"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
26.2.03
25.2.03
AN ASTERISK AND A FOOTNOTE: I've been asked (most recently by Camille) what my position on war with Iraq is. As I've grown fond of saying, I support it, with an asterisk and a footnote. Ergo:
I support war with Iraq*.
*Understanding that I support it because I believe in Iraqi freedom, and the potential of democratic government there. Since we pass the four-point test for forcible regime change, I believe was to remove Saddam and the Baathists can be justified. This does not, of course, require believing that this is the goal of the Bush administration, or even a goal they have.
I support war with Iraq*.
*Understanding that I support it because I believe in Iraqi freedom, and the potential of democratic government there. Since we pass the four-point test for forcible regime change, I believe was to remove Saddam and the Baathists can be justified. This does not, of course, require believing that this is the goal of the Bush administration, or even a goal they have.
MORE:
I've been spending a lot of time with, I think, the two really formative documents on the American social/political project: the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. I think the former envisions the idealized version of the world--all men created equal, with their political rights secured by their governments--embodied in the concrete moment of the American founding. The thing about the Declaration is that it makes a number of claims, which, if you follow them logically, are truly outrageous: all men created equal being one, and the other being that governments derive their powers from the just consent of the governed. Practically speaking, the founders had no right to assert either. It is an argument that human beings are capable of overcoming their baser natures, and that it is entirely reasonable to demand that they do so, when circumstances allow. This principle gets codified in the Constitution, which plays the cynical natures of men off each other to ensure the stability of the noble goals--political equality and just government.
Lincoln asserts something slightly different. The Civil War, for him, is not ultimately a war about whether or not slaves should be freed, or whether the south should be allowed to secede--though those issues are hardly irrelevant. It is a question of whether or not the particular republican-democratic dream at the core of the United States is possible at all. If it is, and Lincoln seems quite convinced that is is, then we know how it obligates us--to the last full measure of devotion, if necessary. We have to be prepared to wield power in the name of liberty.
So now we find ourselves, as a country, on the verge of going to war with Iraq. And that's the thing about the claims the Declaration makes--they don't declare that government is illegitimate if it ignores the political rights of the people only in America. Saddam Hussein runs an illegitimate government by the standard we ourseves set down at the founding. The question is not whether he has WMDs, and it is not whether he horribly oppresses and brutalizes his own people--though these issues are important as well. It is a question of whether or not the republican-democratic dream is possible at all in a worldwide context. And if you're convinced that it is, then you know how it obligates us.
I've been spending a lot of time with, I think, the two really formative documents on the American social/political project: the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. I think the former envisions the idealized version of the world--all men created equal, with their political rights secured by their governments--embodied in the concrete moment of the American founding. The thing about the Declaration is that it makes a number of claims, which, if you follow them logically, are truly outrageous: all men created equal being one, and the other being that governments derive their powers from the just consent of the governed. Practically speaking, the founders had no right to assert either. It is an argument that human beings are capable of overcoming their baser natures, and that it is entirely reasonable to demand that they do so, when circumstances allow. This principle gets codified in the Constitution, which plays the cynical natures of men off each other to ensure the stability of the noble goals--political equality and just government.
Lincoln asserts something slightly different. The Civil War, for him, is not ultimately a war about whether or not slaves should be freed, or whether the south should be allowed to secede--though those issues are hardly irrelevant. It is a question of whether or not the particular republican-democratic dream at the core of the United States is possible at all. If it is, and Lincoln seems quite convinced that is is, then we know how it obligates us--to the last full measure of devotion, if necessary. We have to be prepared to wield power in the name of liberty.
So now we find ourselves, as a country, on the verge of going to war with Iraq. And that's the thing about the claims the Declaration makes--they don't declare that government is illegitimate if it ignores the political rights of the people only in America. Saddam Hussein runs an illegitimate government by the standard we ourseves set down at the founding. The question is not whether he has WMDs, and it is not whether he horribly oppresses and brutalizes his own people--though these issues are important as well. It is a question of whether or not the republican-democratic dream is possible at all in a worldwide context. And if you're convinced that it is, then you know how it obligates us.
22.2.03
STOP THE WAR! Alright, folks, we had a good run, but let's face it: Chirac was always too smart for us. He managed to get all of the African nations--the petty despots and the banana republics--to sign onto the anti-war movement. I would find this more convincing as a show of support if France weren't still conducting colonial experiments on the continent. Threat of force, maybe? Who knows...
LINK: Bashing Naomi Klein, and not without good reason:
"
Democracy was, says Klein, the theme of the Porto Alegre social forum in Brazil. So, apparently, was admiration for Fidel Castro and his not exactly democratic Cuba. She seems to have no more idea how constitutional democracies balance the rights of individuals against those of collectives than she does how a sophisticated economy works. She gives no account of how democracy could work at all the levels she lists, nor how far economic life would-or should-be subordinated to political decisions.
What she is sure of, instead, is that democracy is in a bad way. Yet, as the latest Human Development Report pointed out, between 1985 and 2000, the number of regimes considered democratic jumped from 44 to 82, while the number of authoritarian regimes fell from 67 to 26. This huge progress is invisible to Klein and her friends. They sat in Porto Alegre and asked what happened to democracy-in a country recently emerged from military rule.
This is hard to tolerate. So is the remark that "democracy isn't the work of the market's invisible hand; it's the work of real hands." It is both. In undeveloped economies with mass illiteracy, democracy tends towards demagogy, clientelism and corruption. In advanced economies, with entrenched property rights, high levels of education and a sophisticated electorate, democracy has proved both stable and successful. South Korea and Taiwan are recent examples. No serious person imagines China as a working democracy without rapid development founded upon a dynamic market economy.
