HIATUS: So this feels much more like the end than graduation did. Tomorrow's my last day at my job (which is turning slightly less joyful since they've expressed the fact they'll be sad to see me go, and they actually seem to mean it), and I have a frantic weekend of whatevs.org-style insanity planned with several of my friends (including the fabulous Lauren Orr and OGIW), and then preparations for my trip to Europe (with the even fabulouser Camille Constantin). Any time in the next week when I might be blogging should probably rather be spent doing the previous stuff, or hunting for a decent couch (lest Joel and Ali kill me).
Updates from Europe are possible, but I'm not assuming internet access.
Which is to say (except for the dozen times in the next week I'll violate this) that I'll be back in about three weeks, with lots of stories to tell about my travels.
But fear not, gentle reader--Sara Butler is back.
"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
29.6.04
TWO THESES: I've been kicking around a lot recently, which I'll pass on and perhaps elaborate upon in the near future:
1. People like to lay the blame on various administrations for various failures in international politics (e.g. Reagan's funding of the mujahadeen leads to the Taliban and OBL), but what's really at the heart of every major foreign policy failure is the doctrine of realism.
2. We hear a lot about the rabidly anti-Bush and reservedly pro-Bush people, but not very much about the rabidly pro-Bush crowd, mostly because they haven't tuned into the election yet. I think the margin of winning or losing will be determined by how effectively they get out and vote (and to this end, I think there's a lot of room for Kerry to completely screw himself over). Three flashpoints:
a. The tone of the people the DNC puts into primetime for their convention, especially what they have to say with respect to religion.
b. The continued success of F9/11, which very well could end up hurting the Dems.
c. A particularly large (and at least somewhat violent or disruptive) demonstration at the Republican National Convention.
1. People like to lay the blame on various administrations for various failures in international politics (e.g. Reagan's funding of the mujahadeen leads to the Taliban and OBL), but what's really at the heart of every major foreign policy failure is the doctrine of realism.
2. We hear a lot about the rabidly anti-Bush and reservedly pro-Bush people, but not very much about the rabidly pro-Bush crowd, mostly because they haven't tuned into the election yet. I think the margin of winning or losing will be determined by how effectively they get out and vote (and to this end, I think there's a lot of room for Kerry to completely screw himself over). Three flashpoints:
a. The tone of the people the DNC puts into primetime for their convention, especially what they have to say with respect to religion.
b. The continued success of F9/11, which very well could end up hurting the Dems.
c. A particularly large (and at least somewhat violent or disruptive) demonstration at the Republican National Convention.
LINK: Oh, that Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Nigeria...
I thought you meant the Nigeria in South America.
Also, I'm sure we can all agree that Mohammed Atta went to visit Iraqi Intelligence officials in Prague so that they could discuss that city's rich literary history.
I thought you meant the Nigeria in South America.
Also, I'm sure we can all agree that Mohammed Atta went to visit Iraqi Intelligence officials in Prague so that they could discuss that city's rich literary history.
27.6.04
WELL: Just a thought I had on my way back from church this morning, which I'll leave for y'all to think about (as I'll be in Midland galavanting with Claire through tomorrow-ish):
The common line of thought is that the situation in Iraq is going pretty badly: there are lots of domestic insurgents, lots of foreign terrorist groups operating out of there, difficulties in rebuilding infrastructure, and all sort of political groups with varying oppositions to democracy that look to be strong at any given moment. The blame for most or all of this state of affairs is generally given to the Bush administration for doing a bad job of planning for the post-war period.
But I wonder, even if they had done a good job of planning, what would that change? People who wanted to militarily destabilize the the country would still want to do so, even if there were more troops; foreign terrorists would still see a good opportunity to attack western interests in a low-risk scenario; and in-country political groups would still be vying for power. If I understand the arguments of people who complain about pre-war planning correctly, what would be different is not so much the situation, but the ease with which we could respond to it, correct?
The common line of thought is that the situation in Iraq is going pretty badly: there are lots of domestic insurgents, lots of foreign terrorist groups operating out of there, difficulties in rebuilding infrastructure, and all sort of political groups with varying oppositions to democracy that look to be strong at any given moment. The blame for most or all of this state of affairs is generally given to the Bush administration for doing a bad job of planning for the post-war period.
But I wonder, even if they had done a good job of planning, what would that change? People who wanted to militarily destabilize the the country would still want to do so, even if there were more troops; foreign terrorists would still see a good opportunity to attack western interests in a low-risk scenario; and in-country political groups would still be vying for power. If I understand the arguments of people who complain about pre-war planning correctly, what would be different is not so much the situation, but the ease with which we could respond to it, correct?
LINK: If you loved NewsRadio, as I did, this is awesome. They'll be coming out on DVD eventually, right?
LINK:
"One often hears that “band X is a ripoff of band Y.” Band X need not have covered any of band Y’s songs—all they have to do is “sound like” band Y. This has always struck me as something of a silly critique..."
