special reverence for tradition and history; such things quickly become irrelevant. Indeed, this ahistoricism is the source for much of democracy's appeal, given the sheer number of evil traditions in the world. Regardless, what must inevitably result is a society dedicated to nothing more than the needs of the moment, rather than any historical legacy or morality. Consider the overwhelming importance of the national economy in American politics, compared to the deafening silence greeting the rise in illegitimacy.
Can democracies endure? Probably. Can they endure as moral societies? I wonder.
10/02/2005
Sobering Reading
Go read this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Charles Murray. In it, he examines the growth of what he calls the underclass, i.e. the part of the population that habitually commits crime. One key passage:
What does Murray mean by "unsocialized"? Later on, he draws a clear connection between the level of criminality and the rate of illegitimate birth, currently over 35% in America and 68% in the black population. He asserts that the problem is with childrn growing up without fathers, but brings little support to back up his assertion. This is too bad, because there is a lot of research out there he could have pointed to. (You can find a sampling of them cited here.)
I remember reading about one study, which unfortunately I can't find references to on Google. If memory serves, the study was looking at the reactions of young girls (about 6 years old or thereabouts). Each girl would sit opposite from a middle-aged man (part of the staff), and each would be given a bowl of ice cream—but only the girl would be given a spoon. As the girl starts eating, the man would say, "I can't eat my ice cream without a spoon." Now, either the girl could continue eating as if he had not spoken, or else she could lend him her spoon so that he can eat first (presumably demonstrating greater empathy and decency).
The researchers found that girls with active fathers overwhelmingly offered the man their spoons, while girls without active fathers overwhelmingly ignored him.
What will our staggering illegitimacy rate mean for us in ten years, or twenty? Part of what makes a democracy work is that citizens agree to a certain set of norms; otherwise, people simply try to abuse the system and the whole edifice breaks down. Is that what we have in store for us?
The crime rate has been dropping for 13 years. But the proportion of young men who grow up unsocialized and who, given the opportunity, commit crimes, has not.The difference is that now, we lock up our criminals for far longer periods, preventing them from preying on the rest of us until they get out. Today there are more than 2 million prison inmates.
A rough operational measure of criminality is the percentage of the population under correctional supervision. This is less sensitive to changes in correctional fashion than imprisonment rates, since people convicted of a crime get some sort of correctional supervision regardless of the political climate. When Ronald Reagan took office, 0.9% of the population was under correctional supervision. That figure has continued to rise. When crime began to fall in 1992, it stood at 1.9%. In 2003 it was 2.4%. Crime has dropped, but criminality has continued to rise.
What does Murray mean by "unsocialized"? Later on, he draws a clear connection between the level of criminality and the rate of illegitimate birth, currently over 35% in America and 68% in the black population. He asserts that the problem is with childrn growing up without fathers, but brings little support to back up his assertion. This is too bad, because there is a lot of research out there he could have pointed to. (You can find a sampling of them cited here.)
I remember reading about one study, which unfortunately I can't find references to on Google. If memory serves, the study was looking at the reactions of young girls (about 6 years old or thereabouts). Each girl would sit opposite from a middle-aged man (part of the staff), and each would be given a bowl of ice cream—but only the girl would be given a spoon. As the girl starts eating, the man would say, "I can't eat my ice cream without a spoon." Now, either the girl could continue eating as if he had not spoken, or else she could lend him her spoon so that he can eat first (presumably demonstrating greater empathy and decency).
The researchers found that girls with active fathers overwhelmingly offered the man their spoons, while girls without active fathers overwhelmingly ignored him.
What will our staggering illegitimacy rate mean for us in ten years, or twenty? Part of what makes a democracy work is that citizens agree to a certain set of norms; otherwise, people simply try to abuse the system and the whole edifice breaks down. Is that what we have in store for us?
9/29/2005
Educational Feudalism
I apologize for the sparse posting of late, as I do have to do school research every once in a while. (Shocking, but true…) Most recently I have been researching the general issue of school choice, focusing in on vouchers, charter schools, and school districting. One point in particular has me absolutely horrified.
Not having gone to public school, I had naively assumed that students could attend any public school within their school district. In fact, the districts themselves are carved up into geographical blocs for each school. Students are assigned to one particular school based on where they live; it is possible to request admission to another school, but there must be special circumstances and the status quo is very much against the student asking to transfer.
According the the numbers I have seen, only 25% of students go to "schools of choice," i.e. schools to which they were not assigned. This includes the 11% of students who attend private school; so only about 15% of public school students have chosen their school (often via magnet schools, charter schools, etc). The other 85% attend the school to which they have been geographically assigned.
Is it any surprise that people speak of "escaping" poor schools? If a school provides a poor education, most students have no choice but to suck it up and accept the destruction of their dreams for the future. This is a classic government-mandated monopoly, where the fate of our children is written in the very earth on which they live, much like that of the feudal serfs of old. To escape the educational liegelord is admittedly easier now than was escaping the real nobles of old, but not much.
This guarantees that wealthier families will be forced to move away from poorer neighborhoods in search of decent educations for their children. The emergence of gentrification on the one hand, and poverty-stricken ghettos on the other, is due in large part to this indefensible partitioning of our cities into those areas assured of decent schools, and those denied them.
To allow students to attend any public school in their district should be an obvious move. It forces the schools to compete against each other, while not reducing the resources of the district as a whole. It also makes no statement on educational or political philosophy as do voucher programs and the like, aside from an antipathy to the emergence of petty fiefdoms who lord it over our children. (If we are to have fiefdoms, they should at least be BIG fiefdoms; it's the American way…) Moreover, it reduces the desperate need for families to move out of certain neighborhoods because of the abysmal schools there.
Can anyone think of a reason why any thinking person, of any political party, would oppose ending this geographic segregation?
Not having gone to public school, I had naively assumed that students could attend any public school within their school district. In fact, the districts themselves are carved up into geographical blocs for each school. Students are assigned to one particular school based on where they live; it is possible to request admission to another school, but there must be special circumstances and the status quo is very much against the student asking to transfer.
According the the numbers I have seen, only 25% of students go to "schools of choice," i.e. schools to which they were not assigned. This includes the 11% of students who attend private school; so only about 15% of public school students have chosen their school (often via magnet schools, charter schools, etc). The other 85% attend the school to which they have been geographically assigned.