Klein's concept of democracy is as immature as her view of the economy. For her, democracy is about rallies and marches, popular participation and direct action. Of the Quebec protests in 2001, she says, "whatever else the protesters were seeking, all were certainly looking for a taste of direct political participation. The result of these hundreds of miniature protests converging was chaotic, sometimes awful, but frequently inspiring." "
"
Democracy was, says Klein, the theme of the Porto Alegre social forum in Brazil. So, apparently, was admiration for Fidel Castro and his not exactly democratic Cuba. She seems to have no more idea how constitutional democracies balance the rights of individuals against those of collectives than she does how a sophisticated economy works. She gives no account of how democracy could work at all the levels she lists, nor how far economic life would-or should-be subordinated to political decisions.
What she is sure of, instead, is that democracy is in a bad way. Yet, as the latest Human Development Report pointed out, between 1985 and 2000, the number of regimes considered democratic jumped from 44 to 82, while the number of authoritarian regimes fell from 67 to 26. This huge progress is invisible to Klein and her friends. They sat in Porto Alegre and asked what happened to democracy-in a country recently emerged from military rule.
This is hard to tolerate. So is the remark that "democracy isn't the work of the market's invisible hand; it's the work of real hands." It is both. In undeveloped economies with mass illiteracy, democracy tends towards demagogy, clientelism and corruption. In advanced economies, with entrenched property rights, high levels of education and a sophisticated electorate, democracy has proved both stable and successful. South Korea and Taiwan are recent examples. No serious person imagines China as a working democracy without rapid development founded upon a dynamic market economy.
Klein's concept of democracy is as immature as her view of the economy. For her, democracy is about rallies and marches, popular participation and direct action. Of the Quebec protests in 2001, she says, "whatever else the protesters were seeking, all were certainly looking for a taste of direct political participation. The result of these hundreds of miniature protests converging was chaotic, sometimes awful, but frequently inspiring." "
19.2.03
FIRST THINGS: Another insightful piece on war with Iraq and its meaning. We're hitting serious gut-check time, people.
I was originally going to title this post "The Democrats' Me Problem," and go on at some length about why it's looking increasingly likely that I will not vote for one come 2004 (for President, anyway). Simply put, too many of the people who should possess clarity--political, if not moral--seem to have totally lost sense of themselves. I believe I can speak authoritatively for David and myself on this issue, since I think we march lockstep on it. Regardless of what you think of the Bush administration, or the current international political scene, it should be obvious that a free Iraq is a good thing. I believe no sophisticated analysis is needed to establish this claim:
"--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among them, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--"
as Thomas Jefferson so rightly put it. Saddam Hussein represents a government that is no government at all, merely a cabal dedicated to the repression of the Iraqi people. It is an illegitimate government. If you truly love and value liberty, you must ask where the cause of liberty lay, and follow it as circumstances and exegencies permit. There is no larger political program required, nor should there be: there is only the voice of your own conscience.
I was originally going to title this post "The Democrats' Me Problem," and go on at some length about why it's looking increasingly likely that I will not vote for one come 2004 (for President, anyway). Simply put, too many of the people who should possess clarity--political, if not moral--seem to have totally lost sense of themselves. I believe I can speak authoritatively for David and myself on this issue, since I think we march lockstep on it. Regardless of what you think of the Bush administration, or the current international political scene, it should be obvious that a free Iraq is a good thing. I believe no sophisticated analysis is needed to establish this claim:
"--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among them, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--"
as Thomas Jefferson so rightly put it. Saddam Hussein represents a government that is no government at all, merely a cabal dedicated to the repression of the Iraqi people. It is an illegitimate government. If you truly love and value liberty, you must ask where the cause of liberty lay, and follow it as circumstances and exegencies permit. There is no larger political program required, nor should there be: there is only the voice of your own conscience.
18.2.03
17.2.03
LINK: Tony Blair continues his run to be Britain's finest PM since Churchill (not that he has much competition, but still...):
"This isn't a regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.
There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.
I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.
But I ask the marchers to understand this.
I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.
But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this:
If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.
If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started."
"This isn't a regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.
There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.
I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.
But I ask the marchers to understand this.
I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.
But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this:
If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.
If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started."
16.2.03
LINK: Well, I can hardly say I'm surprised that France, etc caved on Turkey. It's at moments like these that I like to note I'd take their objections over... well... anything in foreign policy more seriously if they didn't seem to just be playing silly little diplomatic games. There's serious work to be done, you know...
LINK: the best sum-up I've read of the real reason to go to war with Iraq, and the shamefulness of most of the Left in running away from our moral obligations. And from the Guardian, so his credentials check out.
QUOTE: Christopher Hitchens, pugnacious as ever:
"Isn’t it a little naïve, though, to think that democracy is going to break out in the Middle East after an invasion?
Look, I’ve been in Northern Iraq, in the Kurdish area, where they now have something like 21 newspapers. Maybe they’re all very bad. Maybe there’s still a lot of tribalism and feudalism. But there’s something like an open society. So, no, it’s not like all you need to do is destroy Saddam and democracy will bloom. But where his rule has been removed, Kurdish Iraqis have shown that they can do better on their own, and why wouldn’t they? "
"Isn’t it a little naïve, though, to think that democracy is going to break out in the Middle East after an invasion?