Although this is not generally what real music snobs complain about. Hip-ish indie bands frequently rip off other, older hip-ish bands. To wit:
"Fell in Love with a Girl" by the White Stripes rips off "Search and Destroy" by Iggy and the Stooges in that it essentially lifts the melody of the outtro wholesale
"Connection" by Elastica rips off "Three Girl Rhumba" by Wire in that the exact same chords are used in exactly the same rhythm
"In a Young Man's Mind" by the Mooney Suzuki again lifts wholesale from "Kick Out the Jams" by the MC5 (though every MS song rips off something older, and they freely admit as much)
I really think it's an instance of T.S. Eliot's dictum "mature poets steal, immature poets imitate." Good bands are constantly making allusions to other things the listener might be familiar with (much as, for example, Dante's Commedia reads a lot better if you're independently familiar with the people it mentions). The problem with Creed (well, one of the problems with them) isn't so much that they sound like Pearl Jam, but that they only sound like Pearl Jam--there's no real attempt to do anything above and beyond, which is what makes "Fell in Love with a Girl" and "Connection" great songs in their own right, and makes "In a Young Man's Mind" a facile attempt to recreate the original.
"One often hears that “band X is a ripoff of band Y.” Band X need not have covered any of band Y’s songs—all they have to do is “sound like” band Y. This has always struck me as something of a silly critique..."
Although this is not generally what real music snobs complain about. Hip-ish indie bands frequently rip off other, older hip-ish bands. To wit:
"Fell in Love with a Girl" by the White Stripes rips off "Search and Destroy" by Iggy and the Stooges in that it essentially lifts the melody of the outtro wholesale
"Connection" by Elastica rips off "Three Girl Rhumba" by Wire in that the exact same chords are used in exactly the same rhythm
"In a Young Man's Mind" by the Mooney Suzuki again lifts wholesale from "Kick Out the Jams" by the MC5 (though every MS song rips off something older, and they freely admit as much)
I really think it's an instance of T.S. Eliot's dictum "mature poets steal, immature poets imitate." Good bands are constantly making allusions to other things the listener might be familiar with (much as, for example, Dante's Commedia reads a lot better if you're independently familiar with the people it mentions). The problem with Creed (well, one of the problems with them) isn't so much that they sound like Pearl Jam, but that they only sound like Pearl Jam--there's no real attempt to do anything above and beyond, which is what makes "Fell in Love with a Girl" and "Connection" great songs in their own right, and makes "In a Young Man's Mind" a facile attempt to recreate the original.
26.6.04
QUOTE: I also liked this, from the below:
' This cynical myopia afflicts an alarming number of people on the left today. The gloom of defeat tends to obscure the landscape of real politics, which has always witnessed a clash of ideologies as well as interests, persuasion as well as buy-offs and sellouts. Zinn fiercely details the outrages committed by America's rulers at home and abroad. But he makes no serious attempt to examine why these rulers kept getting elected, or how economic and social reform improved the lives of millions even if they sapped whatever mass appetite existed for radical change."
' This cynical myopia afflicts an alarming number of people on the left today. The gloom of defeat tends to obscure the landscape of real politics, which has always witnessed a clash of ideologies as well as interests, persuasion as well as buy-offs and sellouts. Zinn fiercely details the outrages committed by America's rulers at home and abroad. But he makes no serious attempt to examine why these rulers kept getting elected, or how economic and social reform improved the lives of millions even if they sapped whatever mass appetite existed for radical change."
LINK: I was cruising through Dissent's website, and came across this Michael Kazin review of Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States, which quotes Zinn as follows:
"The mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction-so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people's movements-that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission."
The article goes on to address--and dismiss, in part--the general defense for Zinn that it's okay that his book leans so heavily on one (sometimes incomplete or wrong) interpretation because it's meant to counterbalance the dominant interpretation. I bring this up because there's a defense of MM that generally runs along these lines: though he may exaggerate and have only a passing acquaintance with facts, it's still important that his viewpoint should be heard.
As Trotsky would say, that sort of argument is twaddle of the worst kind. If your argument rests, in whole or in part, on incorrect facts, then your argument fails. There is no there there. Why on earth would you think that an argument which can't even support itself represents a valid viewpoint, or one that needs further discussion*? And I think you impugn your credibility along with his by even potentially lining up beside that defense. There's enough acrimony in politics, we don't need to start advancing arguments that don't have any intellectual heft.
*I'm aware certain of my readers will point out that Moore is merely responding to a line of argument from the administration that is itself built upon facts that will not stand scrutiny. Even if it is so, that provides no excuse for retaliating in kind.
"The mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction-so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people's movements-that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission."