Is it any surprise that people speak of "escaping" poor schools? If a school provides a poor education, most students have no choice but to suck it up and accept the destruction of their dreams for the future. This is a classic government-mandated monopoly, where the fate of our children is written in the very earth on which they live, much like that of the feudal serfs of old. To escape the educational liegelord is admittedly easier now than was escaping the real nobles of old, but not much.
This guarantees that wealthier families will be forced to move away from poorer neighborhoods in search of decent educations for their children. The emergence of gentrification on the one hand, and poverty-stricken ghettos on the other, is due in large part to this indefensible partitioning of our cities into those areas assured of decent schools, and those denied them.
To allow students to attend any public school in their district should be an obvious move. It forces the schools to compete against each other, while not reducing the resources of the district as a whole. It also makes no statement on educational or political philosophy as do voucher programs and the like, aside from an antipathy to the emergence of petty fiefdoms who lord it over our children. (If we are to have fiefdoms, they should at least be BIG fiefdoms; it's the American way…) Moreover, it reduces the desperate need for families to move out of certain neighborhoods because of the abysmal schools there.
Can anyone think of a reason why any thinking person, of any political party, would oppose ending this geographic segregation?
9/23/2005
Transhumanism
Our ability to manipulate DNA is growing at a nearly-exponential rate. We are getting better at sequencing genomes, or mapping out new strands of DNA. One year ago, it cost about $10 million to sequence a human genome. Today it costs about $2 million. The hope is to reduce the cost to about $1000, making it feasible to sequence the genome of every hospital patient and make tailormade treatments possible. This is projected to happen within a decade at most.
At the same time, we are getting better at altering DNA. The most promising technique, using retroviruses, would ideally let doctors modify the DNA of every cell in your body with a single injection. We are years away from that stage, but moving closer all the time. Soon, we will need to decide what genetic modifications are ethical, and what modifications are monstrous.
Most people would agree that genetically-inherited conditions should be eliminated once we get the chance. Doing so would alleviate much misery in the world. But why stop there? The human body is not perfect, after all. Why not make a few tweaks that could make the world a much better place, even if we are messing with our basic makeup?
That's the basic idea behind Transhumanism, a movement built around the idea of using advancing technology to design a new and better human. This means not only genetics but nanotechnology and cybernetics as well; but genetic modification hits closer to home, being a fundamental alteration in the very stuff of our bodies. But the benefits of doing so could be tremendous.
One prominent work arising from Transhumanism is Edward Smith's Catalogue of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws. The first several entries all address the endless growth and replacement of human skin, nails, and hair. This wastes energy and organic material, produces dust and dead cells that are fertile soil for bacteria and microbes, and is the major cause of our need to constantly clean ourselves and our clothing. Smith proposes that these processes should be rewired so that they are controlled consciously by the frontal lobe, and can be turned on and off as needed. Doing so would save vast amounts of water now used for washing, ease the strain on our bodies, and make diseases much less common (as well as nearly eliminating problems of body odor).
What's not to like?
Of course, later entries in the Catalogue go off into more bizarre territory, such as altering the bone structure of the neck, shoulders, and fingers for greater range of motion. These and other categories represent not minor gains in efficiency but fundamental alterations to the human body. And to be honest, even the more extreme entries on the list are quite tame, compared to what we could do once we can manipulate the genetic code as well. As Smith himself states:
How can we reap the benefits, while escaping the terrible dangers?
At the same time, we are getting better at altering DNA. The most promising technique, using retroviruses, would ideally let doctors modify the DNA of every cell in your body with a single injection. We are years away from that stage, but moving closer all the time. Soon, we will need to decide what genetic modifications are ethical, and what modifications are monstrous.
Most people would agree that genetically-inherited conditions should be eliminated once we get the chance. Doing so would alleviate much misery in the world. But why stop there? The human body is not perfect, after all. Why not make a few tweaks that could make the world a much better place, even if we are messing with our basic makeup?
That's the basic idea behind Transhumanism, a movement built around the idea of using advancing technology to design a new and better human. This means not only genetics but nanotechnology and cybernetics as well; but genetic modification hits closer to home, being a fundamental alteration in the very stuff of our bodies. But the benefits of doing so could be tremendous.
One prominent work arising from Transhumanism is Edward Smith's Catalogue of Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws. The first several entries all address the endless growth and replacement of human skin, nails, and hair. This wastes energy and organic material, produces dust and dead cells that are fertile soil for bacteria and microbes, and is the major cause of our need to constantly clean ourselves and our clothing. Smith proposes that these processes should be rewired so that they are controlled consciously by the frontal lobe, and can be turned on and off as needed. Doing so would save vast amounts of water now used for washing, ease the strain on our bodies, and make diseases much less common (as well as nearly eliminating problems of body odor).
What's not to like?
Of course, later entries in the Catalogue go off into more bizarre territory, such as altering the bone structure of the neck, shoulders, and fingers for greater range of motion. These and other categories represent not minor gains in efficiency but fundamental alterations to the human body. And to be honest, even the more extreme entries on the list are quite tame, compared to what we could do once we can manipulate the genetic code as well. As Smith himself states:
It is important to first focus on corrections rather than enhancements, the reason being that corrections are limited in their scope (there are most likely only 40-50 possible corrections) and mostly benefit an individual by themself, whereas enhancements are virtually unlimited in their scope, are mostly beneficial to an individual in competition with others, and/or are prone to abuse. Pursuing the latter traits may thus touch off a rash of socially mutually-destructive genetic competition if it is not clear that such enhancements must only be made with the most rightful and socially responsible of intentions, as characterized by the geneticly-determined character of the enhanced beings…The further a trait falls toward the enhancement end of the spectrum, particularly in the case of competitive enhancements, the more dangerous it is, and thus the more rightful it's bearer's temperament must be.As frightening as it is, we are on the verge of entering a world in which we can redesign ourselves from the bottom up—or be redesigned. Yet this is not simply about physical traits; wherever you fall in the nature/nurture debate, it is clear that genetics play some role in the formation of our character. How long can it be before a loving parent decides to reengineer an unruly son to make him more managable? Or before a tyrannical government does the same to its populace?
How can we reap the benefits, while escaping the terrible dangers?
9/21/2005
Pork and Broken Windows
Apropos of the effort by N.Z. Bear, Instapundit and many others to have bloggers identify pork legislation in their congressional districts, and then to lobby their congresscritters to give the pork up to help fund hurricane relief, the people at Samizdata are debating what exactly is defined as pork, especially in light of the new NASA program to return to the moon.