Look, I’ve been in Northern Iraq, in the Kurdish area, where they now have something like 21 newspapers. Maybe they’re all very bad. Maybe there’s still a lot of tribalism and feudalism. But there’s something like an open society. So, no, it’s not like all you need to do is destroy Saddam and democracy will bloom. But where his rule has been removed, Kurdish Iraqis have shown that they can do better on their own, and why wouldn’t they? "
AND: in the spirit of my previous post, an idea: orchestrate a founding of an official Kurdish state. They have a de facto regime in place already... why not go ahead and formalize it? You'd have to negotiate territorial sovereignty with Turkey, of course (but the idea of removing the threat of Saddam would probably placate them). There'd be no problem getting countries to declare their government legitimate (US, Britain and Australia, in a heartbeat; but I can also see strong European support--Spain, Italy, and most of Eastern Europe). That would put the focus back where it should be...
ADDENDUM: You have to remember, of course, that my idea of the primary motivation for intervention in Iraq is not removal of WMD, but removal of Saddam Hussein from power. This, I think, substantially changes what to look for in terms of international cooperation, etc. I'm not, of course, making the claim that the Bush Administration, in any but the most ancillary of senses, shares this goal--so it's not an argument about what the Bushies need to do in this particular situation, but a recognition of what we would have to do if we accepted a different set of responsibilities in the world.
14.2.03
PROVOCATIVE THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
I think it's time for the U.S. to leave the U.N., because, really, what have they ever accomplished? Assuming we don't buy into the Majoritarian Fallacy, why shouldn't we act in concert with the governments that might agree with us?
In theory, the reason to have a UN at all is because there is some linking element across national boundaries of rational people dedicated to peaceful resolution of disputes. But, of course, the UN is not a collection of democrats--it's a collection of regimes. What typifies the surreal worldview of international politics more right now than the fact that Libya is heading the UN Human Rights Commission? What, after all, does it mean to have a country that has no workable concept of human rights in that position of influence?
It seems to make more sense, from a purely logical point of view, to say "here are the things we stand for:
1. republican or democratic forms of government
2. vigorous defense of civil right and liberties (where the Bill of Rights is a basic ennumeration thereof)
3. Pluralistic, secular governments, at least inasmuch as people deign to return them
4. A commitment to work in the common interest of furtherance of these principles across the world; making no excuse for any dictator or autocrat
...and if you want to get on board, go ahead and join us."
What is, after all, the point of conferring legitimacy on the petty despots of the world (I'm thinking Middle East and sub-Saharan thugocracies, in particular)? Continuing in this charade of resolutions and inspections and reports does nothing about the more basic problems.
I don't mean to suggest, of course, that we should've been at war months ago, whether or not other countries wished to join us. I particularly want to stress I'm not arguing against multi-lateralism as such. But the emphasis on legalism-- "material breach" and all that-- seems to just abstract the problem away from it's common-sense level (Saddam=bad, democratic government=good). Do we really need France or Russia to confirm the obvious facts of the case? We only weaken the strength of the case for freedom by insisting that it can wait at all...
I think it's time for the U.S. to leave the U.N., because, really, what have they ever accomplished? Assuming we don't buy into the Majoritarian Fallacy, why shouldn't we act in concert with the governments that might agree with us?
In theory, the reason to have a UN at all is because there is some linking element across national boundaries of rational people dedicated to peaceful resolution of disputes. But, of course, the UN is not a collection of democrats--it's a collection of regimes. What typifies the surreal worldview of international politics more right now than the fact that Libya is heading the UN Human Rights Commission? What, after all, does it mean to have a country that has no workable concept of human rights in that position of influence?
It seems to make more sense, from a purely logical point of view, to say "here are the things we stand for:
1. republican or democratic forms of government
2. vigorous defense of civil right and liberties (where the Bill of Rights is a basic ennumeration thereof)
3. Pluralistic, secular governments, at least inasmuch as people deign to return them
4. A commitment to work in the common interest of furtherance of these principles across the world; making no excuse for any dictator or autocrat
...and if you want to get on board, go ahead and join us."
What is, after all, the point of conferring legitimacy on the petty despots of the world (I'm thinking Middle East and sub-Saharan thugocracies, in particular)? Continuing in this charade of resolutions and inspections and reports does nothing about the more basic problems.
I don't mean to suggest, of course, that we should've been at war months ago, whether or not other countries wished to join us. I particularly want to stress I'm not arguing against multi-lateralism as such. But the emphasis on legalism-- "material breach" and all that-- seems to just abstract the problem away from it's common-sense level (Saddam=bad, democratic government=good). Do we really need France or Russia to confirm the obvious facts of the case? We only weaken the strength of the case for freedom by insisting that it can wait at all...
LINK: I decree this to be the awesomest thing I've seen this year. Nice to know they can do something right (Page Six aside...).
HMM: Sinn Fein, the ULA, ETA (which is the Basque separatists in Spain, if memory serves), FARC, Shining Path, Chiapas Rebels, the people who Sarin gassed the Tokyo subway about 10 years ago, OKC bombers, Weather Undeground, SLA...
I suppose it depends on what your definition of "almost all" is.
I suppose it depends on what your definition of "almost all" is.
LINK: Great article in Slate on the decline of The Simpsons. I have to say, I've been watching the second season on DVD almost constantly for the last few months, and the thing is they're all freakin' brilliant. I still watch the new episodes religiously (who doesn't?), but it's been years since I found one to be as good as I can remember. Death to Ian Maxtone-Graham!
13.2.03
QUOTE:
"I know things like philosophy are supposed to provide an answer to this question, but ask yourself if it actually does this. "
-I never quite got this argument:
I can't find a practical application for philosophy. Therefore there must be none.
As the great philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett once said, "I take this to be a reductio, and you should, too."
"I know things like philosophy are supposed to provide an answer to this question, but ask yourself if it actually does this. "
-I never quite got this argument:
I can't find a practical application for philosophy. Therefore there must be none.
