WE IN EUROPE: Worth reprinting in full, I think. Not at all bad, especially considering it was (no doubt) written by committee:
(Editor's note: This article is written by Jose María Aznar, Jose-Manuel Durão Barroso, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, Peter Medgyessy, Leszek Miller and Anders Fogh Rasmussen.)
The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.
The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists--the enemies of our common values--are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense of these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the trans-Atlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.
We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.
In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.
The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Security Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.
In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime be disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.
The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and noncompliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.
Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.
The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.
Messrs. Aznar, Durão Barroso, Berlusconi, Blair, Medgyessy, Miller and Fogh Rasmussen are, respectively, the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Mr. Havel is the Czech president.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
30.1.03
LINK: But let's not beat around the bush (or is that Bush?). This is the story of the month, at the very least. I suppose there's a lot that could be said about "Old Europe" vs. "New Europe," but I suspect that the French and Germans have been building up resentment for most of the last decade by making backroom deals with one another. Combine this with the prospective trouble the EU will have convincing eastern European states to join up, and the botched Common Agricultual Policy reforms, and this has all the makings of a general shift of power. Interesting to watch, no doubt.
THE FROGS ARE AT IT AGAIN: A really good article on the roots of French anti-Americanism.
"Perhaps the most astonishing description of the rocky French-American relationship comes from the French diplomat who, in 1983, told the Atlantic that a particular change in U.S. policy "makes us wonder whether we can count on American administrations—just as we've been wondering since Congress refused to endorse the Treaty of Versailles." Americans don't have this sort of historical consciousness—at least, not for anything that happened abroad before World War II. It's as if an American diplomat said, "Well, we had to beat the frogs in the French and Indian War to lay the groundwork for national unity and manifest destiny, and well, we've been beating them ever since." Or, "You know, we've known ever since the XYZ Affair that you couldn't trust the French. That's why we've been sparring with them since the Quasi-War." "
"Perhaps the most astonishing description of the rocky French-American relationship comes from the French diplomat who, in 1983, told the Atlantic that a particular change in U.S. policy "makes us wonder whether we can count on American administrations—just as we've been wondering since Congress refused to endorse the Treaty of Versailles." Americans don't have this sort of historical consciousness—at least, not for anything that happened abroad before World War II. It's as if an American diplomat said, "Well, we had to beat the frogs in the French and Indian War to lay the groundwork for national unity and manifest destiny, and well, we've been beating them ever since." Or, "You know, we've known ever since the XYZ Affair that you couldn't trust the French. That's why we've been sparring with them since the Quasi-War." "
QUOTE: Tapped nails 'em:
" AND ON THE OTHER SIDE . . . Go to National Review's website to watch David Frum, Victor David Hanson, Michael Ledeen and others rave and titter like a bunch of star-struck groupies at a rock concert. It's kind of embarassing. You can bet that if Dubya had drooled like a 4-year-old, Ledeen would still have proclaimed that the guy has "turned into a great orator." (Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.) There's not much intellectual content; it's just the NR guys uncritically cheerleading their boy, preaching to the converted, and recycling the speech itself. Why bother, guys? Just post your write-ups the night before, and you'll draw even more eyeballs to the site."
" AND ON THE OTHER SIDE . . . Go to National Review's website to watch David Frum, Victor David Hanson, Michael Ledeen and others rave and titter like a bunch of star-struck groupies at a rock concert. It's kind of embarassing. You can bet that if Dubya had drooled like a 4-year-old, Ledeen would still have proclaimed that the guy has "turned into a great orator." (Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.) There's not much intellectual content; it's just the NR guys uncritically cheerleading their boy, preaching to the converted, and recycling the speech itself. Why bother, guys? Just post your write-ups the night before, and you'll draw even more eyeballs to the site."
28.1.03
LINK: Stop the presses, kiddoes. Michael Ledeen manages to not demagogue the French, which seems to be the hobby of the good folks at National Review. Not that I necessarily think they're wrong, but...
LINK: Reviews of bad movies are always the funniest. To wit:
"My synopsis only hints at what a breathtaking piece of work Max is. As a Saturday Night Live sketch it would merely be tasteless. But as a ravishingly photographed, high-minded meditation on the potential of art and therapy to exorcise the vilest sort of psychological poison, it is positively riotous—an Everest of idiocy. Tony Soprano and his Italian Freudian aren't a patch on Hitler and his Jewish art therapist. Max is not only the ultimate mismatched buddy fantasy (Hitler even moans about Max's smoking and tells him he shouldn't eat meat), it's another demonstration of secular-liberal Judaism's boundless conviction that any repressed Gentile can be loosened up with a little therapeutic plumbing. The only surprise is that Max never prods Hitler to discuss his mom."
"My synopsis only hints at what a breathtaking piece of work Max is. As a Saturday Night Live sketch it would merely be tasteless. But as a ravishingly photographed, high-minded meditation on the potential of art and therapy to exorcise the vilest sort of psychological poison, it is positively riotous—an Everest of idiocy. Tony Soprano and his Italian Freudian aren't a patch on Hitler and his Jewish art therapist. Max is not only the ultimate mismatched buddy fantasy (Hitler even moans about Max's smoking and tells him he shouldn't eat meat), it's another demonstration of secular-liberal Judaism's boundless conviction that any repressed Gentile can be loosened up with a little therapeutic plumbing. The only surprise is that Max never prods Hitler to discuss his mom."
LINK: Is it just me, or is the Weekly Standard set (Chris Caldwell in this instance) starting to sound a wee bit like Democrats?
27.1.03
QUOTE: Andrew Sullivan, hitting the nail on the head:
"And I'm frankly sick of the cheap vitriol directed at this president at this time. God knows the pressure he must be under. To see the shallow and self-interested jockeying in Paris and Berlin at a moment of grave international crisis is to observe politics at its worst. I'm not saying that opposition to Bush and the war policy is illegitimate. Of course not. Much of it is important and helpful. But the coarseness of some of it is truly awful. In some conversations I've had with people who strongly oppose war, I keep hearing this personal demonization of Bush as if he - and not the threat we face as a civilization - were somehow the issue."
-Because, I think I can say authoritatively, there's something deeply wrong when I feel the need to defend the guy.
"And I'm frankly sick of the cheap vitriol directed at this president at this time. God knows the pressure he must be under. To see the shallow and self-interested jockeying in Paris and Berlin at a moment of grave international crisis is to observe politics at its worst. I'm not saying that opposition to Bush and the war policy is illegitimate. Of course not. Much of it is important and helpful. But the coarseness of some of it is truly awful. In some conversations I've had with people who strongly oppose war, I keep hearing this personal demonization of Bush as if he - and not the threat we face as a civilization - were somehow the issue."
-Because, I think I can say authoritatively, there's something deeply wrong when I feel the need to defend the guy.
QUOTE: from the rabidly anti-war Eric Alterman, in an otherwise intriguing column:
"Will Hutton, a former editor of the Observer, wrote a book portraying the United States as in "the extraordinary grip of Christian fundamentalism"; boasting a "democracy" that is "an offense to democratic ideals," where the "dominant conservatism is very ideological, almost Leninist," "
-I find this ironic because my American Political Thought textbook, written by a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, no less, contends that there are no conservatives in America, and that there rarely ever have been any, but that there are really just two kinds of liberals here. Makes you think.
"Will Hutton, a former editor of the Observer, wrote a book portraying the United States as in "the extraordinary grip of Christian fundamentalism"; boasting a "democracy" that is "an offense to democratic ideals," where the "dominant conservatism is very ideological, almost Leninist," "
-I find this ironic because my American Political Thought textbook, written by a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, no less, contends that there are no conservatives in America, and that there rarely ever have been any, but that there are really just two kinds of liberals here. Makes you think.
QUOTE: From J. Bottom (italics mine):
"In a 1932 exchange in Christian Century, prompted by the question of whether the United States should intervene against the Japanese in Manchuria, the well-known Christian ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr wrote of what he called "the grace of doing nothing"--to which his brother, the even-better-known Reinhold Niebuhr, replied that the desire to wait for perfect motives translates into the inability ever to act. Because human beings are what they are, our motives will never reach perfection. We must attempt to do what ought to be done, despite the tangle of our natures, and act most times in imperfection. "
"In a 1932 exchange in Christian Century, prompted by the question of whether the United States should intervene against the Japanese in Manchuria, the well-known Christian ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr wrote of what he called "the grace of doing nothing"--to which his brother, the even-better-known Reinhold Niebuhr, replied that the desire to wait for perfect motives translates into the inability ever to act. Because human beings are what they are, our motives will never reach perfection. We must attempt to do what ought to be done, despite the tangle of our natures, and act most times in imperfection. "
QUOTE: from the Telegraph:
"In practice, there is no such thing as the "international community", for all its many theoretical manifestations in talking-shops and legal structures. There are power blocs and nation states with varying degrees of power - something which President Bush and Saddam both understand.
There are heads of government who talk the language of idealism but act in response to the imperatives of domestic politics: Gerhard Schröder is driven by opinion polls more than an affinity with the moral high ground. Jacques Chirac will, in the end, do what he thinks will strengthen his rapport with the French people - and, more particularly, with French businessmen. Behind the mask of high principle, realpolitik still dictates European strategy."
"In practice, there is no such thing as the "international community", for all its many theoretical manifestations in talking-shops and legal structures. There are power blocs and nation states with varying degrees of power - something which President Bush and Saddam both understand.
There are heads of government who talk the language of idealism but act in response to the imperatives of domestic politics: Gerhard Schröder is driven by opinion polls more than an affinity with the moral high ground. Jacques Chirac will, in the end, do what he thinks will strengthen his rapport with the French people - and, more particularly, with French businessmen. Behind the mask of high principle, realpolitik still dictates European strategy."
ELABORATION: this is a mix of things pertaining to her last post, but also to some private communications, so I'll try and strike a reasonable balance and make this comprehensible.
Every rational person should have reservations about going to war with Iraq, just as they should have reservations about ever engaging in any war. In a world of rational actors and cost-benefit analyses, no one would ever go to war. No one that I've read (with the possible exception of some of the National Review/ Weekly Standard set) has failed to see this point, and the best people writing nowadays (Hitch, Michael Walzer and Ron Rosenbaum, particularly) see it the most clearly.