In the comments, one person asked whether the focus on pork was worth it, given that it takes attention away from inefficient spending in the "legitimate" government programs that ends up wasting far more money than pork ever can. He cites the rampant mismanagement of our health-care programs as an example, which wastes tens of billions of dollars annually.
Commenter Julian Morrison responds:
Second (and this is just my speculation), it is a status symbol among other congressman because it demonstrates your power to interfere with the budgeting process, and divert Federal money to purposeless programs of your devising. Essentially, pork would be the elected official's version of conspicuous consumption, with legislators competing to waste the most money just to show that they can.
Overly cynical? Possibly. But it remains true that pork is seemingly wasteful by design, and disrespectful to the fiduciary duty of our congressmen to the electorate. We have enough problems with cash flow that we don't need to invent more of them.
In the comments, one person asked whether the focus on pork was worth it, given that it takes attention away from inefficient spending in the "legitimate" government programs that ends up wasting far more money than pork ever can. He cites the rampant mismanagement of our health-care programs as an example, which wastes tens of billions of dollars annually.
Commenter Julian Morrison responds:
Is non-pork waste worse? I'm not so sure. Monetarily, yes. But I propose by analogy to the theory of "broken windows policing", that pork is worse because it's openly corrupt. Therefore, it erodes the moral base of the other sorts of government spending and as a result, makes it infinitely harder to argue a case against other spending.It seems to me, as I read about the kinds of pork programs that are slipped in by congressmen, that most have very little practical value. Bridges to nowhere, John P. Senator Memorial Nature Trails—some of them cannot even be said to advance the interests of particular factions or wealthy donors. (Not many, true.) Rather, I suspect that for many congressman, pork projects are simply a status symbol. First, you get to plaster your name over a permanent feature of the landscape; Robert Byrd is notorious for this, as the West Virginia road system has his name on signs practically everwhere you look.
To put that another way: money spent dependent on a moral and reasoned case, can be stopped by proving the countercase. But when the public is habituated to seeing money spent "just because" and to feed vested interests, no countercase finds traction.
Second (and this is just my speculation), it is a status symbol among other congressman because it demonstrates your power to interfere with the budgeting process, and divert Federal money to purposeless programs of your devising. Essentially, pork would be the elected official's version of conspicuous consumption, with legislators competing to waste the most money just to show that they can.
Overly cynical? Possibly. But it remains true that pork is seemingly wasteful by design, and disrespectful to the fiduciary duty of our congressmen to the electorate. We have enough problems with cash flow that we don't need to invent more of them.
Global Warming—On Mars?
The JPL probe Global Surveyor has been orbiting Mars for the last nine years, allowing scientists to collect detailed information about changes in the Martian geography. They have been surprised to find that the Martian surface is much more active than previously thought. In particular:
In all seriousness, scientists specializing in climate change here on Earth had better find a way to account for the new data, if they can find the time in between ranting about methane emissions and SUV's. I'm all for eliminating harmful emissions, especially if we can do that by transitioning away from petroleum, but we need to keep a sense of perspective. If much of the climate change we are experiencing is not due to human action, nor can it be reversed by human action, then economic development becomes all the more vital. Only advances in technology will give us the tools we need to thrive in a changing climate, and those advances will come more slowly if general economic activity is choked off by Kyotoesque government controls.
[F]or three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.Anybody burning fossil fuels on Mars that we don't know about?
In all seriousness, scientists specializing in climate change here on Earth had better find a way to account for the new data, if they can find the time in between ranting about methane emissions and SUV's. I'm all for eliminating harmful emissions, especially if we can do that by transitioning away from petroleum, but we need to keep a sense of perspective. If much of the climate change we are experiencing is not due to human action, nor can it be reversed by human action, then economic development becomes all the more vital. Only advances in technology will give us the tools we need to thrive in a changing climate, and those advances will come more slowly if general economic activity is choked off by Kyotoesque government controls.
9/19/2005
While We're Waiting for Serenity…
[Blogging has been light lately while I introduce my roommate to the joys of "Firefly." As long as I'm on that general theme, here's a little something I wrote two summers ago that I rather like.]
Fidelis
I am snug in the chamber,
waiting for the jolt against my back
that will launch me forward. How long will I wait?
A week? A year? Fifty? I was born
for glory, to be sent on wings of fire
to do the work of a lifetime in one
instant.
For what cause will I be used?
I hope that it is just. Perhaps I will strike down
a murderer, or a would-be rapist.
(I hope that such a one does not
use me instead. The indignity of it
would be unspeakable.)
I am a knight of lead and brass,
honored with the noble task
of making all men equal.
That duty is mine, and I gladly wait
for the moment when the hammer strikes
and I fly off into destiny.
Fidelis
I am snug in the chamber,
waiting for the jolt against my back
that will launch me forward. How long will I wait?
A week? A year? Fifty? I was born
for glory, to be sent on wings of fire
to do the work of a lifetime in one
instant.
For what cause will I be used?
I hope that it is just. Perhaps I will strike down
a murderer, or a would-be rapist.
(I hope that such a one does not
use me instead. The indignity of it
would be unspeakable.)
I am a knight of lead and brass,
honored with the noble task
of making all men equal.
That duty is mine, and I gladly wait
for the moment when the hammer strikes
and I fly off into destiny.
9/15/2005
Senators, Reconsidered
As the Roberts nomination hearings drag on and people get a chance to see just how stupid and pompous many senators are, on both sides of the aisle, a lot of people have begun thinking about the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for direct election of senators. Some are now saying that this was a bad thing, and would like it repealed.
Some history is in order, since almost nobody knows how senators were chosen at first. Originally, the only body of government that was elected by the people was the House of Representatives; the president was elected by specially-chosen delegates to the Electoral College, of course, but senators were sent to Washington by the various state legislatures. Often the Senator would be a powerful former member of the state legislature; just as often he would be a tool of more powerful members of the legislature. But it is significant that the more powerful house of Congress was filled with people intimately connected to and responsible to the state governments.
At present, the state governments have practically no input into the workings of the Federal government, particularly not with respect to the formation of law. It is unsurprising that Congress frequently offers huge Federal grants to the states on the condition that they change their laws to match what their betters in Washington desire. In effect, Congress is now dictating policy to the states on a regular basis. This would not happen so often if the state governments themselves chose their senators.