As the great philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett once said, "I take this to be a reductio, and you should, too."
ADDENDUM TO 'WELL': I hate to come out swinging for Derrida here (believe me, there are few things I like less), but you can take the insight through Wittgenstein, Shakespeare, or anyone who has ever said a pun-- words can mean multiple things, and how you read meaning into them depends on context. You might quibble with the strength of the argument, which is fine, but it's certainly an argument that has some basis historically.
And don't get me wrong, either, in this: I think cummings is "poetry" about as much as you do. Frankly, "mountainrange" and "mountainrage" keep the meaning exactly the same. It's not, say, Browning's "The Last Ride Together..." it's not even cummings' best work (the first poem here, and I will accept no argument to the contrary). But it does, I think, capture an element of the thing we tend to be most at odds over.
And don't get me wrong, either, in this: I think cummings is "poetry" about as much as you do. Frankly, "mountainrange" and "mountainrage" keep the meaning exactly the same. It's not, say, Browning's "The Last Ride Together..." it's not even cummings' best work (the first poem here, and I will accept no argument to the contrary). But it does, I think, capture an element of the thing we tend to be most at odds over.
WELL: Let me see if I get this straight: you heard, from someone who heard it from someone else, that one guy who was associated with other people (whom you can't name), made a proposal to get rid of science in LSA. For a man who puts such an emphasis on the facts leading to truth, there is a definite dearth of the former in your argument. And, anyway, as a decent journalist could tell you, accept nothing as true that cannot be corroborated by two independent, creditable sources.
UPDATE: Even accepting your argument (which I have no reason to do, having none of those other names), it's still pretty much just the word of your professor that this was even being considered--that's a long way from proof.
UPDATE: Even accepting your argument (which I have no reason to do, having none of those other names), it's still pretty much just the word of your professor that this was even being considered--that's a long way from proof.
12.2.03
WELL: it's been a few years since I've done close-reading of poetry, but here goes:
-electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange
Which is just saying, really, that science has a tendency to take its discoveries and turn them from small, mundane observations about how things work into grandiose epistemological and metaphysical statements (though always subconsciously), and those of us who don't subscribe with that level of fanaticism about science and technology are a little befuddled/amused whenever that happens. Hence the line before: "your victum... plays with the bigness of his littleness."
-electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange
Which is just saying, really, that science has a tendency to take its discoveries and turn them from small, mundane observations about how things work into grandiose epistemological and metaphysical statements (though always subconsciously), and those of us who don't subscribe with that level of fanaticism about science and technology are a little befuddled/amused whenever that happens. Hence the line before: "your victum... plays with the bigness of his littleness."
WELL: this just goes to show you can be really, really intelligent, and still have no idea what's going on.
BONUS SMART-PERSON POINTS: Where did I crib that line from?
BONUS SMART-PERSON POINTS: Where did I crib that line from?
LINK: Good defense of George Orwell, and, in the process, moral realism:
"For The New Yorker's authority on Orwell, the danger lies not in the fading of the concept of objective truth, but in the clinging to the concept of objective truth. Menand thinks that truth is merely a warrant for terrorism, that objectivity is just an early form of fanaticism, that certainty only kills. "Moral certainty of any kind can lead to bloodshed," he asserts in Raritan, in a piece that is critical of the abolitionists of the nineteenth century. "Of any kind": All certainty is like all other certainty, its content is insignificant, all that matters are its consequences. Menand has risen above substance. He is indifferent, and afraid. His fear is understandable: When one has renounced the inquiry into truth and falsity, certainty must seem terrifying. Every conviction must look like an absolute."
"For The New Yorker's authority on Orwell, the danger lies not in the fading of the concept of objective truth, but in the clinging to the concept of objective truth. Menand thinks that truth is merely a warrant for terrorism, that objectivity is just an early form of fanaticism, that certainty only kills. "Moral certainty of any kind can lead to bloodshed," he asserts in Raritan, in a piece that is critical of the abolitionists of the nineteenth century. "Of any kind": All certainty is like all other certainty, its content is insignificant, all that matters are its consequences. Menand has risen above substance. He is indifferent, and afraid. His fear is understandable: When one has renounced the inquiry into truth and falsity, certainty must seem terrifying. Every conviction must look like an absolute."
JER-RY! JER-RY! Hey, the Democratic Party could do worse
Just think: Sen. Jerry Springer (D-OH), Sen. Oprah Winfrey (D-ILL)... it'd certainly make the Senate more interesting...
Just think: Sen. Jerry Springer (D-OH), Sen. Oprah Winfrey (D-ILL)... it'd certainly make the Senate more interesting...
LINK: John McCain comes out swinging in Munich. I think this bit, in particular, is worth noting:
"Recent actions by Paris and Berlin in the most important international fora--the Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, and the European Union--raise serious doubts among nations on both sides of the Atlantic about their commitment to multilateral diplomacy and cause real damage to those institutions. The behavior of France and Germany has set back European unity and created a divided front that makes Iraq's peaceful disarmament less likely. Nations across Europe that have recently expressed a different view of multilateral obligations, including some of our oldest allies and our newest friends, expose the myth that France and Germany speak for Europe. "
"Recent actions by Paris and Berlin in the most important international fora--the Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, and the European Union--raise serious doubts among nations on both sides of the Atlantic about their commitment to multilateral diplomacy and cause real damage to those institutions. The behavior of France and Germany has set back European unity and created a divided front that makes Iraq's peaceful disarmament less likely. Nations across Europe that have recently expressed a different view of multilateral obligations, including some of our oldest allies and our newest friends, expose the myth that France and Germany speak for Europe. "
11.2.03
LINK: I don't know what I think about this as a Constitutional issue, but I certainly know what I think about it as an ethical issue.