Here are a few things to keep in mind when arguing with those who steadfastly oppose war with Iraq:
1. Much will be made over how the U.S. is coercing the members of the Security Council into backing whatever resolutions it likes. Much less will be made over the failure of Iraq to comply with any of the relevant U.N. resolutions regarding his regime. So if you feel like Bush might be abivalent about the importance of the U.N., Saddam has made his feelings abundantly clear.
2. "Containment" may be offered as an alternative. Actually, the formulation that was referenced included things like continued inspections, economic sanctions, and targeted air strikes. The last is really the interesting one: Hitch has made much of the fact that the current no-fly zones put the U.S. and Britain at war in a de facto sense against Iraq. Containment, to me, amounts to an attempt to avoid taking the problems seriously.
3. Nowhere is this more evident than in the attitudes of the "anti-war" set regarding Iraqi dissidents and already-instituted semi-automonous governments (think the Kurds in N. Iraq): I can go weeks reading The Nation (or your pick of any other anti-war publications or writers) without ever hearing a mention of what the Iraqi people want. There is a reason for that.
4. Finally, a little quoting:
"I think the thing about allies is important: The second group would
naturally ally with an aggressive, interventionist, hawkish United States. The
former would be more oriented to a internationalist, humanitarian, idealistic
United States. In other words, I and I susspect you would be much more
comfortable with the first group."
Do a little compare and contrast, which seems to be the implication of the phrasing of the thought: aggressive/ internationalist, interventionist/ humanitarian, hawkish/ idealistic. There doesn't seem to be an evident contradiction in any of those instances, or even taking the terms in aggregate. What about being hawkish prevents you from being idealistic? And if there's something wrong with being aggressive and interventionist (Haiti, Rwanda, Kosovo...), I fail to see that.
But the part that wrankles the most is the allegation that we're not being internationalist. As a counter-example: Australia's one of the most fervent allies we have right now, and there's one reason for that: the Bali bombing. When you're forced to contemplate the notion that there are lots of people quite willing to bring the war to you, whether you invited it or not, the idea of championing freedom and democracy (whatever the costs associated) begins to seem like the smart bet.
As far as getting informed versus having an opinion, that's perfectly legitimate. I believe that Humphrey's words mean a lot in this context. We can differ about strength of support and other action we'd like to see and how we'd like the war to be conducted, but all of us who participate in the international democratic project in good faith with agree what the ideal end should be.
Every rational person should have reservations about going to war with Iraq, just as they should have reservations about ever engaging in any war. In a world of rational actors and cost-benefit analyses, no one would ever go to war. No one that I've read (with the possible exception of some of the National Review/ Weekly Standard set) has failed to see this point, and the best people writing nowadays (Hitch, Michael Walzer and Ron Rosenbaum, particularly) see it the most clearly.
Here are a few things to keep in mind when arguing with those who steadfastly oppose war with Iraq:
1. Much will be made over how the U.S. is coercing the members of the Security Council into backing whatever resolutions it likes. Much less will be made over the failure of Iraq to comply with any of the relevant U.N. resolutions regarding his regime. So if you feel like Bush might be abivalent about the importance of the U.N., Saddam has made his feelings abundantly clear.
2. "Containment" may be offered as an alternative. Actually, the formulation that was referenced included things like continued inspections, economic sanctions, and targeted air strikes. The last is really the interesting one: Hitch has made much of the fact that the current no-fly zones put the U.S. and Britain at war in a de facto sense against Iraq. Containment, to me, amounts to an attempt to avoid taking the problems seriously.
3. Nowhere is this more evident than in the attitudes of the "anti-war" set regarding Iraqi dissidents and already-instituted semi-automonous governments (think the Kurds in N. Iraq): I can go weeks reading The Nation (or your pick of any other anti-war publications or writers) without ever hearing a mention of what the Iraqi people want. There is a reason for that.
4. Finally, a little quoting:
"I think the thing about allies is important: The second group would
naturally ally with an aggressive, interventionist, hawkish United States. The
former would be more oriented to a internationalist, humanitarian, idealistic
United States. In other words, I and I susspect you would be much more
comfortable with the first group."
Do a little compare and contrast, which seems to be the implication of the phrasing of the thought: aggressive/ internationalist, interventionist/ humanitarian, hawkish/ idealistic. There doesn't seem to be an evident contradiction in any of those instances, or even taking the terms in aggregate. What about being hawkish prevents you from being idealistic? And if there's something wrong with being aggressive and interventionist (Haiti, Rwanda, Kosovo...), I fail to see that.
But the part that wrankles the most is the allegation that we're not being internationalist. As a counter-example: Australia's one of the most fervent allies we have right now, and there's one reason for that: the Bali bombing. When you're forced to contemplate the notion that there are lots of people quite willing to bring the war to you, whether you invited it or not, the idea of championing freedom and democracy (whatever the costs associated) begins to seem like the smart bet.
As far as getting informed versus having an opinion, that's perfectly legitimate. I believe that Humphrey's words mean a lot in this context. We can differ about strength of support and other action we'd like to see and how we'd like the war to be conducted, but all of us who participate in the international democratic project in good faith with agree what the ideal end should be.
IN RESPONSE TO DARA:
"Now I know that there are political theorists who claim that the essence of politics is power, but I submit they are wrong, even though power is a necessary element in the search for just solutions to the fundamental problems of our society. The essence of politics is the asking and re-asking of the most difficult of all questions--what is justice, and what is right? Men of good will seldom differ about ultimate goals, but these men do differ about means and timing and priorities. But these differences are the stuff of unending political discourse."
-Hubert Humphrey, just before the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (italics mine)
"Now I know that there are political theorists who claim that the essence of politics is power, but I submit they are wrong, even though power is a necessary element in the search for just solutions to the fundamental problems of our society. The essence of politics is the asking and re-asking of the most difficult of all questions--what is justice, and what is right? Men of good will seldom differ about ultimate goals, but these men do differ about means and timing and priorities. But these differences are the stuff of unending political discourse."
-Hubert Humphrey, just before the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (italics mine)
25.1.03
CONTRA DAVID: It will shock you, no doubt, but I agree with your entire post. I took, for my QR requirement, an intro-level physics class (can't remember the course number off the top of my head). For my science distribution (and there was one) I took the aforementioned class in physics and one in astronomy (I wasn't tearing it up, comparatively, but I wasn't taking "issues in biology," or whatever the blow-off intro level ones are). I'm also doing a heavy amount of math in my Political Dynamics class, and I did a fair amount of work with logic in Intro to Symbolic Logic and the intro Linguistics course I took freshman year (to say nothing of the necessity of comprehending argumentative logic if you're a philosophy major).
With the understanding that I have (I think) a reasonable amount of background in science-related issues (or at least enough to allow me to explain how everything in the Museum works, which should be enough), I feel free to make the following statement:
Anyone who proudly proclaims their ignorance on any specific subject proclaims even more loudly their ignorance on everything in general.
But, since I can't get away without arguing a little bit, I'll make this point: if you want to take a Philosophy class, you do not have to take the same class as a philosophy major. To use the most obvious example, you can take Phil 232: The Problems of Philosophy (taught by the Mr. Marquis clone himself, Louis Loeb), which is not
But, since I don't want to give short shrift to an argument I agree with, I'll say that David's point survives this objection. The educational system at the university is hopelessly out fo whack, and I'd gladly suffer my way through math and physics in return for, say, comprehensive education on the classics and English literature (Pope, Shakespeare, Milton et al). We should start a petition!
With the understanding that I have (I think) a reasonable amount of background in science-related issues (or at least enough to allow me to explain how everything in the Museum works, which should be enough), I feel free to make the following statement:
Anyone who proudly proclaims their ignorance on any specific subject proclaims even more loudly their ignorance on everything in general.
But, since I can't get away without arguing a little bit, I'll make this point: if you want to take a Philosophy class, you do not have to take the same class as a philosophy major. To use the most obvious example, you can take Phil 232: The Problems of Philosophy (taught by the Mr. Marquis clone himself, Louis Loeb), which is not
But, since I don't want to give short shrift to an argument I agree with, I'll say that David's point survives this objection. The educational system at the university is hopelessly out fo whack, and I'd gladly suffer my way through math and physics in return for, say, comprehensive education on the classics and English literature (Pope, Shakespeare, Milton et al). We should start a petition!
QUOTE: Jonah Goldberg. I had to read this twice before I figured out it was all nonsense:
"Indeed, the bleating from the Euros over Rummy's reference to Das Alte Europa virtually mutes by comparison the kerfuffle here in the U.S. when a German official compared our sitting president to Hitler"
-Oh, right. Naturally. Of course.
"Indeed, the bleating from the Euros over Rummy's reference to Das Alte Europa virtually mutes by comparison the kerfuffle here in the U.S. when a German official compared our sitting president to Hitler"
-Oh, right. Naturally. Of course.
23.1.03
LINK: Tapped has an interesting little thing going about Democratic vs. Republican representation in Congress and the electoral college.
19.1.03
A LIBERAL CASE FOR WAR WITH IRAQ
or:
I SWEAR I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN. REALLY.
I was downtown this past Saturday, and had the opportunity to witness the anti-war protest as it went up Huron past City Hall. All this, as I found out later, while across the world, more undeclared chemical warheads were found, as well as evidence pointing to a restarting Iraqi nuclear weapons program. There are a lot of cliches I could drag out at this point, but I think it suffices to say that however you wish to read the inspections thusfar, it is clear that Saddam Hussein has much less of an interest in being peaceful than do our own ill-informed (if well-intentioned) peaceniks.
The threat of a less-than-stable dictator with wmd capability is sufficient reason to go to war, I think, if we feel the need to look for casus belli. But there's a better, much simpler reason to favor regime change in Iraq: democracy is good. It's good here, and it would be good anywhere else. Take a deep breath, if need be. It might seem counterfactual to claim that America has anything resembling democracy--Bush v. Gore and all--but the last time I checked, all of our major public officials can be run out of office in two years or so. What faith in the virtue of democratic (read: secular and pluralistic) government means is, essentially, a belief in some commonality of man that entitles us all to a measure of decency. Christopher Hitchens, possibly the most important man on the Left nowadays, hits on this point well: "When I first became a socialist, the imperative of international solidarity was the essential if not the defining thing, whether the cause was popular or risky or not." The entire attractiveness of liberal-ness is that it is actuely aware of this link between freedom-loving people.