The article goes on to address--and dismiss, in part--the general defense for Zinn that it's okay that his book leans so heavily on one (sometimes incomplete or wrong) interpretation because it's meant to counterbalance the dominant interpretation. I bring this up because there's a defense of MM that generally runs along these lines: though he may exaggerate and have only a passing acquaintance with facts, it's still important that his viewpoint should be heard.
As Trotsky would say, that sort of argument is twaddle of the worst kind. If your argument rests, in whole or in part, on incorrect facts, then your argument fails. There is no there there. Why on earth would you think that an argument which can't even support itself represents a valid viewpoint, or one that needs further discussion*? And I think you impugn your credibility along with his by even potentially lining up beside that defense. There's enough acrimony in politics, we don't need to start advancing arguments that don't have any intellectual heft.
*I'm aware certain of my readers will point out that Moore is merely responding to a line of argument from the administration that is itself built upon facts that will not stand scrutiny. Even if it is so, that provides no excuse for retaliating in kind.
LINK: Interesting discussion (and remarkably even-headed) at Crooked Timber about whether or not root-causes explanations of terrorism are any good. I found one bit particularly interesting:
"Mahmoud Mamdani in “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim” compared Palestinian suicide bombers to the practice of “necklacing” in apartheid South Africa. When black radicals caught a black informant for the government, the put a gasoline-soaked tire around his neck and lit it on fire. A brutal tactic, but the minority white government needed black informants to maintain control, and terrorizing them was effective in breaking that control. Mamdani points out that the black radicals gave up necklacing just as soon as other routes to achieve change were open. So terrorism can possibly be an intellectual choice when no other routes seem open."
As far as intellectual defenses of terrorism go, this is a pretty good one. But I don't think it works, because there's a troublingly subjective aspect to the claim that terrorism can be justified when "no other roots seem open." Is it actually the case, in the example the commenter quoted above cites, that there was no other means of acheiving the same end? It seems pretty clear that other methods were available, and that necklacing was merely an extremely expedient and effect alternative (do note that one could employ exactly the same logic to justify torture of terrorists).
But I think the problem goes a little further: from whose perspective must it seem like there are no alternatives available? If from the perspective of those doing the terrorism, you either have to accept the ludicrous proposition that a potential terrorist is always right in their assessment of their alternatives (Bader-Meinhof and the weather underground are discussed later in the comments, and seem fine examples of people whose analyses were substantively incorrect). Or it's the case that terrorists are sometimes wrong, but they get intellectual cover because it needs to remain there for the gray-area cases.
Obviously, I find neither alternative particularly appealing, but that's just me.
"Mahmoud Mamdani in “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim” compared Palestinian suicide bombers to the practice of “necklacing” in apartheid South Africa. When black radicals caught a black informant for the government, the put a gasoline-soaked tire around his neck and lit it on fire. A brutal tactic, but the minority white government needed black informants to maintain control, and terrorizing them was effective in breaking that control. Mamdani points out that the black radicals gave up necklacing just as soon as other routes to achieve change were open. So terrorism can possibly be an intellectual choice when no other routes seem open."
As far as intellectual defenses of terrorism go, this is a pretty good one. But I don't think it works, because there's a troublingly subjective aspect to the claim that terrorism can be justified when "no other roots seem open." Is it actually the case, in the example the commenter quoted above cites, that there was no other means of acheiving the same end? It seems pretty clear that other methods were available, and that necklacing was merely an extremely expedient and effect alternative (do note that one could employ exactly the same logic to justify torture of terrorists).
But I think the problem goes a little further: from whose perspective must it seem like there are no alternatives available? If from the perspective of those doing the terrorism, you either have to accept the ludicrous proposition that a potential terrorist is always right in their assessment of their alternatives (Bader-Meinhof and the weather underground are discussed later in the comments, and seem fine examples of people whose analyses were substantively incorrect). Or it's the case that terrorists are sometimes wrong, but they get intellectual cover because it needs to remain there for the gray-area cases.
Obviously, I find neither alternative particularly appealing, but that's just me.
QUOTE: Josh Chafetz on Kerry's dishonest response to the Bush ad:
"In other words, Bush is criticizing his opponents for, among other things, comparing him to Hitler. In response, the Kerry Campaign sends out this incredibly dishonest email suggesting that Bush has compared his opponents to Hitler and asking for money.
Both campaigns have their share of over-the-top supporters, and I don't think it's really fair to tar Kerry with Michael Moore and MoveOn.Org. That said, it's really unfair of the Kerry Campaign to suggest that Bush is comparing Kerry supporters to Hitler, when in fact all he's doing is pointing out that Kerry supporters have compared him to Hitler.
I'm not sure whether this is malice or incompetence on the part of the Kerry Campaign -- and I suspect the answer is incompetence -- but it doesn't bode well for them either way."
"In other words, Bush is criticizing his opponents for, among other things, comparing him to Hitler. In response, the Kerry Campaign sends out this incredibly dishonest email suggesting that Bush has compared his opponents to Hitler and asking for money.