LINK: Dara, you're my UN person, so I'm interested in what you think of the proposal Mickey Kaus has up on his blog (note: since he doesn't link individual entries, you'll have to scroll down-- it's the first thing under "Friday, February 7"). I think it goes a long way to closing the gap between Resolution 1441, which is nothing if not vague. As Kaus points out, though, the end with or without this second resolution is regime change... is there a point in going through the motions, so to speak, if the end result is the same either way. Thoughts?
LINK: Probably the best assessment of Europe and America I've read yet. Written by a Clintonite, naturally.
LINK: David Broder on the domestic overreaches of the administration:
"Not content with the dividend tax exclusion that he made the centerpiece of his "economic recovery" plan, Bush had the Treasury float a proposal for a new array of tax-sheltered savings accounts that would remove billions of dollars of investment income annually from the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. Were it to become law, the burden of financing government would fall even more heavily on those who depend on wages for their living.
But this last proposal was too much even for some Republicans. The first Ways and Means Committee member approached by the White House to sponsor the scheme flatly refused, and a senior House GOP member with close White House ties told me the package was "a mistake" and would soon be abandoned."
"Not content with the dividend tax exclusion that he made the centerpiece of his "economic recovery" plan, Bush had the Treasury float a proposal for a new array of tax-sheltered savings accounts that would remove billions of dollars of investment income annually from the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. Were it to become law, the burden of financing government would fall even more heavily on those who depend on wages for their living.
But this last proposal was too much even for some Republicans. The first Ways and Means Committee member approached by the White House to sponsor the scheme flatly refused, and a senior House GOP member with close White House ties told me the package was "a mistake" and would soon be abandoned."
LINK: Maybe it's just me, but I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the following things will be true within the next 10 years:
1. The UN will disband
2. NATO will disband
3. Poland and the Czech Republic will be the power centers in Europe
It's just getting crazier and crazier...
1. The UN will disband
2. NATO will disband
3. Poland and the Czech Republic will be the power centers in Europe
It's just getting crazier and crazier...
QUOTE: I would find this statement highly offensive, if it weren't for the fact I thought there was a grain of truth to it:
"As "states’ rights" is the Republican term for keeping your boot on the black man’s neck, so "equal treatment" is Republican-speak for not doing anything. "
And also a nice reminder of one of those moments that makes me proud to be a Democrat:
"The Democrats’ hour of commitment came in August 1948 at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, when, after a stirring speech by Hubert Humphrey, then the mayor of Minneapolis, the delegates revolted against the controlling alliance of Northern bosses and swallowtail Southern politicians to vote a powerful civil-rights plank into the platform. This was the moment of commitment, the moment when the party bid adieu to the "solid South" and the certainty of carrying the states of the Old Confederacy in every election. It was the moment that caused Strom Thurmond to run for President as the candidate of the Dixiecrat Party and ultimately to join the Republican Party, where he was welcomed and is honored to this day."
"As "states’ rights" is the Republican term for keeping your boot on the black man’s neck, so "equal treatment" is Republican-speak for not doing anything. "
And also a nice reminder of one of those moments that makes me proud to be a Democrat:
"The Democrats’ hour of commitment came in August 1948 at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, when, after a stirring speech by Hubert Humphrey, then the mayor of Minneapolis, the delegates revolted against the controlling alliance of Northern bosses and swallowtail Southern politicians to vote a powerful civil-rights plank into the platform. This was the moment of commitment, the moment when the party bid adieu to the "solid South" and the certainty of carrying the states of the Old Confederacy in every election. It was the moment that caused Strom Thurmond to run for President as the candidate of the Dixiecrat Party and ultimately to join the Republican Party, where he was welcomed and is honored to this day."
HIYO!: From The New Republic's Sunday Spin:
"But immediately following him on "This Week" was the fervently antiwar Representative Dennis Kucinich, who perhaps telegraphed one response the administration will receive on the home front. Flirting with the idea of a presidential bid, the left-wing Ohio congressman used his first round of serious Sunday airtime to demonstrate that he is completely impervious to reason. Kucinich argued that Powell's presentation necessitated further inspections because "what we don't know is how usable any of these weapons might be." And he claimed that even if the Security Council lent its imprimatur to war, he would still personally oppose such action because "what we need to do is to be sure that any action that the United Nations takes would not be a result of being dragged into it by the United States." Kucinich said he is still awaiting "proof" of the threat from Saddam, but that his more immediate concern is the "bellicose rhetoric" from the White House, which "makes the United States more vulnerable to the intentions of terrorists." "
"But immediately following him on "This Week" was the fervently antiwar Representative Dennis Kucinich, who perhaps telegraphed one response the administration will receive on the home front. Flirting with the idea of a presidential bid, the left-wing Ohio congressman used his first round of serious Sunday airtime to demonstrate that he is completely impervious to reason. Kucinich argued that Powell's presentation necessitated further inspections because "what we don't know is how usable any of these weapons might be." And he claimed that even if the Security Council lent its imprimatur to war, he would still personally oppose such action because "what we need to do is to be sure that any action that the United Nations takes would not be a result of being dragged into it by the United States." Kucinich said he is still awaiting "proof" of the threat from Saddam, but that his more immediate concern is the "bellicose rhetoric" from the White House, which "makes the United States more vulnerable to the intentions of terrorists." "
10.2.03
LINK: Todd Gitlin on anti-anti-Americanism, which is, I think, really, really good, excepting his tendency towards referring to Bush as a usurper. Oh well, no one's perfect.
LINK: Bush is definitely in trouble if Andrew Sullivan can't get on-board with him on the budget. Goodness.