War is not going to be pretty. No one is fatuous enough to assume that. But I honestly cannot get my mind around why it is that anyone on the Left would oppose this war. I think of the populations of millions, Kurds and Sunnis, being repressed, harassed, and given the status of permanent refugees, all because of the intense hatred for them possessed by That Man in Baghdad. And we can do something about it. I understand that many on the Left are uncomfortable with the language of moral imperative, but this is as clear-cut a situation of obligation as you can get.
Many of the protestors this past weekend are, particularly, uncomfortable with the idea of taking the same position as Dubya. I'd be lying if I said I was not slightly put-off by this fact. It is hard, though, not to come to the conclusion that those who are "anti-war" are actually on the same side as Hussein. Bush may not be a philosopher-king, but he's no thug autocrat. What defensible argument can you make for being de facto supporter of a boderline-fascist government, except that you love something more than you love freedom?
As has been noted, if there's similarity between, say, my opinion on foreign policy and Bill Kristol's, it might be a sign that we're both on the right track. And both working within legitimate liberal foreign policy. Think about it: FDR and Harry Truman. Dean Acheson and George Kennan. All liberals, all willing to use military force to advance liberal causes. Where are the heirs to that tradition?
They're people like Hitchens, or the writers for Dissent and The New Republic. You may feel like you're alone on the Left, fighting against the forces of unthinking reaction-- but you aren't. Think about what would've happened if we'd pushed harder for intervention in Rwanda. The best argument for war with Iraq is the violence and suffering that will never happen with a democratically elected government in power.
or:
I SWEAR I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN. REALLY.
I was downtown this past Saturday, and had the opportunity to witness the anti-war protest as it went up Huron past City Hall. All this, as I found out later, while across the world, more undeclared chemical warheads were found, as well as evidence pointing to a restarting Iraqi nuclear weapons program. There are a lot of cliches I could drag out at this point, but I think it suffices to say that however you wish to read the inspections thusfar, it is clear that Saddam Hussein has much less of an interest in being peaceful than do our own ill-informed (if well-intentioned) peaceniks.
The threat of a less-than-stable dictator with wmd capability is sufficient reason to go to war, I think, if we feel the need to look for casus belli. But there's a better, much simpler reason to favor regime change in Iraq: democracy is good. It's good here, and it would be good anywhere else. Take a deep breath, if need be. It might seem counterfactual to claim that America has anything resembling democracy--Bush v. Gore and all--but the last time I checked, all of our major public officials can be run out of office in two years or so. What faith in the virtue of democratic (read: secular and pluralistic) government means is, essentially, a belief in some commonality of man that entitles us all to a measure of decency. Christopher Hitchens, possibly the most important man on the Left nowadays, hits on this point well: "When I first became a socialist, the imperative of international solidarity was the essential if not the defining thing, whether the cause was popular or risky or not." The entire attractiveness of liberal-ness is that it is actuely aware of this link between freedom-loving people.
War is not going to be pretty. No one is fatuous enough to assume that. But I honestly cannot get my mind around why it is that anyone on the Left would oppose this war. I think of the populations of millions, Kurds and Sunnis, being repressed, harassed, and given the status of permanent refugees, all because of the intense hatred for them possessed by That Man in Baghdad. And we can do something about it. I understand that many on the Left are uncomfortable with the language of moral imperative, but this is as clear-cut a situation of obligation as you can get.
Many of the protestors this past weekend are, particularly, uncomfortable with the idea of taking the same position as Dubya. I'd be lying if I said I was not slightly put-off by this fact. It is hard, though, not to come to the conclusion that those who are "anti-war" are actually on the same side as Hussein. Bush may not be a philosopher-king, but he's no thug autocrat. What defensible argument can you make for being de facto supporter of a boderline-fascist government, except that you love something more than you love freedom?
As has been noted, if there's similarity between, say, my opinion on foreign policy and Bill Kristol's, it might be a sign that we're both on the right track. And both working within legitimate liberal foreign policy. Think about it: FDR and Harry Truman. Dean Acheson and George Kennan. All liberals, all willing to use military force to advance liberal causes. Where are the heirs to that tradition?
They're people like Hitchens, or the writers for Dissent and The New Republic. You may feel like you're alone on the Left, fighting against the forces of unthinking reaction-- but you aren't. Think about what would've happened if we'd pushed harder for intervention in Rwanda. The best argument for war with Iraq is the violence and suffering that will never happen with a democratically elected government in power.
LINK: And then there's the man himself:
"Now hear this. Ever since that morning, the United States has been at war with the forces of reaction. May I please entreat you to reread the preceding sentence? Or perhaps you will let me restate it for emphasis. The government and people of these United States are now at war with the forces of reaction.
This outcome was clearly not willed, at least on the American side. And everybody with half an education seems to know how to glibly dilute the statement. Isn't Saudi Arabia reactionary? What about Pakistani nukes? Do we bomb Sharon for his negation of Palestinian rights? Weren't we on Saddam's side when he was at his worst? (I am exempting the frantic and discredited few who think or suggest that George W. Bush fixed up the attacks to inflate the military budget and abolish the Constitution.) But however compromised and shameful the American starting point was--and I believe I could make this point stick with greater venom and better evidence than most people can muster--the above point remains untouched. The United States finds itself at war with the forces of reaction. "
"Now hear this. Ever since that morning, the United States has been at war with the forces of reaction. May I please entreat you to reread the preceding sentence? Or perhaps you will let me restate it for emphasis. The government and people of these United States are now at war with the forces of reaction.
This outcome was clearly not willed, at least on the American side. And everybody with half an education seems to know how to glibly dilute the statement. Isn't Saudi Arabia reactionary? What about Pakistani nukes? Do we bomb Sharon for his negation of Palestinian rights? Weren't we on Saddam's side when he was at his worst? (I am exempting the frantic and discredited few who think or suggest that George W. Bush fixed up the attacks to inflate the military budget and abolish the Constitution.) But however compromised and shameful the American starting point was--and I believe I could make this point stick with greater venom and better evidence than most people can muster--the above point remains untouched. The United States finds itself at war with the forces of reaction. "
LINK: A writer for The Independent on his own personal kronstadt after he visited Iraq:
"If Britain were governed by [a man like Saddam Hussein], I would welcome friendly bombs - a concept I once thought absurd. I might be prepared to risk my own life to bring my country's living death to an end. Most of the Iraqi people I encountered clearly felt the same. The moment they established that I was British, people would hug me and offer coded support (they would be even more effusive towards the Americans I travelled with). They would explain how much they "admire Britain - British democracy, yes? You understand?" "
"If Britain were governed by [a man like Saddam Hussein], I would welcome friendly bombs - a concept I once thought absurd. I might be prepared to risk my own life to bring my country's living death to an end. Most of the Iraqi people I encountered clearly felt the same. The moment they established that I was British, people would hug me and offer coded support (they would be even more effusive towards the Americans I travelled with). They would explain how much they "admire Britain - British democracy, yes? You understand?" "
LINK: Another column by a liberal coming to terms with the necessity of Iraq. I know what you're thinking: "blah blah blah... who cares?" But they share the common characteristic of being harrowing accounts of intellectuals and activists grappling seriously with the moral and political issues at work. You find this neither on the knee-jerk "anti-war" Left, nor amongst the administration... at least not visibly on the part of the latter. But, good point:
"Nothing will persuade the antiwar Left (or antiwar Buchanan Right) that a campaign to remove Saddam and free the Iraqi people is justified. There will always be an excuse to oppose it. At first, the complaints were that the US intended to strike Iraq unilaterally, that everybody in Europe, Russia, China and the Arab world was against Bush, and that there existed no evidence of Hussein possessing WMDs. Now that those critiques have been answered and Bush has voluntarily (and shrewdly) gone through the United Nations, graciously agreeing to afford Saddam one last chance with inspections, the argument has changed: by attacking Iraq, we are likely to prod Saddam into using his WMDs (the same ones he never had in the first place) against us or Israel. Hitchens calls this game “subject change.” When every other peace marcher was demanding that Bush provide proof of Hussein possessing WMDs, Hitchens wrote, “It is obvious to me that the “antiwar” side would not be convinced even if all the allegations made against Saddam Hussein were proven, and even if the true views of the Iraqi people could be expressed.” And because of this, there is no incentive for anyone in power (or anyone at all) to take the Left seriously."
"Nothing will persuade the antiwar Left (or antiwar Buchanan Right) that a campaign to remove Saddam and free the Iraqi people is justified. There will always be an excuse to oppose it. At first, the complaints were that the US intended to strike Iraq unilaterally, that everybody in Europe, Russia, China and the Arab world was against Bush, and that there existed no evidence of Hussein possessing WMDs. Now that those critiques have been answered and Bush has voluntarily (and shrewdly) gone through the United Nations, graciously agreeing to afford Saddam one last chance with inspections, the argument has changed: by attacking Iraq, we are likely to prod Saddam into using his WMDs (the same ones he never had in the first place) against us or Israel. Hitchens calls this game “subject change.” When every other peace marcher was demanding that Bush provide proof of Hussein possessing WMDs, Hitchens wrote, “It is obvious to me that the “antiwar” side would not be convinced even if all the allegations made against Saddam Hussein were proven, and even if the true views of the Iraqi people could be expressed.” And because of this, there is no incentive for anyone in power (or anyone at all) to take the Left seriously."
LINK: Michael Totten, on the cause nearest and dearest to my heart nowadays. And something to keep in mind (I'm thinking of Dara specifically here) when you feel like you're the only one on the Left who sees what good could come from regime change:
"So, here here, folks. All you Bosnia interventionists, hawkish anti-Taliban feminists, grown-up human rights activists, and would-be hawks-if-only-Gore-were-leading-the-charge, listen up. Like you, I’m a registered Democrat. And I stand unflinchingly against Saddam and with all the democratic forces in the world poised to depose him. Have a stiff drink, give the Bushophobia a break, and get over here. It really is okay. Only the jerks on the fringe will call you a traitor or a right-wing extremist. There are plenty of others from the Democratic Party and the left here already. Christopher Hitchens, Salman Rushdie, Ron Rosenbaum, Thomas Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Camile Paglia, Arianna Fallaci, Oprah Winfrey, Dan Savage, the "War Liberal" blogger, Bob Kerrey, Gary Hart, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Zell Miller, Kenneth Pollack, the staff of The New Republic magazine, and even last year’s Al Gore model. If foreigners count, throw in Vaclav Havel, Shimon Peres, and Tony Blair as well. "
"So, here here, folks. All you Bosnia interventionists, hawkish anti-Taliban feminists, grown-up human rights activists, and would-be hawks-if-only-Gore-were-leading-the-charge, listen up. Like you, I’m a registered Democrat. And I stand unflinchingly against Saddam and with all the democratic forces in the world poised to depose him. Have a stiff drink, give the Bushophobia a break, and get over here. It really is okay. Only the jerks on the fringe will call you a traitor or a right-wing extremist. There are plenty of others from the Democratic Party and the left here already. Christopher Hitchens, Salman Rushdie, Ron Rosenbaum, Thomas Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Camile Paglia, Arianna Fallaci, Oprah Winfrey, Dan Savage, the "War Liberal" blogger, Bob Kerrey, Gary Hart, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Zell Miller, Kenneth Pollack, the staff of The New Republic magazine, and even last year’s Al Gore model. If foreigners count, throw in Vaclav Havel, Shimon Peres, and Tony Blair as well. "
THIS IS WHY I LOVE HITCH: A letter and its response, from The Nation:
"Chicago
I was fascinated by the letters between Christopher Hitchens and Katha Pollitt ["Exchange," Dec. 16]. There was a throwaway reference in Hitchens's piece that caught my attention. It was a reference to Gore Vidal, at whom he threw a rabbit punch, among others. I was suddenly reminded of a moment in the late, late, late of the evening when Hitch and I got smashed. It was just a couple of years ago.