Both campaigns have their share of over-the-top supporters, and I don't think it's really fair to tar Kerry with Michael Moore and MoveOn.Org. That said, it's really unfair of the Kerry Campaign to suggest that Bush is comparing Kerry supporters to Hitler, when in fact all he's doing is pointing out that Kerry supporters have compared him to Hitler.
I'm not sure whether this is malice or incompetence on the part of the Kerry Campaign -- and I suspect the answer is incompetence -- but it doesn't bode well for them either way."
QUOTE: Pej:
"So Vice President Cheney dropped the F-bomb on the Senate floor yesterday out of anger regarding allegations made against him by Senator Patrick Leahy. Leahy claimed--without evidence--that Cheney was basically a war profiteer, and Cheney naturally resented it. Gleeful Democrats have now assumed the role of Miss Manners in response.
Obviously, it goes without saying that if one loses one's temper, one may end up regretting it. I imagine that Dick Cheney wishes that he never unloaded on Leahy, and instead refused to dignify him with any attention. Then again, maybe Cheney is quite happy with having said what he said, but in my opinion, he would have been better served if he had just kept his cool."
"So Vice President Cheney dropped the F-bomb on the Senate floor yesterday out of anger regarding allegations made against him by Senator Patrick Leahy. Leahy claimed--without evidence--that Cheney was basically a war profiteer, and Cheney naturally resented it. Gleeful Democrats have now assumed the role of Miss Manners in response.
Obviously, it goes without saying that if one loses one's temper, one may end up regretting it. I imagine that Dick Cheney wishes that he never unloaded on Leahy, and instead refused to dignify him with any attention. Then again, maybe Cheney is quite happy with having said what he said, but in my opinion, he would have been better served if he had just kept his cool."
25.6.04
LINK: It's worth pointing out with respect to Kevin Yaroch's post on economics education in high school, that I learned mine from a Rochester-trained Monetarist who taught me enough to get me through undergrad (and unlike many theory undergrads, I took a lot of quant-type classes, so these things came up a lot).
LINK: It occured to me when reflecting on Will Baude's post on the whole Jack Ryan fiasco that there was an awful lot of glee about his campaign going up in flames (though not from mr. baude, but definitely from OGIW), which is funny, because these are many of the same people who had such a problem with Clinton's sex life being so closely examined.
LINK: I think I found what I want to do when I grow up:
"Ray Hill, who infiltrated the British fascist movement for twelve years to gather information for anti-fascist groups..."
from a very good column on the link between fascism and homosexuality by Johann Hari
"Ray Hill, who infiltrated the British fascist movement for twelve years to gather information for anti-fascist groups..."
from a very good column on the link between fascism and homosexuality by Johann Hari
LINK: Interesting that these socialist t-shirts don't actually make reference to any of the constituitive elements of socialism. Which probably makes them perfect for MM.
(Link via Jeff Jarvis)
(Link via Jeff Jarvis)
LINK: Pro-Democratic Party fluff or New York Times article?
Good thing they led the story with unnamed sources and didn't bother with a Republican until the seventh paragraph.
Part of me thinks they're just trying to cash in on the salaciousness of this story. Then again, you can go to Wonkette and actually read what he said, rather than having it slyly referred to.
Good thing they led the story with unnamed sources and didn't bother with a Republican until the seventh paragraph.
Part of me thinks they're just trying to cash in on the salaciousness of this story. Then again, you can go to Wonkette and actually read what he said, rather than having it slyly referred to.
LINK: Pauline Kael's review of Roger and Me, useful perusing if you need a reason not to go and see his latest.
24.6.04
LINK: Matt Yglesias on Bill Clinton's biography:
"Which is to say that I'm a political junkie, and so the story of how a young, smart, ambitious guy gut involved in politics, ran and lost a House race, then became Attorney-General, then governor, then lost, then became governor again, then got re-elected and began involving himself in national politics, etc. is pretty fascinating. Maybe things all go to hell when we get to the White House years and the self-serving factor jacks up, but maybe not.
Of course memoires and autobiographies are never really truly interesting books compared with proper, well-researched biographies, but we'll need to wait a while..."
...or he could go and read Hanes Walton's book on all of those topics, which has the benefit of also being a not-bad social-scientific account of all those things, as well. Plus, there's a reasonable chance Hanes doesn't have the same incentive to, um, be creative with the story.
Yes, I'm pimping for a former professor. What of it?
(see also the collected wit and wisdom of Hanes Walton: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here)
"Which is to say that I'm a political junkie, and so the story of how a young, smart, ambitious guy gut involved in politics, ran and lost a House race, then became Attorney-General, then governor, then lost, then became governor again, then got re-elected and began involving himself in national politics, etc. is pretty fascinating. Maybe things all go to hell when we get to the White House years and the self-serving factor jacks up, but maybe not.