LINK: So true, and along with the editorials in The New Yorker lately, contributing to a groundswell for neo-Liberalism...
QUOTE: I try not to take The Nation too seriously (as you no doubt know), but this annoyed the hell out of me, the most offensive passage offered here:
"...Mark Twain, whom she calls the "first real American writer," so eat your heart out Bradstreet, Edwards, Franklin, Irving, Douglass, Emerson, Thoreau (especially you, Henry, you civilly disobedient antiwar tree-hugger, you)."
-I wouldn't find this to be particularly overstating the case, were it not for the fact that there is a strong school of thought (of which I am a member), which insists there was no American fiction to speak of before Twain, only American imitations of European styles. And to attack the First Lady for having a legitimate view of American literature (she reads! even when they're smart, they try to make them stupid!*) is totally uncalled for.
* This is another one of those instances when I feel compelled to defend the intelligence of the Bushes, which, I believe, is more of a sign of the outrageousness of most lefty views of them than it is of my great and abiding love for them.
"...Mark Twain, whom she calls the "first real American writer," so eat your heart out Bradstreet, Edwards, Franklin, Irving, Douglass, Emerson, Thoreau (especially you, Henry, you civilly disobedient antiwar tree-hugger, you)."
-I wouldn't find this to be particularly overstating the case, were it not for the fact that there is a strong school of thought (of which I am a member), which insists there was no American fiction to speak of before Twain, only American imitations of European styles. And to attack the First Lady for having a legitimate view of American literature (she reads! even when they're smart, they try to make them stupid!*) is totally uncalled for.
* This is another one of those instances when I feel compelled to defend the intelligence of the Bushes, which, I believe, is more of a sign of the outrageousness of most lefty views of them than it is of my great and abiding love for them.
LINK: I find the idea of this intriguing, and (should I one day decide I care about issues again) I might even consider trying to set up some similar thing here in AA...
LINK: Primarily for Dara, but others might enjoy as well: Terry Teachout on Beethoven, the incomparable genius, etc etc.
8.2.03
7.2.03
HELP: I feel a little bad about abandoning David with a nice piece by ee cummings and then not bothering to give any explanation. I don't have much appreciation for the style myself, believing, as T.S. Eliot did, that cummings' rarification of form ultimately stagnates further progress along those lines. Nevertheless, I think he makes his point beautifully.
Now, of course, I can't tell you what the poem means (where's the fun in that?); I can, however, give you a couple of points that might straighten things out for you.
1. Break it up into smaller pieces-- believe it or not, the punctuation marks are there for a reason.
2. The key phrase is "progress is a comfortable disease"
3. Helpful reference points would be Voltaire's Micromegas, and any of your pre-1950s critiques of the development of America. Also, think in the context of the most basic divisions of outlook* between us.
If you're still stumped after that, I can explain it to you in more detail, but the close-reading method is a little hairy in these cases, as you might imagine. Cheers!
* I would use the word "philosophy," since that would be the best choice, but I'm aware of your hostility to all things philosophy-related, and I'm sure you'd take umbrage at the suggestion that you were actually utilitizing philosophical concepts. So I went for the more convoluted wording instead.
Now, of course, I can't tell you what the poem means (where's the fun in that?); I can, however, give you a couple of points that might straighten things out for you.
1. Break it up into smaller pieces-- believe it or not, the punctuation marks are there for a reason.
2. The key phrase is "progress is a comfortable disease"
3. Helpful reference points would be Voltaire's Micromegas, and any of your pre-1950s critiques of the development of America. Also, think in the context of the most basic divisions of outlook* between us.
If you're still stumped after that, I can explain it to you in more detail, but the close-reading method is a little hairy in these cases, as you might imagine. Cheers!
* I would use the word "philosophy," since that would be the best choice, but I'm aware of your hostility to all things philosophy-related, and I'm sure you'd take umbrage at the suggestion that you were actually utilitizing philosophical concepts. So I went for the more convoluted wording instead.
5.2.03
WELL: it was certainly a fun day in my classes. I corrected my philosophy professor on his use of Greek nouns, and mounted a vigorous defense of the exceptionalism of the Jewish people against my classmates (beholden, as they are, to Spinoza's view in Theological-Political Treatise, or, alternatively, not caring enough to think critically about it). And then going to American Political Thought, and starting a reasonably vigorous debate by arguing (along Hamiltonian lines) that the Bill of Rights is completely unneccesary and only serves to complicate the picture of government. I don't buy that argument (at least, I don't buy into it too much), but it's always fun to play devil's advocate...
LINK: And this is pretty good, at least Eric Alterman's half. Me likey:
"And for you [Bias author Bernard] Goldberg/[Slander author Ann "go to their countries and convert them to Christianity"] Coulter fans, those little numbers are called "footnotes." They allow other people to check your work."
"And for you [Bias author Bernard] Goldberg/[Slander author Ann "go to their countries and convert them to Christianity"] Coulter fans, those little numbers are called "footnotes." They allow other people to check your work."
LINKS: Well, okay, y'all know what the big news of the day was. WaPo coverage from the UN, going a little lighter on the pro-Saddam sources than the Times could manage...
Also, Colin Powell's whole speech, and Jack Straw's concurrence.
Also, Colin Powell's whole speech, and Jack Straw's concurrence.
: My conversation with Hucul last night made me think of this:
pity this busy monster,manunkind,
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victum(death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness
-electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrage;lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen until unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born-pity poor flesh
and trees,poor stars and stones,but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if-listen:there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go
pity this busy monster,manunkind,
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victum(death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness
-electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrage;lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen until unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born-pity poor flesh
and trees,poor stars and stones,but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if-listen:there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go
DIDN'T THE TALIBAN SAY THAT, TOO?