He was in Chicago in re his excellent Kissinger book. During those blurry moments at my house, and very delightful they were, he confided that in some quarters he was regarded as the successor to Gore Vidal as America's preeminent man of letters. I've a hunch that Vidal may have a comment on that, especially now.
My point is a simple one: vanity. It's probably the least of our seven deadly sins; all of us have a touch of it, more or less. In some cases, more than less. Saddam Hussein is not the subject of this note; nor the nature of our approach toward the mass murderer. Chris has his opinion; The Nation's editors have theirs. It is the manner in which he has behaved toward those who differ with him: his ad hominem assaults on their intelligence and integrity. It is his vulgarity of language, so unlike the guy I knew, that knocked me for a loop.
I have always admired Hitchens's insights, elegance of style and sharpness of wit. I still do. But the turn he has taken - the sharp one - is more in the direction of Becky than of Orwell. I'm afraid that his psyche is now more possessed of vanity than of fairness.
I am somewhat embarrassed in revealing a conversation that took place under the influence of booze. It is something of a foul blow. Yet I am merely pointing out that below-the-belt punching is a game that two can play. It's a nasty game, kid.
STUDS TERKEL
PS: Chris, I miss your stuff in The Nation very much. It discombobulates me that your stalwart Orwellian self has become aligned with the wanton boy swatting flies. Remember the line from King Lear: "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods;/ They kill us for their sport." That a wanton boy, at this moment in history, is the most powerful man in the world is an absurd fact. It's a scenario that can have been written only by that master of outrageous humor W.C. Fields. It grieves me that one as gifted as you has chosen to play second banana to the wanton boy in a burlesque skit that's not very funny. Come back, Chris; the martini is waiting. On second thought, I withdraw the invitation. Difficulties might ensue. We'd reflect, of course, on the wanton boy's appointment of Kissinger as truth-seeker. But as we mellowed with a drink or two, we'd probably reminisce about our dear old friend Jessica Mitford and what she'd make of things today; and of you. Five gets you ten she'd have said, "Christopher Hitchens, poor boy, since his conversion, has been transmorgrified from a witty observer of the human comedy to a bloody bore, seated at the far-right end of the bar." As you may surmise, Kiddo, it would wind up as a somewhat less than pleasant visit. I'd find the memory of Mitford much better company than the presence of Hitchens. Thus, at this moment, I'm drinking alone, hoisting one to Jessica (Decca, as we called her) and her dreams; and mine; and young Christopher's.
S.T. "
and the reply:
" There is one saving tincture of truth in the verbose and complacent letter which you saw fit to publish from Studs Terkel (Letters, 6 January). He and I did indeed have a cocktail "just a couple of years ago" in Chicago. And I did tell him with some pride that Gore Vidal had offered an over-generous endorsement of my third volume of collected essays, Unacknowledged Legislation. (This is pretty easy to confirm, since the almost too-fulsome encomium is the only quotation on the jacket of the book, pubished as it was in the year 2000 and available in bookstores when I was in Chicago that day.)
I have since had some disagreements with both Mr Vidal and Mr Terkel. In the case of the former, I cannot think of anything excerpted from private conversation that would, if disclosed, strengthen my argument. In the latter case, it is something more than modesty, or even respect for my elders, that restrains me from replying in kind. But good luck to The Nation in circulating this kind of stuff. You have obviously reached a point where every little helps.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS"
Excellent.
"Chicago
I was fascinated by the letters between Christopher Hitchens and Katha Pollitt ["Exchange," Dec. 16]. There was a throwaway reference in Hitchens's piece that caught my attention. It was a reference to Gore Vidal, at whom he threw a rabbit punch, among others. I was suddenly reminded of a moment in the late, late, late of the evening when Hitch and I got smashed. It was just a couple of years ago.
He was in Chicago in re his excellent Kissinger book. During those blurry moments at my house, and very delightful they were, he confided that in some quarters he was regarded as the successor to Gore Vidal as America's preeminent man of letters. I've a hunch that Vidal may have a comment on that, especially now.
My point is a simple one: vanity. It's probably the least of our seven deadly sins; all of us have a touch of it, more or less. In some cases, more than less. Saddam Hussein is not the subject of this note; nor the nature of our approach toward the mass murderer. Chris has his opinion; The Nation's editors have theirs. It is the manner in which he has behaved toward those who differ with him: his ad hominem assaults on their intelligence and integrity. It is his vulgarity of language, so unlike the guy I knew, that knocked me for a loop.
I have always admired Hitchens's insights, elegance of style and sharpness of wit. I still do. But the turn he has taken - the sharp one - is more in the direction of Becky than of Orwell. I'm afraid that his psyche is now more possessed of vanity than of fairness.
I am somewhat embarrassed in revealing a conversation that took place under the influence of booze. It is something of a foul blow. Yet I am merely pointing out that below-the-belt punching is a game that two can play. It's a nasty game, kid.
STUDS TERKEL
PS: Chris, I miss your stuff in The Nation very much. It discombobulates me that your stalwart Orwellian self has become aligned with the wanton boy swatting flies. Remember the line from King Lear: "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods;/ They kill us for their sport." That a wanton boy, at this moment in history, is the most powerful man in the world is an absurd fact. It's a scenario that can have been written only by that master of outrageous humor W.C. Fields. It grieves me that one as gifted as you has chosen to play second banana to the wanton boy in a burlesque skit that's not very funny. Come back, Chris; the martini is waiting. On second thought, I withdraw the invitation. Difficulties might ensue. We'd reflect, of course, on the wanton boy's appointment of Kissinger as truth-seeker. But as we mellowed with a drink or two, we'd probably reminisce about our dear old friend Jessica Mitford and what she'd make of things today; and of you. Five gets you ten she'd have said, "Christopher Hitchens, poor boy, since his conversion, has been transmorgrified from a witty observer of the human comedy to a bloody bore, seated at the far-right end of the bar." As you may surmise, Kiddo, it would wind up as a somewhat less than pleasant visit. I'd find the memory of Mitford much better company than the presence of Hitchens. Thus, at this moment, I'm drinking alone, hoisting one to Jessica (Decca, as we called her) and her dreams; and mine; and young Christopher's.
S.T. "
and the reply:
" There is one saving tincture of truth in the verbose and complacent letter which you saw fit to publish from Studs Terkel (Letters, 6 January). He and I did indeed have a cocktail "just a couple of years ago" in Chicago. And I did tell him with some pride that Gore Vidal had offered an over-generous endorsement of my third volume of collected essays, Unacknowledged Legislation. (This is pretty easy to confirm, since the almost too-fulsome encomium is the only quotation on the jacket of the book, pubished as it was in the year 2000 and available in bookstores when I was in Chicago that day.)
I have since had some disagreements with both Mr Vidal and Mr Terkel. In the case of the former, I cannot think of anything excerpted from private conversation that would, if disclosed, strengthen my argument. In the latter case, it is something more than modesty, or even respect for my elders, that restrains me from replying in kind. But good luck to The Nation in circulating this kind of stuff. You have obviously reached a point where every little helps.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS"
Excellent.
LINK: The Observer comes out in favor of war with Iraq--kind of:
"Those risks must be set against potentially huge prizes. In London last month, Iraqi opposition groups united around a platform of a federal, democratic state. These people deserve support from those who propound similar values in the West. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people would regard Saddam's removal as liberation, pure and simple."
I think this very cogently summarizes the liberal argument for war with Iraq. And something for the "anti-war" crowd to contemplate-- that one of Britain's largest Left papers comes out swinging for the good of the Iraqi people.
"Those risks must be set against potentially huge prizes. In London last month, Iraqi opposition groups united around a platform of a federal, democratic state. These people deserve support from those who propound similar values in the West. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people would regard Saddam's removal as liberation, pure and simple."
I think this very cogently summarizes the liberal argument for war with Iraq. And something for the "anti-war" crowd to contemplate-- that one of Britain's largest Left papers comes out swinging for the good of the Iraqi people.
HIYO! Stolen from ScrappleFace:
" Protestor Takes to Street in Baghdad
(2003-01-18) -- A protestor took to the street in Baghdad today, chanting slogans against the policies of the Hussein administration.
Unfortunately, he had to cut short his protest when he learned that his house had burned to the ground in a matter of seconds, killing his entire family.
On his way home, he was accidentally killed when his car ran into a hail of gunfire"
" Protestor Takes to Street in Baghdad
(2003-01-18) -- A protestor took to the street in Baghdad today, chanting slogans against the policies of the Hussein administration.
Unfortunately, he had to cut short his protest when he learned that his house had burned to the ground in a matter of seconds, killing his entire family.
On his way home, he was accidentally killed when his car ran into a hail of gunfire"
17.1.03
AND AGAIN: I take the arguments here contained to be so evidently flawed (we can, for example, rule out every objection of the form "well yes, but what about back when x?" because wrong action in the past, if it has any bearing on the present moment, obligates us all the more to act rightly this time) as to not be worth responding to again.