Of course memoires and autobiographies are never really truly interesting books compared with proper, well-researched biographies, but we'll need to wait a while..."
...or he could go and read Hanes Walton's book on all of those topics, which has the benefit of also being a not-bad social-scientific account of all those things, as well. Plus, there's a reasonable chance Hanes doesn't have the same incentive to, um, be creative with the story.
Yes, I'm pimping for a former professor. What of it?
(see also the collected wit and wisdom of Hanes Walton: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here)
QUOTE: Your happy Trotsky quotes for the day. As always, I'll assume y'all see the same connections when you read them as I did when I read them:
"Hitler's promises to remain on the terrain of parliamentarism (by the way: where is he now?), are of as much import as the promises, let us say, of Japanese imperialism not to employ poison gases in a war. To demand such promises is ridiculous, to hope for their fulfillment -- utterly stupid."
-from Interview with Montag Moren
"There is no greater crime in politics than that of hoping for stupidities on the part of a strong enemy...
There are seven keys in the musical scale. The question as to which of these keys is "better" -- do, re, or sol -- is a nonsensical question. But the musician must know when to strike and what keys to strike. The abstract question of who is the lesser evil -- Bruening or Hitler -- is just as nonsensical. It is necessary to know which of these keys to strike. Is that clear? For the feebleminded let us cite another example. When one of my enemies sets before me small daily portions of poison and the second, on the other hand, is about to shoot straight at me, then I will first knock the revolver out of the hand of my second enemy, for this gives me an opportunity to get rid of my first enemy. But that does not at all mean that the poison is a "lesser evil" in comparison with the revolver."
-from For a Workers' United Front
"Hitler's promises to remain on the terrain of parliamentarism (by the way: where is he now?), are of as much import as the promises, let us say, of Japanese imperialism not to employ poison gases in a war. To demand such promises is ridiculous, to hope for their fulfillment -- utterly stupid."
-from Interview with Montag Moren
"There is no greater crime in politics than that of hoping for stupidities on the part of a strong enemy...
There are seven keys in the musical scale. The question as to which of these keys is "better" -- do, re, or sol -- is a nonsensical question. But the musician must know when to strike and what keys to strike. The abstract question of who is the lesser evil -- Bruening or Hitler -- is just as nonsensical. It is necessary to know which of these keys to strike. Is that clear? For the feebleminded let us cite another example. When one of my enemies sets before me small daily portions of poison and the second, on the other hand, is about to shoot straight at me, then I will first knock the revolver out of the hand of my second enemy, for this gives me an opportunity to get rid of my first enemy. But that does not at all mean that the poison is a "lesser evil" in comparison with the revolver."
-from For a Workers' United Front
WELL: I wonder how AAIO would explain last year's drop in the Ypsi population*?
Perhaps they all moved to Pittsburg?
*Not statistically significant, I know, but bear with me for a moment.
Perhaps they all moved to Pittsburg?
*Not statistically significant, I know, but bear with me for a moment.
LINK: Jeff Jarvis on MM:
"And then I read A.O. Scott's mealy-mouthed review in The Times. He points out that the movie is full of crap in many ways: "...blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery...""
It does make for an interesting game, reading positive reviews of F9/11 and seeing what their euphemism for "not even remotely in the neighborhood of truth" is.
"And then I read A.O. Scott's mealy-mouthed review in The Times. He points out that the movie is full of crap in many ways: "...blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery...""
It does make for an interesting game, reading positive reviews of F9/11 and seeing what their euphemism for "not even remotely in the neighborhood of truth" is.
23.6.04
LINK: The Curmudgeonly Clerk points to this Richard Posner shocker: American judges probably don't possess the knowledge necessary to integrate foreign law into their opinions.
QUOTE: Crooked Timber:
"The anointing of the Iraqi resistance as the heirs of Mazzini is as wrong-headed as the view that some leftists took that the Iran of 1979 was a return to revolution’s classical forms, with all that Islamic talk just being surface ideological froth. Since Nabulsi’s concern is with democracy, it seems reasonable to ask whether the Iraqi people’s best chance of actually implementing self-government is via the progressive taking of power by the existing governing council and its successors and through eventual free elections, or via the triumph of armed resistance groups. And it really doesn’t help in deciding that question to see anyone as being the incarnation of the ideal of popular sovereignty. The worry with the governing council is, of course, that they remain puppets of the US forever ; the hope is that they gradually become more resistant to outside influence. But the armed resistance groups are likely to bring about not democracy but bloodletting and revenge followed one form of brutal dictatorship or another (religious or secular)."