(Indeed, that was the intention of the original arrangement. The Senate is primarily arranged to protect the rights of individual states, with equal representation for each government instead of for each citizen.)
At any rate, because senators are now subject to the people instead of their legislatures, instead of being an elite of the elites, many have the same general characteristics as most of their compatriots in the House: cheap populism and parochialism. This is something of an unfair libel; yet while once the Senate was known as a seat of skillful oratory, now Senate proceedings are boring and forgettable. I challenge my readers to come up with one quoteworthy speech from the last twenty years on a legislative issue…
For myself, I would much prefer that the 17th Amendment were repealed. It would refocus voters' attention back to the state legislatures, many of which have taken the opportunity granted by their relative unimportance to become backward, corrupt cesspools of political idiocy of the first order. But I would also like the House of Representatives to be abolished entirely and replaced by direct popular voting on legislation, just to make things interesting.
Hmm. I really should upload my paper on that subject.
Some history is in order, since almost nobody knows how senators were chosen at first. Originally, the only body of government that was elected by the people was the House of Representatives; the president was elected by specially-chosen delegates to the Electoral College, of course, but senators were sent to Washington by the various state legislatures. Often the Senator would be a powerful former member of the state legislature; just as often he would be a tool of more powerful members of the legislature. But it is significant that the more powerful house of Congress was filled with people intimately connected to and responsible to the state governments.
At present, the state governments have practically no input into the workings of the Federal government, particularly not with respect to the formation of law. It is unsurprising that Congress frequently offers huge Federal grants to the states on the condition that they change their laws to match what their betters in Washington desire. In effect, Congress is now dictating policy to the states on a regular basis. This would not happen so often if the state governments themselves chose their senators.
(Indeed, that was the intention of the original arrangement. The Senate is primarily arranged to protect the rights of individual states, with equal representation for each government instead of for each citizen.)
At any rate, because senators are now subject to the people instead of their legislatures, instead of being an elite of the elites, many have the same general characteristics as most of their compatriots in the House: cheap populism and parochialism. This is something of an unfair libel; yet while once the Senate was known as a seat of skillful oratory, now Senate proceedings are boring and forgettable. I challenge my readers to come up with one quoteworthy speech from the last twenty years on a legislative issue…
For myself, I would much prefer that the 17th Amendment were repealed. It would refocus voters' attention back to the state legislatures, many of which have taken the opportunity granted by their relative unimportance to become backward, corrupt cesspools of political idiocy of the first order. But I would also like the House of Representatives to be abolished entirely and replaced by direct popular voting on legislation, just to make things interesting.
Hmm. I really should upload my paper on that subject.
9/13/2005
The Decline of Courtship
Several days ago, a friend of mine was reminiscing about how he had sung Ladino courtship songs to girls of his acquaintance, to great effect. From that we moved on to the topic of courtship songs in general. (By "courtship song" I mean a song used by the man to declare his love for a woman, and convince her of the ardor of his love, when the two were not previously involved.) We agreed that courtship as an idea had more or less disappeared from modern music. Its replacements are: pining away from unrequited love (or attraction at any rate), rhapsodizing over a love already established, or focusing on the physical act of sex directly.
(Oddly enough, the one modern music genre where courtship survives is in country-western; and the subjects are usually already married, and seeking to restore a lost love. This stretches my definition, but given the paucity of competition, I'll take it.)
Meanwhile, I went with some friends down to a dance club in the Village. This was a classy place with a cover charge and lavish facilities; the local rock station was doing a live broadcast of the main DJ. Beers were $7; bottles of water were $5. I say this only to make the point that this was not exactly a lower-class establishment, nor should it be written off as an expression of low culture, as opposed to a "real" culture that "average" people have.
The first thing I noticed is that the music was very, very loud. It seemed expressly designed to make conversation impossible. Even if you are in the next room, you cannot hold a conversation without shouting. If speech is no longer available as a means of communication, what is left is physical interaction. In other words, the dancing itself becomes the only real form of communication between strangers.
A word on the dancing. I use the term with some hesitation; several members of my family are dance teachers, and the "bump-and-grind" style now popular does not easily fit into traditional models of dance. My brother describes it, aptly enough, as "sex with clothes on." Generally, the man stands behind the woman or faces her directly. They then press their hips against each other and, well, bump and grind.
One might wonder how it is that complete strangers will become such intimate dance partners, especially when there can be no speaking beforehand. Generally, the man must make an approach and initiate the dance, usually by physical contact. The woman then evaluates the man by his appearance, apparent skill, and the manner of his approach. This can be neither too aggressive, too direct, or too hesitant; it seemed that a casual style was most successful. If the woman finds the man acceptable, she will dance with him. If not, she will turn away or give some other physical cue to get the point across. The whole process is remarkably quick: a man can make an approach, be shot down, and move on to the next prospect within two seconds.
The sexual nature of the encounter is emphasized by the hip-hop lyrics to which people dance. When Allan Bloom was describing rock music as "having one appeal only, a barbaric appeal, to sexual desire," he hadn't seen nuthin' yet. Modern hip-hop lyrics specifically direct dancers to sleep with each other. I mean this literally.
In summary: whereas before people were governed by rules of courtship, which kept the initial stages in the realm of language, nowadays many people want to skip straight to the physical.
What does this mean? I don't know, but I doubt it means anything good. In a time when people are feeling increasingly alienated and isolated, to take refuge in cheap physicality by excluding communication seems only to exacerbate a fundamental problem.
(Oddly enough, the one modern music genre where courtship survives is in country-western; and the subjects are usually already married, and seeking to restore a lost love. This stretches my definition, but given the paucity of competition, I'll take it.)
Meanwhile, I went with some friends down to a dance club in the Village. This was a classy place with a cover charge and lavish facilities; the local rock station was doing a live broadcast of the main DJ. Beers were $7; bottles of water were $5. I say this only to make the point that this was not exactly a lower-class establishment, nor should it be written off as an expression of low culture, as opposed to a "real" culture that "average" people have.
The first thing I noticed is that the music was very, very loud. It seemed expressly designed to make conversation impossible. Even if you are in the next room, you cannot hold a conversation without shouting. If speech is no longer available as a means of communication, what is left is physical interaction. In other words, the dancing itself becomes the only real form of communication between strangers.