IRAQ, PT II: I think this highlights what is so off with the administration's Iraq policy-- right premise (Saddam is bad), right conclusion (we have to remove him from power), but all of the middle logical steps get skipped over. If he had come out six months ago and said that the goal of the U.S. was a democratic, pluralistic government in Baghdad, he wouldn't have his hands tied to the UN inspections process. While many would object to military action under those auspices (it'd be imperialist or something), there'd at least be a serious moral argument to fall back on. We'd be liberating the frickin' country. This is all the more painful because of that brief moment when it looked like Bush possessed the moral clarity to undo decades of American hypocricy in foreign policy. Inspections may provide sufficient causus belli, but it strikes me that we had that in the first place. All we've lost in the meantime is the trust of the best allies we have in the country.
ON IRAQ: An excellent article from Slate:
"Kurdish leaders fear that Saddam takes them very seriously and may retaliate against them if war comes. But they also worry that they are taken more seriously in Baghdad than they are in Washington, where it is a priority to avoid angering the Turks, with their traditional fear of all things Kurdish. President Bush recently found time to see three Iraqi opposition intellectuals, but not the Kurdish leaders who were in Washington at the same time, such as Barham Saleh, the prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
Such slights, real or imagined, fuel a suspicion in the minds of the Kurds that the United States is happy to use them as a propaganda symbol but is determined to deny them any real influence before or after an American invasion of Iraq. The Kurds view this as deeply unfair. The Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, ruling respectively Western and Eastern Kurdistan, control a state the size of Switzerland and each have armies of 15,000 men (and these can be rapidly reinforced by tens of thousands of tribal militia). They point out that, alone among the Iraqi opposition, they are elected democratically and have strong popular support. The only other powerful anti-Saddam force on the ground, long allied to the Kurds, is the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite group based in Iran and Southern Iraq that is also backed by Iran and has about 5,000 fighters."
"Kurdish leaders fear that Saddam takes them very seriously and may retaliate against them if war comes. But they also worry that they are taken more seriously in Baghdad than they are in Washington, where it is a priority to avoid angering the Turks, with their traditional fear of all things Kurdish. President Bush recently found time to see three Iraqi opposition intellectuals, but not the Kurdish leaders who were in Washington at the same time, such as Barham Saleh, the prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
Such slights, real or imagined, fuel a suspicion in the minds of the Kurds that the United States is happy to use them as a propaganda symbol but is determined to deny them any real influence before or after an American invasion of Iraq. The Kurds view this as deeply unfair. The Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, ruling respectively Western and Eastern Kurdistan, control a state the size of Switzerland and each have armies of 15,000 men (and these can be rapidly reinforced by tens of thousands of tribal militia). They point out that, alone among the Iraqi opposition, they are elected democratically and have strong popular support. The only other powerful anti-Saddam force on the ground, long allied to the Kurds, is the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite group based in Iran and Southern Iraq that is also backed by Iran and has about 5,000 fighters."
ALSO:
Q: How many John Edwards does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Just one. The same as regular people.
and:
Q: How many Bill Frists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One.
Q: How many right-wing commentators does it take to point out that Frist’s lightbulb-changing underlines his essential decency and makes him a lot harder to demonize?
A: Pretty much all of them, apparently.
Q: How many John Edwards does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Just one. The same as regular people.
and:
Q: How many Bill Frists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One.
Q: How many right-wing commentators does it take to point out that Frist’s lightbulb-changing underlines his essential decency and makes him a lot harder to demonize?
A: Pretty much all of them, apparently.
LINK: tedbarlow's cavalcade of whimsy is doing politically themed lightbulb jokes. My favorite thusfar.
16.1.03
A NOTE OF INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY: Regarding Bush's speech on us yesterday, and those against the U of M system more generally.
One of the fun little facts they like to note at any available opportunity is that if you're part of a racial minority, you get 20 points (out of 100 needed for automatic admission), whereas for a perfect SAT score, you only get 12. The hidden assumption is obvious: people who get perfect SAT scores will be rejected, and unqualified people will take their place. And since I had to read the Law School decision as part of a previous PoliSci course, I feel qualified to make general statements about both. Here goes:
1. If you get high test scores (be they ACTs or LSATs), have excellent grades, and take a reasonably difficult course-load (wait for it... wait for it...) YOU WILL GET IN
2. Everyone else who has a less than impeccable record will not necessarily get in.
It's not as if either one of the two people who filed the suits got 1600s on their SATs and had 4.0s. They were slightly higher-than-average, if that. You want to make sure you get into a good school? WORK HARDER.
One of the fun little facts they like to note at any available opportunity is that if you're part of a racial minority, you get 20 points (out of 100 needed for automatic admission), whereas for a perfect SAT score, you only get 12. The hidden assumption is obvious: people who get perfect SAT scores will be rejected, and unqualified people will take their place. And since I had to read the Law School decision as part of a previous PoliSci course, I feel qualified to make general statements about both. Here goes:
1. If you get high test scores (be they ACTs or LSATs), have excellent grades, and take a reasonably difficult course-load (wait for it... wait for it...) YOU WILL GET IN
2. Everyone else who has a less than impeccable record will not necessarily get in.
It's not as if either one of the two people who filed the suits got 1600s on their SATs and had 4.0s. They were slightly higher-than-average, if that. You want to make sure you get into a good school? WORK HARDER.
NOTE TO THE PREVIOUS: but brief again, because I should go to bed soon, and I don't want to start a thing: I'm not going to advance the thesis that there is no such thing as 'economically disadvantaged.' Rather, I think there's something disingenuous about the way economic status was being discussed in the various posts and replies. Since I suspect your position is more slippery than your post might indicate, we'll probably have to have this out in person. Free this weekend? :o)
15.1.03
14.1.03
EXPLANATION: I'm going to attempt to give the background for the Letter to the Editor I wrote (and that was published today) as briefly as possible. Here goes:
Hitch used to write a column for The Nation, which is a Left political magazine. To situate it on a spectrum of political ideologies, I think it is helpful to keep in mind the comment once given by an editor of Partisan Review (which after WWII was the bastion of New Deal/ muscular liberalism) (I believe the editor was Dwight MacDonald, but don't quote me on that): "they're a bunch of boot-licking Stalinists."*
His column was really just a variation on one of four topics, which I can summarize as follows: 1. Saddam Hussein is a bad man 2. Bill Clinton is a bad man 3. The Palestinians deserve their own state 4. Henry Kissinger is a bad man. Needless to say, I rarely paid much attention to it. But following Sept. 11, he started publishing columns that attacked his fellow Leftists for, among other things, misunderstanding the nature of the enemy, not thinking about the implications of their worldview, flogging tired shibboleths, and lacking the sort of emotional response one might expect such an event to have on human beings. The apotheosis of this approach can be found in "Of Sin, the Left, and Islamic Facism," which is as much of a watershed text for modern liberalism as can be imagined. In fairness to him, this reaction was not unfounded, especially with regard to The Nation--which carried, to name but one example, Katha Pollit's column about her refusing to let her daughter fly an American flag, because it only represented evil things.
Needless to say, pandemonium ensued: a big fight with Noam Chomsky was had, and people started accusing him of being a turncoat. He continued to write away, and his fellow writers at The Nation were quite happy to say, again and again, that John Ashcroft was a bigger threat to America than Osama bin Laden**. Anyway, he became tired of all of this, and announced his intention to quit the magazine, the reasons for which are contained in his last column, "Taking Sides."
Some people, John Honkala included, have a little trouble taking him at his word, or understanding how someone can, for example, be a liberal and not reflexively declare everything the Bush Administration does is wrong. Additionally, they seem to interpret his pro-war (albeit conditonal) stance as making him into a Republican, or at least something vaguely unsavory. Obviously, this doesn't hold up on sustained reflection. Hence my letter.
* Actually, it was William Phillips, and the accusation was that they were "licking Stalin's boots." I'd like to thank Google, Arts & Letters Daily, and command-F for making it possible for me to find the article I remembered reading about this four months ago.
** As it so happens, I brought back the one and only copy of Mother Jones I bought (from my freshman year, when I was nominally still a socialist, so I think that suffices as an excuse), in October 2000. The cover story is titled "The Phantom Menace," and it's about how the government seemed to be under the impression that there was going to be a terrorist attack, but that was silly, because we all know terrorists won't try to attack America, right? Well, let's just say that increases my hesitation to trust Left assessments of threats of any kind.
Hitch used to write a column for The Nation, which is a Left political magazine. To situate it on a spectrum of political ideologies, I think it is helpful to keep in mind the comment once given by an editor of Partisan Review (which after WWII was the bastion of New Deal/ muscular liberalism) (I believe the editor was Dwight MacDonald, but don't quote me on that): "they're a bunch of boot-licking Stalinists."*
His column was really just a variation on one of four topics, which I can summarize as follows: 1. Saddam Hussein is a bad man 2. Bill Clinton is a bad man 3. The Palestinians deserve their own state 4. Henry Kissinger is a bad man. Needless to say, I rarely paid much attention to it. But following Sept. 11, he started publishing columns that attacked his fellow Leftists for, among other things, misunderstanding the nature of the enemy, not thinking about the implications of their worldview, flogging tired shibboleths, and lacking the sort of emotional response one might expect such an event to have on human beings. The apotheosis of this approach can be found in "Of Sin, the Left, and Islamic Facism," which is as much of a watershed text for modern liberalism as can be imagined. In fairness to him, this reaction was not unfounded, especially with regard to The Nation--which carried, to name but one example, Katha Pollit's column about her refusing to let her daughter fly an American flag, because it only represented evil things.
Needless to say, pandemonium ensued: a big fight with Noam Chomsky was had, and people started accusing him of being a turncoat. He continued to write away, and his fellow writers at The Nation were quite happy to say, again and again, that John Ashcroft was a bigger threat to America than Osama bin Laden**. Anyway, he became tired of all of this, and announced his intention to quit the magazine, the reasons for which are contained in his last column, "Taking Sides."
Some people, John Honkala included, have a little trouble taking him at his word, or understanding how someone can, for example, be a liberal and not reflexively declare everything the Bush Administration does is wrong. Additionally, they seem to interpret his pro-war (albeit conditonal) stance as making him into a Republican, or at least something vaguely unsavory. Obviously, this doesn't hold up on sustained reflection. Hence my letter.
* Actually, it was William Phillips, and the accusation was that they were "licking Stalin's boots." I'd like to thank Google, Arts & Letters Daily, and command-F for making it possible for me to find the article I remembered reading about this four months ago.