"The anointing of the Iraqi resistance as the heirs of Mazzini is as wrong-headed as the view that some leftists took that the Iran of 1979 was a return to revolution’s classical forms, with all that Islamic talk just being surface ideological froth. Since Nabulsi’s concern is with democracy, it seems reasonable to ask whether the Iraqi people’s best chance of actually implementing self-government is via the progressive taking of power by the existing governing council and its successors and through eventual free elections, or via the triumph of armed resistance groups. And it really doesn’t help in deciding that question to see anyone as being the incarnation of the ideal of popular sovereignty. The worry with the governing council is, of course, that they remain puppets of the US forever ; the hope is that they gradually become more resistant to outside influence. But the armed resistance groups are likely to bring about not democracy but bloodletting and revenge followed one form of brutal dictatorship or another (religious or secular)."
LINK: Gonna have to diagree with Eugene Volokh about this one:
"What's with those Jewish people?
Why do some people think that it's more polite to say "Jewish people" than "Jews"? I've heard some people say that "Jews" is somehow considered rude, and "Jewish people" is better, but I just don't see why.
Does anyone know the story here? People don't generally say "black people," "Catholic people," or "female people." Why should they call us "Jewish people" rather than just "Jews"? I don't quite get it.
(I'm not saying that "Jewish people" is wrong -- if you want to say that, it's fine with me, though it will sound affected to me and people who think like me, at least until we're persuaded that "Jews" is somehow bad.)"
I generally don't say "Jews," because I'm pretty clear on which people call Jews 'Jews,' and they're not the sort of people I like being associated with. But it also seems to me that Eugene's wrong about "black people," because you'd presumably not refer to, say, a family of 'blacks,' or (another possibility) a group of 'gays.'
Now, I'm just sort of arguing usage here, and not what things prescriptively ought to be (that's a first, isn't it, Dara?), but it seems pretty clear to me that some people could take serious offense to 'Jews,' 'blacks,' or 'gays,' and no one will be particularly offended if you use the longer terms, so, rules of civility being what they are, you alter your speech patterns to make them as (reasonably) inoffensive as possible.
"What's with those Jewish people?
Why do some people think that it's more polite to say "Jewish people" than "Jews"? I've heard some people say that "Jews" is somehow considered rude, and "Jewish people" is better, but I just don't see why.
Does anyone know the story here? People don't generally say "black people," "Catholic people," or "female people." Why should they call us "Jewish people" rather than just "Jews"? I don't quite get it.
(I'm not saying that "Jewish people" is wrong -- if you want to say that, it's fine with me, though it will sound affected to me and people who think like me, at least until we're persuaded that "Jews" is somehow bad.)"
I generally don't say "Jews," because I'm pretty clear on which people call Jews 'Jews,' and they're not the sort of people I like being associated with. But it also seems to me that Eugene's wrong about "black people," because you'd presumably not refer to, say, a family of 'blacks,' or (another possibility) a group of 'gays.'
Now, I'm just sort of arguing usage here, and not what things prescriptively ought to be (that's a first, isn't it, Dara?), but it seems pretty clear to me that some people could take serious offense to 'Jews,' 'blacks,' or 'gays,' and no one will be particularly offended if you use the longer terms, so, rules of civility being what they are, you alter your speech patterns to make them as (reasonably) inoffensive as possible.
ALL-TIME DESERT ISLAND TOP FIVE: in the spirit of the conversation being carried on by Will Baude and Chris Lawrence on music critics who are too pretentious, the following top five: Bands You Wish Had Never Recorded a Note:
5. Beastie Boys--never got them, really. If I want Jewish New York rappers, I'll listen to Fun Lovin' Criminals. They're not so big on beats, their samples cross the line from hip-and-obscure to even-if-I-knew-that-one-I-wouldn't-care, and their lyrics leave something to be desired in creativity.
4. Pearl Jam--were it not for the fact their lead singer is occasionally thought attractive, they'd be filed between Mudhoney and Tad under 'grunge bands you've never listened to.'
3. Pink Floyd (exception: "See Emily Play")--Music is such a warm, emotional, thoroughly human form of expression, you kind of have to admire a band that played, on average, three-tenths of a degree above emotional absolute zero. One can, of course, use entirely synthetic sounds to create something very emotive (see Air's Moon Safari), or be out and cerebral and also emotionally resonant (Can's Tago Mago), so the Pink Floyds really have no excuses available.
2. Tom Petty (exception: "It's Good to Be King")--The poor man's Rolling Stones.
1. Creedence Clearwater Revival--It's not so much that their music is bad, per se, as that your average Creedence song is regularly outclassed by the Stones, the Animals, the Small Faces, the Byrds, etc etc, who were all writing the same kind of music. Listening to CCR is like picking a five-dollar box of wine over a thirty-dollar bottle.
5. Beastie Boys--never got them, really. If I want Jewish New York rappers, I'll listen to Fun Lovin' Criminals. They're not so big on beats, their samples cross the line from hip-and-obscure to even-if-I-knew-that-one-I-wouldn't-care, and their lyrics leave something to be desired in creativity.