A word on the dancing. I use the term with some hesitation; several members of my family are dance teachers, and the "bump-and-grind" style now popular does not easily fit into traditional models of dance. My brother describes it, aptly enough, as "sex with clothes on." Generally, the man stands behind the woman or faces her directly. They then press their hips against each other and, well, bump and grind.
One might wonder how it is that complete strangers will become such intimate dance partners, especially when there can be no speaking beforehand. Generally, the man must make an approach and initiate the dance, usually by physical contact. The woman then evaluates the man by his appearance, apparent skill, and the manner of his approach. This can be neither too aggressive, too direct, or too hesitant; it seemed that a casual style was most successful. If the woman finds the man acceptable, she will dance with him. If not, she will turn away or give some other physical cue to get the point across. The whole process is remarkably quick: a man can make an approach, be shot down, and move on to the next prospect within two seconds.
The sexual nature of the encounter is emphasized by the hip-hop lyrics to which people dance. When Allan Bloom was describing rock music as "having one appeal only, a barbaric appeal, to sexual desire," he hadn't seen nuthin' yet. Modern hip-hop lyrics specifically direct dancers to sleep with each other. I mean this literally.
In summary: whereas before people were governed by rules of courtship, which kept the initial stages in the realm of language, nowadays many people want to skip straight to the physical.
What does this mean? I don't know, but I doubt it means anything good. In a time when people are feeling increasingly alienated and isolated, to take refuge in cheap physicality by excluding communication seems only to exacerbate a fundamental problem.
9/12/2005
Quote of the Day
Here's some context: The Defense Department reports that from 1983 to 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly 2-to-1.—John Hinderaker, writing for the Orlando Sentinel. As he writes earlier in the piece, we as a body of citizens are now engaged in a great experiment: trying to fight a war while ignoring the strategic picture or larger context, and focusing only on our casualties. As to how it will end, only time will tell.
That's right: All through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present.
Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, there was no great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the president's hometown about this much higher death rate. In fact, one is hard-pressed to find any contemporary expression of concern by reporters, politicians or political activists about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.
9/08/2005
Are Progressive Taxes a Good Thing?
The standard wisdom of American politics is that the poor, who have so much less income to work with, should therefore pay proportionally less than others of greater means, i.e. the rich and the middle class. This would seem to be an act of benevolence toward the poor, since they are benefiting from government activity largely thanks to the tax payments of others.
More recently, between the policies of Bill Clinton, the 1996 Republican Congress, and the Bush tax cuts (via adjustments to the lowest tax bracket and the Earned Income Tax Credit), well over a third of American families no longer pay Federal income tax of any kind. These are generally from the poorer end of the population; therefore, the poor are clearly being helped by our tax policy.
But are people really helped by being removed from the tax rolls? Or are they actually being set up for a terrible betrayal by government?
Many have argued at length about the pernicious economic effects of high marginal rates, arguing that a broad tax base would be better for everyone. I would like to examine another side of the argument. Let us consider the Federal government as a rational actor.
Now, at some level the government's policies are constrained by the need to increase tax revenue—perhaps even to maximize revenue. Therefore, the government will more readily pursue policies that will generate more taxes than those generating fewer, let alone those policies decreasing tax revenues. (That this theory only works if our congressmen understand basic economics is, of course, its gaping flaw. But regardless.)
In our present fiscal situation, wealthy people and corporations pay high Federal income taxes, and poorer people pay no income taxes at all or very few. Therefore, it makes sense for our rational actor, the Federal Government, to make laws that give preference to the rich and corporations over the poor, since tax revenues respond much more quickly when the rich get richer than when the poor get less poor. Such additional revenues can naturally be used to succor the same poor that the government has just victimized, making the poor indebted to the government and to the particular elected officials of each district.
Example:
Let's say that millionaires pay 50% average taxes. People making $10,000 a year or less pay nothing. Suppose that a given area has one family who owns a fire-extinguisher company with a gross income of $1,000,000, and 100 family making $10,000. As is, total taxes equal half a million dollars ($500,000).
Some politicians then get a brilliant idea. They pass a law mandating that each family must keep one fire extinguisher in their kitchen, garage, and master bedroom. This law is advanced in the name of public safety: "After all, if it saves just one life…" Fire extinguishers are expensive and require continual maintenance, so each family must now pay $1,000 to the fire-extinguisher company. So now the rich family makes a total of $1,100,000 gross per year, while everyone else is left with $9,000. Tax revenues increase to $550,000 yearly. The rich family's after-tax income also increases $50,000.
Now, government has an extra $50,000 to play with. After spending just half of it (if the town is lucky) on pet projects, the politicians notice that many people are running short on money, and use the remailing $25,000 to fund a government entitlement for the absolute worst off. Say that 50 families receive $500 each.
In short, the rich become richer, the poor become poorer, and government wins both because they get more money to fritter away and because 50 families are now dependent on government's generosity. That the government got them into the situation in the first place will be quickly forgotten.
Is this such an unlikely scenario? Who is it, indeed, that benefits from artificially high argicultural prices, and who is it that must pay them? Who is it that benefits from the horrid patchwork of telecom laws, and who is it that must pay high prices because of them? To my regret, I could go on all day.
Now is this due entirely to the Federal government's skewed cost/benefit situation caused by the "progressive" tax code? I doubt it. But I suspect that if the tax base were indeed broadened so that nearly all families pay a share, no matter how small, we may find that the government suddenly cares much more about the welfare of the poor.
More recently, between the policies of Bill Clinton, the 1996 Republican Congress, and the Bush tax cuts (via adjustments to the lowest tax bracket and the Earned Income Tax Credit), well over a third of American families no longer pay Federal income tax of any kind. These are generally from the poorer end of the population; therefore, the poor are clearly being helped by our tax policy.
But are people really helped by being removed from the tax rolls? Or are they actually being set up for a terrible betrayal by government?
Many have argued at length about the pernicious economic effects of high marginal rates, arguing that a broad tax base would be better for everyone. I would like to examine another side of the argument. Let us consider the Federal government as a rational actor.
Now, at some level the government's policies are constrained by the need to increase tax revenue—perhaps even to maximize revenue. Therefore, the government will more readily pursue policies that will generate more taxes than those generating fewer, let alone those policies decreasing tax revenues. (That this theory only works if our congressmen understand basic economics is, of course, its gaping flaw. But regardless.)