** As it so happens, I brought back the one and only copy of Mother Jones I bought (from my freshman year, when I was nominally still a socialist, so I think that suffices as an excuse), in October 2000. The cover story is titled "The Phantom Menace," and it's about how the government seemed to be under the impression that there was going to be a terrorist attack, but that was silly, because we all know terrorists won't try to attack America, right? Well, let's just say that increases my hesitation to trust Left assessments of threats of any kind.
LINKS: One from The Telegraph (from Britain), on how Leftists have become so enamored with the anti-war movement that they neglect to consider what actual Iraqis may want. I've certainly never heard of an Iraqi dissident who opposed military intervention, even unilateral intervention by the U.S. I think liberals would be much better off pushing for a certain state of affairs to be the case after regime change rather than opposing action now and therefore getting to play no part in the debate whatsoever.
And, of course, another offering from Hitch, reminding us that we ought to be awfully wary of the Administration's idea of what an acceptable after-intervention Iraq would look like.
And, of course, another offering from Hitch, reminding us that we ought to be awfully wary of the Administration's idea of what an acceptable after-intervention Iraq would look like.
MUST READ: If you want an idea of what's wrong with the educational system in America. Truly shocking, I must say.
LINK: The sad thing about Joe Lieberman is that he's the Democrat I know I should dislike because he's not especially liberal, but there's just something about him... he's like the long-lost twin brother of John McCain (only not as tapped into the cultural zeitgeist).
LINK: If Novak's right about the growing dissention amongst the Senate Republicans, it may yet be an interesting election cycle in 2004.
LINK: Zell Miller is, I have heard said, a Republican's favorite Democrat. Well, I think I found my favorite Republican.
LINK: I don't want to say fuddy-duddy, but it really is the term that springs to mind. Even if I don't think he's entirely wrong.
LINK: Wait... let me see if I get this correctly: a conservative has an ethics problem? And he's doing what for a living? Good thing there are no conflict-of-interest rules in his line of work.
LINK: I can't remember the last time an article made me want to watch a television show. But I know what I'm doing on Sunday nights at 9:00.
LINK: It occurred to me, as I read this, that you'd never see someone from The Nation write this, which I think pretty much sums up everything wrong with the far Left.
LINKS: The best piece I've read on George Ryan's decision to commute the sentences of everyone on death row in Illinois. And Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe, of all places, makes the case for the death penalty as well as I've heard it put:
"To say that society should refrain from executing murderers for fear of making a mistake is not noble. It is a cop-out. A soldier on the battlefield who refuses to shoot at the enemy lest he inadvertently hit the wrong man is no moral hero, and neither are those who demand that all murderers be kept alive so that we never face a risk -- however tiny, however remote -- of executing an innocent defendant.
Granted, it is not easy to condemn someone to death, still less to carry out the sentence. Executions are irrevocable and irreversible; to take away anyone's life -- even a brutal criminal's -- involves an assertion of moral certainty that might make many of us tremble.
But trembling or not, we have a duty to carry out. A duty to proclaim that murder is evil and will not be tolerated. That it is the worst of all crimes and deserves the worst of all punishments. And that while we will bend over backward not to hurt the innocent, we will not let that paralyze us from punishing the guilty."
"To say that society should refrain from executing murderers for fear of making a mistake is not noble. It is a cop-out. A soldier on the battlefield who refuses to shoot at the enemy lest he inadvertently hit the wrong man is no moral hero, and neither are those who demand that all murderers be kept alive so that we never face a risk -- however tiny, however remote -- of executing an innocent defendant.
Granted, it is not easy to condemn someone to death, still less to carry out the sentence. Executions are irrevocable and irreversible; to take away anyone's life -- even a brutal criminal's -- involves an assertion of moral certainty that might make many of us tremble.
But trembling or not, we have a duty to carry out. A duty to proclaim that murder is evil and will not be tolerated. That it is the worst of all crimes and deserves the worst of all punishments. And that while we will bend over backward not to hurt the innocent, we will not let that paralyze us from punishing the guilty."
SILENCE = DEATH
As they used to say. And it's still true. On Herb Ritts:
" This isn't just another example of incomplete or deceptive reporting. It's also a tragic omission at a time when study after study shows unsafe sex and new infections continuing to rise steeply among younger generations of gay men, often because the realities of AIDS are abstract to them - enough to allow them to take foolish risks.
They are often too young to remember the AIDS deaths of celebrities, like Rock Hudson in 1985, which jolted America and the world. Most young gay men also have not watched their own friends die, as was the case for gay men of previous generations. This is true even as many of these young men become infected with HIV themselves and stay quiet about their illness, going on the drug "cocktail," chained for the rest of their lives to powerful pharmaceuticals that often have horrific side effects.
Those drugs have thankfully saved many lives. Ironically, they've also driven AIDS back into the closet. The decline of AIDS awareness in the newsroom mirrors what has happened in society in general. No longer are many people with HIV walking around rail-thin and gaunt. Many even use testosterone as part of their therapy, building up their bodies and developing bulging biceps, often appearing more fit than their uninfected friends. AIDS becomes increasingly invisible, on the streets as well as in the media, even as HIV infection is an ever-present danger. And clearly, though American fatalities have decreased a great deal, HIV still kills.
That's why the story behind the death of Herb Ritts, a man who photographed Hollywood icons and shot music videos for youth idols such as Jennifier Lopez and 'NSync, would go a long way.
That is, if anybody actually heard about it. "
As they used to say. And it's still true. On Herb Ritts:
" This isn't just another example of incomplete or deceptive reporting. It's also a tragic omission at a time when study after study shows unsafe sex and new infections continuing to rise steeply among younger generations of gay men, often because the realities of AIDS are abstract to them - enough to allow them to take foolish risks.
They are often too young to remember the AIDS deaths of celebrities, like Rock Hudson in 1985, which jolted America and the world. Most young gay men also have not watched their own friends die, as was the case for gay men of previous generations. This is true even as many of these young men become infected with HIV themselves and stay quiet about their illness, going on the drug "cocktail," chained for the rest of their lives to powerful pharmaceuticals that often have horrific side effects.
Those drugs have thankfully saved many lives. Ironically, they've also driven AIDS back into the closet. The decline of AIDS awareness in the newsroom mirrors what has happened in society in general. No longer are many people with HIV walking around rail-thin and gaunt. Many even use testosterone as part of their therapy, building up their bodies and developing bulging biceps, often appearing more fit than their uninfected friends. AIDS becomes increasingly invisible, on the streets as well as in the media, even as HIV infection is an ever-present danger. And clearly, though American fatalities have decreased a great deal, HIV still kills.
That's why the story behind the death of Herb Ritts, a man who photographed Hollywood icons and shot music videos for youth idols such as Jennifier Lopez and 'NSync, would go a long way.
That is, if anybody actually heard about it. "
FOREIGN POLICY: Germany is falling to pieces. The government there is bungling the economic situation, and the whole mess is threatening to take all the momentum out of the EU project, and just at the moment when it was poised to make major breakthroughs. Pity. I'm probably not alone, though, in thinking that a politically unstable Germany might be in no one's interests.
Also, Excellent profile of one of the rising stars of Dutch politics. She's liberal, and willing to take on tough issues relating to Western Culture and the willingness of Europe to capitulate to immigrants who take no interest in preserving free and open society. Oh, and she's Somali. And a former Muslim. And a woman!
Also, Excellent profile of one of the rising stars of Dutch politics. She's liberal, and willing to take on tough issues relating to Western Culture and the willingness of Europe to capitulate to immigrants who take no interest in preserving free and open society. Oh, and she's Somali. And a former Muslim. And a woman!
12.1.03
RIDICULOUS SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT: My letter to The Daily:
"In response to John Honkala’s column from last Friday, two points:
First, Christopher Hitchens’ decision to leave The Nation came as no surprise to anyone who read his columns and compared them to the mess that was the rest of the magazine. But to say that he’s "opted for the other side" is to completely misunderstand the intellectual position he has been taking. Presumably, Honkala wants to imply that The Hitch has crossed over to the dark side, become a conservative, or somesuch. It takes a fairly skewed politics to see someone leaving The Nation to write for Slate (that home of right-wing lunacy) as a renunciation of former views or a sell-out.
As a Liberal, I have a certain respect for the intellectual and moral honesty involved in Hitchens’ decision. Liberals should be the first and most vocal in calling for an end to the Hussein regime in Iraq, and that only as a stepping-stone towards bringing democracy and pluralism to Iran, Suadi Arabia, and elsewhere. As a former subscriber to The Nation, I was always dismayed that those who wrote for that magazine on foreign policy seemed more willing to hem and haw over the ramifications of violence rather than see the potential to expand liberty across the world.
And as far as ‘the other side’ goes, it seems to be a requirement of Left thinking nowadays to declare that anything the Bush administration wants is wrong, and anyone who advocates a policy principle they articulate is also wrong, so, a fortiori, anyone who agrees with someone linked to a Bush policy is wrong. Such a belief is so simpleminded as to not warrant a rebuttal. Regime change in Iraq is right, and Hitchens is right to make common cause with those who understand that wherever they come from politically.
Another note I’d like to make: Honkala correlates the fall of Leftism with the rise of modern middle-class life right around the time of Nixon. Well, he got the timing right, but the reason wrong. The Left failed because New Leftists strangled the productive and substantive Liberal policy apparatus of the time, replacing it with the myopia typified by college demonstrators—the logical point of contrast being student dissidents in Iran. Much of Leftism nowadays requires neither inquiring into what the American people want, nor engaging in thought on a pragmatic level about what implementing Left politics might actually look like. This is why we’ve been banished to the hinterlands of American politics. It will take a lot more than beer and hotdogs to turn that around."
"In response to John Honkala’s column from last Friday, two points:
First, Christopher Hitchens’ decision to leave The Nation came as no surprise to anyone who read his columns and compared them to the mess that was the rest of the magazine. But to say that he’s "opted for the other side" is to completely misunderstand the intellectual position he has been taking. Presumably, Honkala wants to imply that The Hitch has crossed over to the dark side, become a conservative, or somesuch. It takes a fairly skewed politics to see someone leaving The Nation to write for Slate (that home of right-wing lunacy) as a renunciation of former views or a sell-out.
As a Liberal, I have a certain respect for the intellectual and moral honesty involved in Hitchens’ decision. Liberals should be the first and most vocal in calling for an end to the Hussein regime in Iraq, and that only as a stepping-stone towards bringing democracy and pluralism to Iran, Suadi Arabia, and elsewhere. As a former subscriber to The Nation, I was always dismayed that those who wrote for that magazine on foreign policy seemed more willing to hem and haw over the ramifications of violence rather than see the potential to expand liberty across the world.