"Its United Nations ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, attended the Security Council meeting and flatly contradicted even the weakest weapons charges leveled against Baghdad by Mr. Powell and United Nations inspectors. He accused Mr. Powell of fabricating the audiotapes presented here and said, "we have no relationship with Al Qaeda." "
-From the New York Times
"Its United Nations ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, attended the Security Council meeting and flatly contradicted even the weakest weapons charges leveled against Baghdad by Mr. Powell and United Nations inspectors. He accused Mr. Powell of fabricating the audiotapes presented here and said, "we have no relationship with Al Qaeda." "
-From the New York Times
4.2.03
RESPONSE TO DAVID:
The reason to oppose parental notification laws is contained nowhere in your objection. Simply put, the connection between doctor and patient is one of the most sacred in private life, akin to that between a lawyer and their client. Before any law affecting that relationship is passed, there has to be an overwhelming reason for it, which there is not in this case. Unless, of course, you can think of one...
The reason to oppose parental notification laws is contained nowhere in your objection. Simply put, the connection between doctor and patient is one of the most sacred in private life, akin to that between a lawyer and their client. Before any law affecting that relationship is passed, there has to be an overwhelming reason for it, which there is not in this case. Unless, of course, you can think of one...
QUOTE: David:
"but dont worry, in terms of usefulness, philosophy will always be WAY behind science"
-No argument there. Philosophy will never run computers, toast your bread in the morning, or make nuclear weapons, or pollute, or do any of the other lovely things we associate with science and technology. Of course, when it comes to major, life-altering crisis time (or any major decision for that matter), which are you going to turn to? Can science tell you which type of government is best, or how to balance rights and security? Can science determine whether or not to go to war with Iraq? What in science tells us that the cause of the student demonstrators in Iran is right? Do we turn to science for comfort in times of great tragedy? Does science tell us how we ought to live?
I can only speak for myself, of course, but if forced to choose between living without the advancements of science or those of philosophy, it would be a cold day in hell indeed before I chose to keep science.
"but dont worry, in terms of usefulness, philosophy will always be WAY behind science"
-No argument there. Philosophy will never run computers, toast your bread in the morning, or make nuclear weapons, or pollute, or do any of the other lovely things we associate with science and technology. Of course, when it comes to major, life-altering crisis time (or any major decision for that matter), which are you going to turn to? Can science tell you which type of government is best, or how to balance rights and security? Can science determine whether or not to go to war with Iraq? What in science tells us that the cause of the student demonstrators in Iran is right? Do we turn to science for comfort in times of great tragedy? Does science tell us how we ought to live?
I can only speak for myself, of course, but if forced to choose between living without the advancements of science or those of philosophy, it would be a cold day in hell indeed before I chose to keep science.
3.2.03
QUOTE: Howard Dean, making sense:
"Let me tell you a story. As many of you know, I'm a doctor, I'm an internist, and I take care of all ages, pretty much--from five to a hundred and five. And one time I was sitting in my office and it was not unusual for young kids to come and talk to me because I knew the whole family. And one time a young lady came into my office, who was twelve years old, and she thought she might be pregnant. And we did the test, and we did the exam, and she was pregnant. And she didn't know what to do. And after I had talked to her for a while, I came to the conclusion that the likely father of her child was her own father. You explain that to the American people who think that parental notification is a good idea--I will veto parental notification. In Vermont we don't have parental notification bills, but you know what? 85% of all minors that seek an abortion bring their parent with them voluntarily. It is the right thing to do. When I was practicing medicine, if a young lady came to me, and she was pregnant, I'd sit with her in my office and the first thing I'd do is try to convince her she ought to tell her folks, because I knew her folks, I usually treated them too. And sometimes she'd even say, "I don't dare, I don't dare--my father will kill me". In a small percentage of cases--that's true. And that's why we don't want the government telling us how to practice medicine."
"Let me tell you a story. As many of you know, I'm a doctor, I'm an internist, and I take care of all ages, pretty much--from five to a hundred and five. And one time I was sitting in my office and it was not unusual for young kids to come and talk to me because I knew the whole family. And one time a young lady came into my office, who was twelve years old, and she thought she might be pregnant. And we did the test, and we did the exam, and she was pregnant. And she didn't know what to do. And after I had talked to her for a while, I came to the conclusion that the likely father of her child was her own father. You explain that to the American people who think that parental notification is a good idea--I will veto parental notification. In Vermont we don't have parental notification bills, but you know what? 85% of all minors that seek an abortion bring their parent with them voluntarily. It is the right thing to do. When I was practicing medicine, if a young lady came to me, and she was pregnant, I'd sit with her in my office and the first thing I'd do is try to convince her she ought to tell her folks, because I knew her folks, I usually treated them too. And sometimes she'd even say, "I don't dare, I don't dare--my father will kill me". In a small percentage of cases--that's true. And that's why we don't want the government telling us how to practice medicine."
LINK: Very good summary of the Iran situation written by someone who does not work for National Review.
LINK: I pass this along mostly without comment.
I say 'mostly' because this touches a bit on moral philosophy, and... well, actually, better to go at this in person.
I say 'mostly' because this touches a bit on moral philosophy, and... well, actually, better to go at this in person.
LINK: As I prepare to celebrate my blog's first birthday, a nice look at the history of blogging by the always intriguing Chris Mooney.