In our present fiscal situation, wealthy people and corporations pay high Federal income taxes, and poorer people pay no income taxes at all or very few. Therefore, it makes sense for our rational actor, the Federal Government, to make laws that give preference to the rich and corporations over the poor, since tax revenues respond much more quickly when the rich get richer than when the poor get less poor. Such additional revenues can naturally be used to succor the same poor that the government has just victimized, making the poor indebted to the government and to the particular elected officials of each district.
Example:
Let's say that millionaires pay 50% average taxes. People making $10,000 a year or less pay nothing. Suppose that a given area has one family who owns a fire-extinguisher company with a gross income of $1,000,000, and 100 family making $10,000. As is, total taxes equal half a million dollars ($500,000).
Some politicians then get a brilliant idea. They pass a law mandating that each family must keep one fire extinguisher in their kitchen, garage, and master bedroom. This law is advanced in the name of public safety: "After all, if it saves just one life…" Fire extinguishers are expensive and require continual maintenance, so each family must now pay $1,000 to the fire-extinguisher company. So now the rich family makes a total of $1,100,000 gross per year, while everyone else is left with $9,000. Tax revenues increase to $550,000 yearly. The rich family's after-tax income also increases $50,000.
Now, government has an extra $50,000 to play with. After spending just half of it (if the town is lucky) on pet projects, the politicians notice that many people are running short on money, and use the remailing $25,000 to fund a government entitlement for the absolute worst off. Say that 50 families receive $500 each.
In short, the rich become richer, the poor become poorer, and government wins both because they get more money to fritter away and because 50 families are now dependent on government's generosity. That the government got them into the situation in the first place will be quickly forgotten.
Is this such an unlikely scenario? Who is it, indeed, that benefits from artificially high argicultural prices, and who is it that must pay them? Who is it that benefits from the horrid patchwork of telecom laws, and who is it that must pay high prices because of them? To my regret, I could go on all day.
Now is this due entirely to the Federal government's skewed cost/benefit situation caused by the "progressive" tax code? I doubt it. But I suspect that if the tax base were indeed broadened so that nearly all families pay a share, no matter how small, we may find that the government suddenly cares much more about the welfare of the poor.
Comments Update
Blogger has enabled word-verification anti-spam control on comments, which means that I can give open comments another shot. (And there was much rejoicing...)
9/05/2005
Comments Restricted
I hate to do this, but the spammers have pushed me over the edge. Until I figure out if Blogger allows me to delete spam comments, people will need to log into Blogger to comment. I'll be looking into setting up a guest Blogger account for people without their own accounts, but until I do, you're stuck. Sorry.
I'm beginning to think that spammers should be declared "digital outlaws," i.e. any form of hacking or other electronic attack against them would be without legal penalty. This is getting ridiculous. I mean, my blog usually gets less than 20 hits a day! If they're spamming me, they've got to be spamming everyone. The h*** with that!
I'm beginning to think that spammers should be declared "digital outlaws," i.e. any form of hacking or other electronic attack against them would be without legal penalty. This is getting ridiculous. I mean, my blog usually gets less than 20 hits a day! If they're spamming me, they've got to be spamming everyone. The h*** with that!
Poetry Analysis
I had come across an absolutely staggering poem on Belmont Club some months ago and felt a need to do a critical response. I never got around to it until today, when Wretchard linked to it again. This poem by Judyth Hill was apparently hailed by the peace movement as a thing of beauty. Here it is:
Aside from that, it's such mind-numbingly bad poetry I don't even know where to begin. But Ms. Hill has suffered for her art, and now it is my turn.
Breathe in… breathe out
I am a big believer in proper breathing to promote tranquility, but this is ridiculous. Even being generous and assuming that Ms. Hill is using this phrase metaphorically, still the proper response to bloodshed is not to imagine that it never happened. Continuing with the specific pairings used, we see the understandible pair of rubble and buildings, but every other pairing is unexpected and verges on the bizarre. I do not know what firemen have to do with red-winged blackbirds, nor confusion with maple trees. This whole section seems like a giant non sequitor.
Wage peace…
This phrase, once startling in its unexpectedness, is now tired and stale. Besides, one does not "wage peace." Peace is defined an absence of conflict, and thus would not be "waged" at all. Of course, this is the major flaw of the peacenik camp. They assume that if we simply struggle for peace hard enough, it can happen. There is no such thing as a necessary war, or even (gasp) an inevitable war, because love and soothing folk music will conquer all.
Remember your tools: flower seeds, clothes pins, clean rivers.
Riiiight. "If all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." (And isn't "clean rivers" a goal, rather than a tool?) None of these "tools" are fit to do any of the hard work that the world actually needs. At the very least they could have been cucumber seeds… Reasonable people seek out the tools needed for the job at hand. They do not begin with a tool and work outward.
"…memorize the words for thank you in three languages."
I know the words for "thank you" in six languages that I can think of. It does not make me a better person.
Think of chaos as dancing raspberries,
imagine grief
as the outbreath of beauty or the gesture of fish.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The only time I have ever seen fish make a gesture, or anything remotely close, is when they are eating food or else attacking other fish. I suspect that Ms. Hill's metaphors are getting away from her.
Act as if armistice has already arrived.
No. That is the best way I know to ensure that the armistice will never arrive in truth. The way to end wars is either to win, lose or draw; in any event the choice must be made. As Berthold Brecht said, "What if they held a war and nobody came? Why, then the war would come to you."
The good thing about having ideological opponents who also tend towards the fine arts is that every so often, one of them will produce such a monumental piece of self-parody as this.
Wage peace with your breath.In short, the prescription for dealing with war and destruction is to ignore it, to visualize yourself in some homespun fairyland where good, cleansing breaths can change the world. How precious.
Breathe in firemen and rubble,
breathe out whole buildings and flocks of red wing blackbirds.
Breathe in terrorists
and breathe out sleeping children and freshly mown fields.
Breathe in confusion and breathe out maple trees.
Breathe in the fallen and breathe out lifelong friendships intact.
Wage peace with your listening: hearing sirens, pray loud.
Remember your tools: flower seeds, clothes pins, clean rivers.
Make soup.
Play music, memorize the words for thank you in three languages.
Learn to knit, and make a hat.
Think of chaos as dancing raspberries,
imagine grief
as the outbreath of beauty or the gesture of fish.
Swim for the other side.
Wage peace.