And as far as ‘the other side’ goes, it seems to be a requirement of Left thinking nowadays to declare that anything the Bush administration wants is wrong, and anyone who advocates a policy principle they articulate is also wrong, so, a fortiori, anyone who agrees with someone linked to a Bush policy is wrong. Such a belief is so simpleminded as to not warrant a rebuttal. Regime change in Iraq is right, and Hitchens is right to make common cause with those who understand that wherever they come from politically.
Another note I’d like to make: Honkala correlates the fall of Leftism with the rise of modern middle-class life right around the time of Nixon. Well, he got the timing right, but the reason wrong. The Left failed because New Leftists strangled the productive and substantive Liberal policy apparatus of the time, replacing it with the myopia typified by college demonstrators—the logical point of contrast being student dissidents in Iran. Much of Leftism nowadays requires neither inquiring into what the American people want, nor engaging in thought on a pragmatic level about what implementing Left politics might actually look like. This is why we’ve been banished to the hinterlands of American politics. It will take a lot more than beer and hotdogs to turn that around."
QUOTE: Tom Friedman:
" Until it is sealed, it will remain a well for the "thoughts of mass destruction" that will energize every radical anti-American group out here. I am convinced that much of the anger over U.S. policy is really a cry of help from people who know what they have to do — to democratize, liberalize their economies — and who know that they will be lost for another 50 years if they don't, but can't do it because these ideas are promoted by a power they feel is indifferent to their deepest hurt.
I am not talking about what is right, or what is fair, or even what is rational. I am talking about what is. And if we ignore it, if we dismiss it all as a fraud, we will never fully harvest the positive changes that could come from regime change in Iraq. The Egyptian playwright Ali Salem says: "We have an Egyptian proverb: `The drunk is in the care of the sober.' You are the sober. Don't forget that."ie
" Until it is sealed, it will remain a well for the "thoughts of mass destruction" that will energize every radical anti-American group out here. I am convinced that much of the anger over U.S. policy is really a cry of help from people who know what they have to do — to democratize, liberalize their economies — and who know that they will be lost for another 50 years if they don't, but can't do it because these ideas are promoted by a power they feel is indifferent to their deepest hurt.
I am not talking about what is right, or what is fair, or even what is rational. I am talking about what is. And if we ignore it, if we dismiss it all as a fraud, we will never fully harvest the positive changes that could come from regime change in Iraq. The Egyptian playwright Ali Salem says: "We have an Egyptian proverb: `The drunk is in the care of the sober.' You are the sober. Don't forget that."ie
LINK: Greil Marcus on Elvis, reminding us all why he remains the coolest rock and roll star ever. Bar none. And, oh yeah, Western Culture rocks!
FOR DAVID: The funniest thing ever. Especially:
"LotR with Sportscaster Commentary (preferably Madden)
The army that wins will be the one that kills more of the enemy while not getting as many of themselves killed.
What's important for the forces of good? Turnovers. The forces of good can't turn over that ring. Turning over that ring will have a definite impact on the outcome of this war.
Watch as the pocket collapses around the Nazgul King and BOOM! He's down.
Let's go down to our battlefield sideline reporter for an update on Theoden. "Well, John, the word is that Theoden has been hit with a dart and mortally wounded, so his return for the second half is (wait for it) questionable."
And, of course:
The evil that is Sauron pales in comparision to the throwing ability of Brett Farve."
"LotR with Sportscaster Commentary (preferably Madden)
The army that wins will be the one that kills more of the enemy while not getting as many of themselves killed.
What's important for the forces of good? Turnovers. The forces of good can't turn over that ring. Turning over that ring will have a definite impact on the outcome of this war.
Watch as the pocket collapses around the Nazgul King and BOOM! He's down.
Let's go down to our battlefield sideline reporter for an update on Theoden. "Well, John, the word is that Theoden has been hit with a dart and mortally wounded, so his return for the second half is (wait for it) questionable."
And, of course:
The evil that is Sauron pales in comparision to the throwing ability of Brett Farve."
9.1.03
LINK: The much ballyhooed WaPo piece on President Bush's latest policy moves. Well, you have to give the guy some credit for having the (fight over word choice: part of me wants to say "cajones," but feels that would be too obvious; part of me wants to say "confidence," which would allow you to interpret it as good or bad, however you feel. Anyway, choose for yourself.) to go after what he wants. Naturally, this is the nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party. And why is that, you ask? Good question.
The Democratic Party has been tremendously unsuccessful in winning any major policy discussion since 1973 or so. Some, myself included, would place much of the blame for this on the rise of the New Left, which favored ponderous and condescending attempts to foist unwieldy programs upon the American people with little thought of what they might actually want. Granted, the relative willingness of Liberals to capitulate to the whims of their radical brethren probably didn't help matters. Regardless, the end effect was to run out what had been, all things considered, a fairly effective supportive policy apparatus to the Party (Partisan Review, for example, now being a shell of its former self). So when it comes time every two years for the Elections That Matter, Democrats don't have the benefit of the internicene fighting that goes on amongst policy wonks as big, bold ideas are created and refined. Bush, having good advisers, knows this: all he has to do is come out, make big, bold proposals for everything he'd want, and, whaddayaknow, all of a sudden the debate is being fought on his terms.
Which means, of course, that it's tremendously difficult to defeat him, but, in the interest of fairness, I should add 'for now.' I've stated before, and don't mind saying it again, that the big political movement of the next 10 years might well end up being Neo-Liberalism; that is, a Left politics that looks more like the New Deal than the Great Society. Foreign policy could very easily be in the bag for any Democrat willing to go out and articulate muscular Leftism: we believe in fighting, where necessary, because we believe in democracy and the right of self-determination, the Four Freedoms, blah blah blah. And there are hints of it, too, in Lieberman's critiques of Bush on Iraq, and John Edwards' suggestions about treating the North Korea Crisis more seriously. But for any of this to have an effect, someone is going to have to come out swinging hard for it, and it's hard to see someone like that in the current crop of Democrats. But maybe someday soon.
The Democratic Party has been tremendously unsuccessful in winning any major policy discussion since 1973 or so. Some, myself included, would place much of the blame for this on the rise of the New Left, which favored ponderous and condescending attempts to foist unwieldy programs upon the American people with little thought of what they might actually want. Granted, the relative willingness of Liberals to capitulate to the whims of their radical brethren probably didn't help matters. Regardless, the end effect was to run out what had been, all things considered, a fairly effective supportive policy apparatus to the Party (Partisan Review, for example, now being a shell of its former self). So when it comes time every two years for the Elections That Matter, Democrats don't have the benefit of the internicene fighting that goes on amongst policy wonks as big, bold ideas are created and refined. Bush, having good advisers, knows this: all he has to do is come out, make big, bold proposals for everything he'd want, and, whaddayaknow, all of a sudden the debate is being fought on his terms.
Which means, of course, that it's tremendously difficult to defeat him, but, in the interest of fairness, I should add 'for now.' I've stated before, and don't mind saying it again, that the big political movement of the next 10 years might well end up being Neo-Liberalism; that is, a Left politics that looks more like the New Deal than the Great Society. Foreign policy could very easily be in the bag for any Democrat willing to go out and articulate muscular Leftism: we believe in fighting, where necessary, because we believe in democracy and the right of self-determination, the Four Freedoms, blah blah blah. And there are hints of it, too, in Lieberman's critiques of Bush on Iraq, and John Edwards' suggestions about treating the North Korea Crisis more seriously. But for any of this to have an effect, someone is going to have to come out swinging hard for it, and it's hard to see someone like that in the current crop of Democrats. But maybe someday soon.
QUOTE: InstaPundit, in something that will only be funny to me:
"LAST NIGHT there was a Cosby show rerun on Nickelodeon. Theo defies his parents, and they leave him with nowhere to live in order to teach him that actions have consequences, and forgiveness isn't to be taken for granted.
This morning Howard Kurtz is writing about the surprising degree of support, even among conservatives, for the idea of hanging South Korea out to dry. I wonder if there's a parallel to be drawn here? [You just drew it! -- Ed. Go away! That's Kaus's schtick. And Drezner's!]"
"LAST NIGHT there was a Cosby show rerun on Nickelodeon. Theo defies his parents, and they leave him with nowhere to live in order to teach him that actions have consequences, and forgiveness isn't to be taken for granted.
This morning Howard Kurtz is writing about the surprising degree of support, even among conservatives, for the idea of hanging South Korea out to dry. I wonder if there's a parallel to be drawn here? [You just drew it! -- Ed. Go away! That's Kaus's schtick. And Drezner's!]"
...AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
Should you ever need to write a report in some dark distant day when you're working for a faceless multinational corporation (in the Raping the Earth Department, most likely), there's always this to brighten your day.
Should you ever need to write a report in some dark distant day when you're working for a faceless multinational corporation (in the Raping the Earth Department, most likely), there's always this to brighten your day.
QUOTE: Josh Marshall, via Howie Kurtz:
"On one side, you have most of Washington's chattering classes, an assortment of blowhards and yada-meisters, telling a story about Clintonian appeasement and the current administration's steely-eyed determination to deal with yet another run-amok rogue regime.
"On the other side, you have most folks who follow politics and geo-politics in Asia, and especially in North Asia. You also have most politicians and diplomats from the region itself. They tell a rather different story: how the Bush administration blundered its way into this crisis by casting about for two years with loose threats it was in no real position to make good on. It is also a story about how the administration committed itself to what was effectively a policy of no negotiations rather than trying to toughen, and thus improve, the deals the Clinton administration had cut in 1994 and thereafter. . . .
"Now they're trying to find a face-saving way to get out of this jam by asking the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, the South Koreans – just about anyone who has the North Koreans' phone number, it seems – to let the North Koreans know that we'd really like to get back to the bargaining table if only they'd give us something to help us save a little face.
"This is one of the many embarrassments of the situation we're now in. Usually it's the weaker party that needs to save face when backing down from some untenable position. But here we're the ones who need to save face."
"On one side, you have most of Washington's chattering classes, an assortment of blowhards and yada-meisters, telling a story about Clintonian appeasement and the current administration's steely-eyed determination to deal with yet another run-amok rogue regime.