LINK: This is, of course, a perfect example of how Israel is the only really civilized country in the region:
"By Sunday, Israeli flags were at half-mast. In Israel, the story of the tragedy in the skies over Texas preoccupies the mind, the airwaves, the press, and dominates conversation. As it often does at moments like this, Israel becomes one big extended family. That aspect of the Israeli character was especially evident last night, when Ilan Ramon's brother-in-law directly addressed one of the television newscasters, Yonit Levy, live on air, and, in a cracked voice, said, "Yonit, you know all the VIPs, please, call whoever you have to — the Prime Minister, the President — to get my wife and kids to Rona [Ramon]...." Within minutes, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, along with the national carrier El Al, had arranged a special flight to take the family members still in Israel to Florida."
"By Sunday, Israeli flags were at half-mast. In Israel, the story of the tragedy in the skies over Texas preoccupies the mind, the airwaves, the press, and dominates conversation. As it often does at moments like this, Israel becomes one big extended family. That aspect of the Israeli character was especially evident last night, when Ilan Ramon's brother-in-law directly addressed one of the television newscasters, Yonit Levy, live on air, and, in a cracked voice, said, "Yonit, you know all the VIPs, please, call whoever you have to — the Prime Minister, the President — to get my wife and kids to Rona [Ramon]...." Within minutes, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, along with the national carrier El Al, had arranged a special flight to take the family members still in Israel to Florida."
LINK: David Brooks on every American's favorite Brit. Well, you know what he means...
Me likey:
"And so no less a cultural arbiter than our own Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has included Britain, by implication, in the realm of “New Europe”. He probably should not have said what many of us believe, which is that a new Europe, with vibrant labour markets, high growth potential and inspiring futures, is growing up around the Old Europe, which generally lacks those things. If you were a young American entrepreneur, where would you go? Warsaw, Prague or London; or Berlin or Paris? The answer is obvious. "
Me likey:
"And so no less a cultural arbiter than our own Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has included Britain, by implication, in the realm of “New Europe”. He probably should not have said what many of us believe, which is that a new Europe, with vibrant labour markets, high growth potential and inspiring futures, is growing up around the Old Europe, which generally lacks those things. If you were a young American entrepreneur, where would you go? Warsaw, Prague or London; or Berlin or Paris? The answer is obvious. "
QUOTE: Today's Note has a full piece on Howard Dean, who is my Democratic presidential candidate of choice (at least until he comes out against war with Iraq...). Indeed:
"So where does that leave the Vermonter? He's smart and confident. He's energetic. He has quirky appeal. And he really, really wants to be president. That's enough to take Dean seriously and to see whether he can overcome his weaknesses and vulnerabilities."
"So where does that leave the Vermonter? He's smart and confident. He's energetic. He has quirky appeal. And he really, really wants to be president. That's enough to take Dean seriously and to see whether he can overcome his weaknesses and vulnerabilities."
2.2.03
LINK: Tom Friedman:
" I can live with this difference. But Europe's cynicism and insecurity, masquerading as moral superiority, is insufferable. Each year at the Davos economic forum protesters are allowed to march through the north end of town, where last year they broke shop windows. So this year, on demonstration day, all the shopkeepers on that end of town closed. But when I walked by their shops in the morning, I noticed that three of them had put up signs in their windows that said, "U.S.A. No War in Iraq."
I wondered to myself: Why did the shopkeepers at the lingerie store suddenly decide to express their antiwar sentiments? Well, the demonstrators came and left without getting near these shops. And guess what? As soon as they were gone, the antiwar signs disappeared. They had been put up simply as window insurance — to placate the demonstrators so they wouldn't throw stones at them.
As I said, there are serious arguments against the war in Iraq, but they have weight only if they are made out of conviction, not out of expedience or petulance — and if they are made by people with real beliefs, not identity crises. "
" I can live with this difference. But Europe's cynicism and insecurity, masquerading as moral superiority, is insufferable. Each year at the Davos economic forum protesters are allowed to march through the north end of town, where last year they broke shop windows. So this year, on demonstration day, all the shopkeepers on that end of town closed. But when I walked by their shops in the morning, I noticed that three of them had put up signs in their windows that said, "U.S.A. No War in Iraq."
I wondered to myself: Why did the shopkeepers at the lingerie store suddenly decide to express their antiwar sentiments? Well, the demonstrators came and left without getting near these shops. And guess what? As soon as they were gone, the antiwar signs disappeared. They had been put up simply as window insurance — to placate the demonstrators so they wouldn't throw stones at them.
As I said, there are serious arguments against the war in Iraq, but they have weight only if they are made out of conviction, not out of expedience or petulance — and if they are made by people with real beliefs, not identity crises. "
QUOTE: via Punditwatch:
"David Brooks, after saying the President’s tax cut is “in trouble,” revealed that he is having second thoughts: “I’ve defended the tax cut, but I’ve fallen out of love with it.” "
-Which, I think, when you combine it with Chris Caldwell's anti-tax cut statements in Slate last week (which are of a whole with his writing for some time), signals a potentially decisive shift in the make-up of domestic policy coalitions. Only if, of course, anyone in the Democratic Party is PAYING ATTENTION. So, in short, we're screwed.
"David Brooks, after saying the President’s tax cut is “in trouble,” revealed that he is having second thoughts: “I’ve defended the tax cut, but I’ve fallen out of love with it.” "
-Which, I think, when you combine it with Chris Caldwell's anti-tax cut statements in Slate last week (which are of a whole with his writing for some time), signals a potentially decisive shift in the make-up of domestic policy coalitions. Only if, of course, anyone in the Democratic Party is PAYING ATTENTION. So, in short, we're screwed.
LINK: Looking for this story to break big-time sometime in the near future. And guess who got the guy... Ariel Sharon.
1.2.03
LINK: Jonah Goldberg's been on an anti-France kick lately, hence the density of that stuff in my postings. Nevertheless, this is hilarious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)