Never has the world seemed so fresh and precious:
Have a cup of tea and rejoice.
Act as if armistice has already arrived.
Celebrate today.
Aside from that, it's such mind-numbingly bad poetry I don't even know where to begin. But Ms. Hill has suffered for her art, and now it is my turn.
Breathe in… breathe out
I am a big believer in proper breathing to promote tranquility, but this is ridiculous. Even being generous and assuming that Ms. Hill is using this phrase metaphorically, still the proper response to bloodshed is not to imagine that it never happened. Continuing with the specific pairings used, we see the understandible pair of rubble and buildings, but every other pairing is unexpected and verges on the bizarre. I do not know what firemen have to do with red-winged blackbirds, nor confusion with maple trees. This whole section seems like a giant non sequitor.
Wage peace…
This phrase, once startling in its unexpectedness, is now tired and stale. Besides, one does not "wage peace." Peace is defined an absence of conflict, and thus would not be "waged" at all. Of course, this is the major flaw of the peacenik camp. They assume that if we simply struggle for peace hard enough, it can happen. There is no such thing as a necessary war, or even (gasp) an inevitable war, because love and soothing folk music will conquer all.
Remember your tools: flower seeds, clothes pins, clean rivers.
Riiiight. "If all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." (And isn't "clean rivers" a goal, rather than a tool?) None of these "tools" are fit to do any of the hard work that the world actually needs. At the very least they could have been cucumber seeds… Reasonable people seek out the tools needed for the job at hand. They do not begin with a tool and work outward.
"…memorize the words for thank you in three languages."
I know the words for "thank you" in six languages that I can think of. It does not make me a better person.
Think of chaos as dancing raspberries,
imagine grief
as the outbreath of beauty or the gesture of fish.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The only time I have ever seen fish make a gesture, or anything remotely close, is when they are eating food or else attacking other fish. I suspect that Ms. Hill's metaphors are getting away from her.
Act as if armistice has already arrived.
No. That is the best way I know to ensure that the armistice will never arrive in truth. The way to end wars is either to win, lose or draw; in any event the choice must be made. As Berthold Brecht said, "What if they held a war and nobody came? Why, then the war would come to you."
The good thing about having ideological opponents who also tend towards the fine arts is that every so often, one of them will produce such a monumental piece of self-parody as this.
The Reciprocating Effect of Political Extremism
One of the more common activities within the political blogosphere, on both sides of the political divide, is to gloat/agonize over a statement by someone on the other side that demonstrates inhuman callousness or simple evil, the better to demonize the associated political faction. Examples: Air America host Randi Rhodes says that President Bush "takes a lot of joy" from seeing dead Democrats, while the Reverend Bill Shanks says that New Orleans had it coming for being morally corrupt. There are countless other examples of such things, and the reactions from the other side, from every single event of political consequence in the last several years; it is a pattern that we in the blogosphere have grown used to.
One thing I have noticed for a while is that very often, a heinous bit of drivel will often inspire similarly heinous responses. Consider this (depressingly familiar) hypothetical: a conservative/liberal site will quote a liberal/conservative pundit saying that all Republicans/Democrats are evil. Commenters go in a frenzy, soon slipping into blanket condemnations of all liberals/conservatives for being evil. Thus, what begins as a way of castigating the other side for violating standards of simple decency in political discussion will end by infecting your own side with the same sort of extreme us-vs.-them Manichaean dogma.
This is not an argument for moral relativism. When two sides are in conflict, one must necessarily be superior to the other. But people should be careful not to let this sort of ideological backwash contaminate their own thinking, or influence their decisions. The fact is that the majority of both parties is made up of decent people. On the other hand, it is to the shame of the Democratic Party that instead of marginalizing this sort of extremism (as the Republicans did to Pat Buchanan, David Duke, or even Trent Lott for a much less serious offense), the Democrats have instead embraced it. Consider the implausibiliy of RNC chairman Ken Mehlman ever saying, "I hate Democrats and all that they stand for," and then consider that DNC chairman Howard Dean said precisely that about Republicans!
I think, though, this has much to do with being the party out of power. During the Clinton years, Republicans were rather nasty in their own right. Indeed, much of what made me a supporter of the Democrats back then was the vitriol coming from the Right (along with a simplistic acceptance of NPR's reporting…), just as I tend to oppose the Democrats now because of the blatant derangement of their national leadership, to say nothing of the hard-core grassroots.
But what I see now is an incredibly dangerous effect of the instant communication that the Internet allows. Because everyone can now see the worst that a given faction has to offer in real time, it becomes very easy to judge that entire faction on the basis of its most vile members. This inspires a hardening of one's own positions in response. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. Is it any surprise that many speak of an emerging ideological civil war in America, a rending of the social fabric?
Now, members of the other side must be opposed by any means necessary regardless of the costs, simply because the other side is Darkness Incarnate. Worse, by allowing our thoughts to be shaped by such hatred, we become a little bit more like what we despise. This of course makes the problem all the more acute.
What can be done? Are we past the point where simple decency can win the day?
One thing I have noticed for a while is that very often, a heinous bit of drivel will often inspire similarly heinous responses. Consider this (depressingly familiar) hypothetical: a conservative/liberal site will quote a liberal/conservative pundit saying that all Republicans/Democrats are evil. Commenters go in a frenzy, soon slipping into blanket condemnations of all liberals/conservatives for being evil. Thus, what begins as a way of castigating the other side for violating standards of simple decency in political discussion will end by infecting your own side with the same sort of extreme us-vs.-them Manichaean dogma.
This is not an argument for moral relativism. When two sides are in conflict, one must necessarily be superior to the other. But people should be careful not to let this sort of ideological backwash contaminate their own thinking, or influence their decisions. The fact is that the majority of both parties is made up of decent people. On the other hand, it is to the shame of the Democratic Party that instead of marginalizing this sort of extremism (as the Republicans did to Pat Buchanan, David Duke, or even Trent Lott for a much less serious offense), the Democrats have instead embraced it. Consider the implausibiliy of RNC chairman Ken Mehlman ever saying, "I hate Democrats and all that they stand for," and then consider that DNC chairman Howard Dean said precisely that about Republicans!
I think, though, this has much to do with being the party out of power. During the Clinton years, Republicans were rather nasty in their own right. Indeed, much of what made me a supporter of the Democrats back then was the vitriol coming from the Right (along with a simplistic acceptance of NPR's reporting…), just as I tend to oppose the Democrats now because of the blatant derangement of their national leadership, to say nothing of the hard-core grassroots.