4. Pearl Jam--were it not for the fact their lead singer is occasionally thought attractive, they'd be filed between Mudhoney and Tad under 'grunge bands you've never listened to.'
3. Pink Floyd (exception: "See Emily Play")--Music is such a warm, emotional, thoroughly human form of expression, you kind of have to admire a band that played, on average, three-tenths of a degree above emotional absolute zero. One can, of course, use entirely synthetic sounds to create something very emotive (see Air's Moon Safari), or be out and cerebral and also emotionally resonant (Can's Tago Mago), so the Pink Floyds really have no excuses available.
2. Tom Petty (exception: "It's Good to Be King")--The poor man's Rolling Stones.
1. Creedence Clearwater Revival--It's not so much that their music is bad, per se, as that your average Creedence song is regularly outclassed by the Stones, the Animals, the Small Faces, the Byrds, etc etc, who were all writing the same kind of music. Listening to CCR is like picking a five-dollar box of wine over a thirty-dollar bottle.
OH BILL, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HURT ME SO? He was on a roll here:
"Let me just say this. One of the reasons he [Kenneth Starr] got away with it is because people like you only ask me the questions. You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do. They indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did you care about them, they’re not famous, who cares that their life was trampled. Who cares that their children are humiliated …"
And then he drops this utter nonsense:
"...And that’s why people like you always help the far-right, because you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings." (emphasis mine)
"Let me just say this. One of the reasons he [Kenneth Starr] got away with it is because people like you only ask me the questions. You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do. They indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did you care about them, they’re not famous, who cares that their life was trampled. Who cares that their children are humiliated …"
And then he drops this utter nonsense:
"...And that’s why people like you always help the far-right, because you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings." (emphasis mine)
LINK: Camille has a very nice post up on Hitchens' article on Michael Moore (see also the comments). I suspect we agree on more than we disagree on (though there will no doubt be an afternoon on the Left Bank when that gets hashed out), but she has the advantage of actually being in Europe to judge their attitudes. Anyway, go and read!
Oh, and football matches often last over 90 minutes because the clock runs as penalties, etc, are being given out during the game, so a certain number of minutes of play are added on at the end to compensate (it also increases the tension at the end of the game, because no one knows how many minutes they'll get).
I knew watching virtually all of the '98 World Cup would come in handy at some point.
Oh, and football matches often last over 90 minutes because the clock runs as penalties, etc, are being given out during the game, so a certain number of minutes of play are added on at the end to compensate (it also increases the tension at the end of the game, because no one knows how many minutes they'll get).
I knew watching virtually all of the '98 World Cup would come in handy at some point.
LINK: Slate reviews the new beer ad wars. I personally find the Miller ads to be much more amusing (that's Bob Odenkirk for you), but I also liked the Bud ad referring to Miller Lite as "The Queen of Beers." But that's probably just my juvenile sense of humor for ya.
LINK: Nice little write-up in the Weekly Standard on that movie that makes fun of evangelical Christians. I do appreciate being portrayed as ignorant, prejudiced, and stupid as much as the next person...
As it so happens, I read The Gods Will Have Blood by Anatole France this past weekend, and for as much as it lampoons the clergy and distrusts the bases for Christianity, it does a pretty good job of portraying the shortcomings of anti-religious attitudes (the atheist character, in the end, is worried about the possibility that he's right, but even more worried that he might be wrong, which seems a pretty fair way to put it). That sort of evenhandedness, however, is very out of fashion these days, because you know us evangelicals--we'd put the ten commandments in every room of every building in America and laugh heartily at all the women who can't get abortions and gay couples that can't get married.
As it so happens, I read The Gods Will Have Blood by Anatole France this past weekend, and for as much as it lampoons the clergy and distrusts the bases for Christianity, it does a pretty good job of portraying the shortcomings of anti-religious attitudes (the atheist character, in the end, is worried about the possibility that he's right, but even more worried that he might be wrong, which seems a pretty fair way to put it). That sort of evenhandedness, however, is very out of fashion these days, because you know us evangelicals--we'd put the ten commandments in every room of every building in America and laugh heartily at all the women who can't get abortions and gay couples that can't get married.
22.6.04
QUOTE: Also from the below, this:
"We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change."
Which will prompt, no doubt, the next two postings in my foundational principles series--the overwhelming importance of democracy and the need, on some occasions, to be indifferent as to who your allies are.
"We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change."
Which will prompt, no doubt, the next two postings in my foundational principles series--the overwhelming importance of democracy and the need, on some occasions, to be indifferent as to who your allies are.
LINK: Go read me, The Hitch on Michael Moore:
"I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights...
If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage."
"I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights...
If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage."
21.6.04
LINK: Chris Lawrence has a good post decrying the hipper-than-thou-ness of music critics:
"...if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s the widespread condescension displayed by the self-annointed music cognoscenti toward popular music."