"On the other side, you have most folks who follow politics and geo-politics in Asia, and especially in North Asia. You also have most politicians and diplomats from the region itself. They tell a rather different story: how the Bush administration blundered its way into this crisis by casting about for two years with loose threats it was in no real position to make good on. It is also a story about how the administration committed itself to what was effectively a policy of no negotiations rather than trying to toughen, and thus improve, the deals the Clinton administration had cut in 1994 and thereafter. . . .
"Now they're trying to find a face-saving way to get out of this jam by asking the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, the South Koreans – just about anyone who has the North Koreans' phone number, it seems – to let the North Koreans know that we'd really like to get back to the bargaining table if only they'd give us something to help us save a little face.
"This is one of the many embarrassments of the situation we're now in. Usually it's the weaker party that needs to save face when backing down from some untenable position. But here we're the ones who need to save face."
QUOTE: From Mickey Kaus, of Kausfiles fame, to be found on Slate:
"I accuse Weekly Standard editor Chris Caldwell of trying to be interesting. He claims the Bush tax cut represents a "dead loss" for middle class Americans, because what they gain in child tax credits ($800 for a family of four) they lose in the "relative wealth" race with the rich:
Interesting! But if it's relative wealth we're worried about, whatever changes might be wrought by Bush's tax cut are minor compared with the inegalitarian trends in the underlying economy that are increasingly rewarding skill, education, and luck. Why not tamp down those trends -- and their consequences -- too? Is this a road Caldwell wants to travel down?
If he does, he should maybe not worry about who is "unconservative." Once you start fretting about relative wealth -- i.e. money equality -- more than prosperity, it's not easy to see where to stop. Caldwell could say he'll stop whenever "the working class is capable of imagining it can join the rich." But it's hard to see why they can imagine it today but won't be able to if the proposed Bush tax cut passes. (The estate tax repeal is another matter.) Weren't they able to imagine it in the far more inegalitarian early decades of the 20th century? ... If I were sure -- and I'm not -- that the proposed Bush cut really would a) stimulate the economy and b) prevent corporate shenanigans involving retained earnings, I'd be for it even if it also disproportionately increased the wealth of the rich. After all, we've learned that the best thing you can do for the poor, and for poor neighborhoods, is to run a hot economy with a tight labor market at the bottom that pushes up wages. (Does the middle class also lose ground in Caldwell's bidding war if the poor get richer? He could make a plausible argument. But should we care? It would definitely be good for social equality.) ... P.S.: Orthodontia? Are the rich really bidding up the price of braces? ... "
"I accuse Weekly Standard editor Chris Caldwell of trying to be interesting. He claims the Bush tax cut represents a "dead loss" for middle class Americans, because what they gain in child tax credits ($800 for a family of four) they lose in the "relative wealth" race with the rich:
The middle class, in certain circumstances, must compete against the rich as if in a luxury market - not just for luxury goods but for the staples of life. What do middle-class parents want for their children? A house in a neighbourhood with a good public school system, orthodontia, a college education, maybe even (heaven forbid) a kidney transplant. The prices of all these commodities will be bid up (and by considerably more than $800) when top earners start getting their annual five-figure windfalls.
Interesting! But if it's relative wealth we're worried about, whatever changes might be wrought by Bush's tax cut are minor compared with the inegalitarian trends in the underlying economy that are increasingly rewarding skill, education, and luck. Why not tamp down those trends -- and their consequences -- too? Is this a road Caldwell wants to travel down?
If he does, he should maybe not worry about who is "unconservative." Once you start fretting about relative wealth -- i.e. money equality -- more than prosperity, it's not easy to see where to stop. Caldwell could say he'll stop whenever "the working class is capable of imagining it can join the rich." But it's hard to see why they can imagine it today but won't be able to if the proposed Bush tax cut passes. (The estate tax repeal is another matter.) Weren't they able to imagine it in the far more inegalitarian early decades of the 20th century? ... If I were sure -- and I'm not -- that the proposed Bush cut really would a) stimulate the economy and b) prevent corporate shenanigans involving retained earnings, I'd be for it even if it also disproportionately increased the wealth of the rich. After all, we've learned that the best thing you can do for the poor, and for poor neighborhoods, is to run a hot economy with a tight labor market at the bottom that pushes up wages. (Does the middle class also lose ground in Caldwell's bidding war if the poor get richer? He could make a plausible argument. But should we care? It would definitely be good for social equality.) ... P.S.: Orthodontia? Are the rich really bidding up the price of braces? ... "
QUOTE: from Tim Blair, the champagne of Australian blogs:
"DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BE BRITAIN'S POET LAUREATE? You'd be surprised how easy it is, judging by the latest chunk o' verse from poet laureate Andrew Motion. And The Guardian thinks Motion's notions are extremely important, for some reason:
In a rare step for a poet laureate, Andrew Motion today speaks out in his newest poem against the momentum towards a US-led invasion of Iraq using British forces who would be serving nominally under the Queen.
In the 30-word poem, Motion, who was appointed by the Queen in 1999, sides with those who are "doubtful" about a war - and against the political leaderships of Britain and America.
Here's Motion's "newest poem":
CAUSA BELLI by Andrew Motion
They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
elections, money, empire, oil and Dad.
Call that a poem? This is a poem:
COARSER BELLI by Handcare Lotion
They read good poems, and write, but never learn
a better phrase to rhyme with than fucking "rocket-burn".
How did you become Boss Poet when your poetry's so bad?
The fucking competition must be dead or fucking mad.
Not great, I admit, but it has a certain flow the original lacked. Think you can do better? Of course you can! Send your Causa Belli parodies my way, and I'll forward them to The Queen."
"DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BE BRITAIN'S POET LAUREATE? You'd be surprised how easy it is, judging by the latest chunk o' verse from poet laureate Andrew Motion. And The Guardian thinks Motion's notions are extremely important, for some reason:
In a rare step for a poet laureate, Andrew Motion today speaks out in his newest poem against the momentum towards a US-led invasion of Iraq using British forces who would be serving nominally under the Queen.
In the 30-word poem, Motion, who was appointed by the Queen in 1999, sides with those who are "doubtful" about a war - and against the political leaderships of Britain and America.
Here's Motion's "newest poem":
CAUSA BELLI by Andrew Motion
They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
elections, money, empire, oil and Dad.
Call that a poem? This is a poem:
COARSER BELLI by Handcare Lotion
They read good poems, and write, but never learn
a better phrase to rhyme with than fucking "rocket-burn".
How did you become Boss Poet when your poetry's so bad?
The fucking competition must be dead or fucking mad.
Not great, I admit, but it has a certain flow the original lacked. Think you can do better? Of course you can! Send your Causa Belli parodies my way, and I'll forward them to The Queen."
SECOND ANNUAL MONTGOMERY BURNS AWARD FOR OUTSTANDING ACHEIVEMENT IN THE FIELD OF EXCELLENCE:
Dara Smith
Because I now (apparently) can't be bothered to do updates, and Hucul appears to be giving The Nation a run for their money for the longest period between posting new material, but she still manages to plug away nearly every day. Still waiting on that Iraq argument, though. Kudos!
Dara Smith
Because I now (apparently) can't be bothered to do updates, and Hucul appears to be giving The Nation a run for their money for the longest period between posting new material, but she still manages to plug away nearly every day. Still waiting on that Iraq argument, though. Kudos!
8.1.03
LINK: Joe Conason, generally annoying, does a good job skewering the G.O.P. Good for a laugh or two.
6.1.03
5.1.03
LINK: I'm torn between my instinct to pass this along without comment, and my urge to feature this quote, containing, as I believe it does, a nice working definition of modesty and critical self-assessment:
" "I want to play defense next year," Clarett told The Cleveland Plain Dealer. "I'm too much of an athlete just to play on one side of the ball.""
" "I want to play defense next year," Clarett told The Cleveland Plain Dealer. "I'm too much of an athlete just to play on one side of the ball.""
4.1.03
HAHAHA: From the New York Observer, a few various bits of advice:
ALL YOURS, HUCUL:
"3. Stop pretending you don't find President George W. Bush kinda hot. No matter what your persuasion, you have to admit that Dubya's earnest Texan big-daddy assertiveness and well-toned bod has a certain je ne sais fresh."
CAN'T HELP BUT LAUGH:
"5. Stop dressing like Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver ! That goes for you and you and you. Previous exhortations in this column to reduce the slut quotient in your personal style have been met with rebellious indifference. I'm giving you one more chance to refresh your look: Rent the Scorsese classic, take a long, hard look at Jodie's hot pants and decide if you think they're wartime-appropriate. And while you're at it, stop pretending to be an expert on Middle Eastern affairs and support the country that gives you the freedom to flaunt yourself à la Jodie in Taxi Driver. Cancel any planned European vacations until they--France and Germany in particular--adopt a more U.S.-friendly tone."
WORST ADVICE NICK IS SERIOUSLY CONTEMPLATING ACTING ON:
"11. Why not refresh your stale-smelling apartment with a jasmine-honeysuckle-gardenia olfactory orgasm for the New Year? Wait until the steam heat is blasting, and then spray your radiators liberally with Kate Spade's new eau de parfum ($58 for 1.7 oz.). Inhale deeply."
ALL YOURS, HUCUL:
"3. Stop pretending you don't find President George W. Bush kinda hot. No matter what your persuasion, you have to admit that Dubya's earnest Texan big-daddy assertiveness and well-toned bod has a certain je ne sais fresh."
CAN'T HELP BUT LAUGH:
"5. Stop dressing like Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver ! That goes for you and you and you. Previous exhortations in this column to reduce the slut quotient in your personal style have been met with rebellious indifference. I'm giving you one more chance to refresh your look: Rent the Scorsese classic, take a long, hard look at Jodie's hot pants and decide if you think they're wartime-appropriate. And while you're at it, stop pretending to be an expert on Middle Eastern affairs and support the country that gives you the freedom to flaunt yourself à la Jodie in Taxi Driver. Cancel any planned European vacations until they--France and Germany in particular--adopt a more U.S.-friendly tone."
WORST ADVICE NICK IS SERIOUSLY CONTEMPLATING ACTING ON:
"11. Why not refresh your stale-smelling apartment with a jasmine-honeysuckle-gardenia olfactory orgasm for the New Year? Wait until the steam heat is blasting, and then spray your radiators liberally with Kate Spade's new eau de parfum ($58 for 1.7 oz.). Inhale deeply."
1.1.03
LINKS: A few nice things for your new year: the latest from Hitch, and one more reason to like Letterman more than that other guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)