But what I see now is an incredibly dangerous effect of the instant communication that the Internet allows. Because everyone can now see the worst that a given faction has to offer in real time, it becomes very easy to judge that entire faction on the basis of its most vile members. This inspires a hardening of one's own positions in response. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. Is it any surprise that many speak of an emerging ideological civil war in America, a rending of the social fabric?
Now, members of the other side must be opposed by any means necessary regardless of the costs, simply because the other side is Darkness Incarnate. Worse, by allowing our thoughts to be shaped by such hatred, we become a little bit more like what we despise. This of course makes the problem all the more acute.
What can be done? Are we past the point where simple decency can win the day?
Pink vs. Gray
Bill Whittle, Hollywood screenwriter and essayist of such power and eloquence as to make grown men weep, has been watching the nation's reaction to New Orleans, and he is mad. Read his new essay on Tribes, if you do nothing else this week.
9/01/2005
The Ethics of Martial Law
As time drags on after the initial impact of Katrina and much of New Orleans remains without power and resupply, looting is intensifying. Not only are foodstuffs and survival goods being looted (which could be defended on the basis of pikuach nefesh [acting to save life], provided that you are not actually taking the goods from people who need them), but jewelry stores, electronics stores, and even hospitals and pharmacies. Much of the rescue effort in the city has been halted after rescuers came under fire from roving gangs.
After some hesitation, the Mayor of New Orleans has now resolved to clear out the looters. Martial law was declared, and at this moment several thousand police officers from Louisiana and surrounding states are taking positions outside the city. According to a member of The High Road who is being mobilized, officers have been instructed to take as much food and ammunition as they can carry. Looters will be brought under control by any means necessary; police officers who engage in looting themselves are to be shot on sight. (Sadly, many New Orleans cops have apparently joined the looting instead of enforcing order; New Orleans has a reputation for corrupt police, but this is despicable.)
This has sparked widespread debates on the morality of using deadly force on looters. On the one hand, theft is not generally considered an offense meriting death, unless it involves an attack on someone present at the time; the assumption is that the victim is being threatened with deadly force, and may respond in kind. But in this case, much of the looting is taking place in abandoned shops; the looters are apparently quite courteous to each other, and there is no direct danger from their actions. (Naturally, those looters breaking into occupied hospitals and nursing homes and attacking the patients would merit lethal force according to most reasonable judgements.) What grounds would the police or individuals have for killing such nonviolent looters?
The argument for martial law holds that in times of anarchy, even crimes against property contribute to the general atmosphere of lawlessness, which in the extreme case will seem to excuse violence against innocents. Many reporters and people on the scene speak of the feeling of "entitlement" shared by most of the looters, or a desire to "fight the Man." Since Katrina hit just before the end of the month, many welfare recipients lacked the money to evacuate the city entirely; a disproportionate number of these have this sense of entitlement, and have resorted to violence in the past few days when their depradations are opposed. In an environment such as this, all means must be taken to restore order, even if particular individuals may "only" be stealing.
Jewish law recognizes the need for emergency power to kill. A little-known facet of death-penalty law is that the capital crimes listed in the Torah, as well as the elaborate rules regarding when execution is allowed, are only a baseline. The Sanhedrin retained broad discretion to kill criminals under emergency conditions, even when the law would normally forbid it. A classic case was Shimon ben Shetach's execution of the seventy witches of Ashkelon on the same day, despite the prohibition against holding multiple executions on one day.
The police will apparently use means short of lethal force when possible, but will not hesitate to kill if necessary. I expect the casualties to mount into the hundreds, and I see no better option than what is about to happen. Indeed, if martial law had been declared from the beginning, the lawlessness could have been nipped in the bud, saving many lives. Yet another example of the saying, "Those who are kind when they should be cruel, will end by being cruel when they should be kind."
After some hesitation, the Mayor of New Orleans has now resolved to clear out the looters. Martial law was declared, and at this moment several thousand police officers from Louisiana and surrounding states are taking positions outside the city. According to a member of The High Road who is being mobilized, officers have been instructed to take as much food and ammunition as they can carry. Looters will be brought under control by any means necessary; police officers who engage in looting themselves are to be shot on sight. (Sadly, many New Orleans cops have apparently joined the looting instead of enforcing order; New Orleans has a reputation for corrupt police, but this is despicable.)
This has sparked widespread debates on the morality of using deadly force on looters. On the one hand, theft is not generally considered an offense meriting death, unless it involves an attack on someone present at the time; the assumption is that the victim is being threatened with deadly force, and may respond in kind. But in this case, much of the looting is taking place in abandoned shops; the looters are apparently quite courteous to each other, and there is no direct danger from their actions. (Naturally, those looters breaking into occupied hospitals and nursing homes and attacking the patients would merit lethal force according to most reasonable judgements.) What grounds would the police or individuals have for killing such nonviolent looters?
The argument for martial law holds that in times of anarchy, even crimes against property contribute to the general atmosphere of lawlessness, which in the extreme case will seem to excuse violence against innocents. Many reporters and people on the scene speak of the feeling of "entitlement" shared by most of the looters, or a desire to "fight the Man." Since Katrina hit just before the end of the month, many welfare recipients lacked the money to evacuate the city entirely; a disproportionate number of these have this sense of entitlement, and have resorted to violence in the past few days when their depradations are opposed. In an environment such as this, all means must be taken to restore order, even if particular individuals may "only" be stealing.
Jewish law recognizes the need for emergency power to kill. A little-known facet of death-penalty law is that the capital crimes listed in the Torah, as well as the elaborate rules regarding when execution is allowed, are only a baseline. The Sanhedrin retained broad discretion to kill criminals under emergency conditions, even when the law would normally forbid it. A classic case was Shimon ben Shetach's execution of the seventy witches of Ashkelon on the same day, despite the prohibition against holding multiple executions on one day.
The police will apparently use means short of lethal force when possible, but will not hesitate to kill if necessary. I expect the casualties to mount into the hundreds, and I see no better option than what is about to happen. Indeed, if martial law had been declared from the beginning, the lawlessness could have been nipped in the bud, saving many lives. Yet another example of the saying, "Those who are kind when they should be cruel, will end by being cruel when they should be kind."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)