I will cop to liking the occasional Abba tune ("Waterloo" is pretty darn good), and I learned to fingerpick on my guitar by playing Jewel songs, so keep that in mind in any moments of condescention that are about to follow.
I'm impressed that TMFTML can do Phish references, too.
I discovered the following this weekend, which I pass along to you:
"Ain't It Strange" -Patti Smith Group, Radio Ethiopia
"She Is Suffering" -Manic Street Preachers, The Holy Bible
"...if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s the widespread condescension displayed by the self-annointed music cognoscenti toward popular music."
I will cop to liking the occasional Abba tune ("Waterloo" is pretty darn good), and I learned to fingerpick on my guitar by playing Jewel songs, so keep that in mind in any moments of condescention that are about to follow.
I'm impressed that TMFTML can do Phish references, too.
I discovered the following this weekend, which I pass along to you:
"Ain't It Strange" -Patti Smith Group, Radio Ethiopia
"She Is Suffering" -Manic Street Preachers, The Holy Bible
LINK: Norm on the fate of Harry's Place:
"This is very bad news. I've tried to get on to Harry's Place a few times today and failed. I now have an email from Harry that somehow the blog has vanished, along with the service provider, Bloghouse, and all the Harry's Place archives. Harry doesn't know if they have any chance of recovering the material but it looks very much as though they may have lost everything.
The person who took care of the hosting of Harry's Place was Kathy Kinsley. All her sites, Harry says, have vanished and her email no longer works. He asks me to say: if any blogger or reader knows how to contact her, please can you get in touch. Kathy is his only hope of recovering the material.
Also, Harry says that whatever happens, he hopes to have a blog up again in the near future, even if they have to start from scratch.
Can I appeal, for my own part, for anyone who can help to do so. (Others could perhaps spread this message.) Harry's Place is one of the very best of the British blogs. This is an awful blow."
People who can help, please do.
"This is very bad news. I've tried to get on to Harry's Place a few times today and failed. I now have an email from Harry that somehow the blog has vanished, along with the service provider, Bloghouse, and all the Harry's Place archives. Harry doesn't know if they have any chance of recovering the material but it looks very much as though they may have lost everything.
The person who took care of the hosting of Harry's Place was Kathy Kinsley. All her sites, Harry says, have vanished and her email no longer works. He asks me to say: if any blogger or reader knows how to contact her, please can you get in touch. Kathy is his only hope of recovering the material.
Also, Harry says that whatever happens, he hopes to have a blog up again in the near future, even if they have to start from scratch.
Can I appeal, for my own part, for anyone who can help to do so. (Others could perhaps spread this message.) Harry's Place is one of the very best of the British blogs. This is an awful blow."
People who can help, please do.
18.6.04
QUASI-TROTSKYISM: Joe asks "what does it mean to be a "quasi-Trotskyist?"" in the comments. Here's a go at an explanation. There are a number of things one can be impressed by when reading generally from Trotsky's works:
1. In a general intellectual sense, he was a lot more complete in his analyses than a lot of his fellow Bolsheviks--he anticipates counterarguments as they arise, and what he writes has comparatively little filler (you can doze for fifty or more pages at a time even in Lenin's most significant writings, by way of comparison, and not miss anything).
2. He has, quite seriously, a well-developed rhetorical style, which includes the (always admirable) ability to effectively belittle his opposition. There is no greater put-down than his line in Terrorism or Communism "As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the “sacredness of human life.”" He's wrong about that, of course, but you have to admire a man who can put together a good phrase.
3. He had the good fortune of being totally right about Hitler and Stalin, and there was no more constant critic of both.
4. He opposed, from the very beginning, terrorism as a means of acheiving political ends, since it always gives the lie to anyone who presumes to speak for the people. To wit:
" If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?"
There are more than a few bad things, though:
1. Terrorism or Communism is a particularly vile work, which essentially argues that the state should have the right to dispose of labor as it wants, and should have the right to treat the enemy in the Civil War in whatever manner it wants.
2. Wanting to keep War Communism and avoid the NEP, and generally opposing measures to ease life for Russian farmers.
3. Kronstadt and various other dubiously moral adventures.
4. His materialist accounts of history, morality, etc.
On balance, what I conceive of when I say quasi-Trotskyist is something like the following: highly thorough-going, unwilling to equivocate in the face of wrong, with a slight preference for democratic authoritarianism in some circumstances. Obviously, this is problematic for a number of reasons, but all the words sort of randomly thrown together in my profile are there for a reason: 'deontologist Christian' rejects Trotsky's amoralism and his, erm, occasionally questionable views of what constitutes acceptable attitudes one may have about other groups of people. The 'Third-Way Democrat' hopefully implies something more like a positive political agenda, but also that (unlike Trotsky) I try to draw my inspiration from Right as well as Left. He's an awfully interesting figure to spend some time with.
Also, I'm using 'Trotskyist' at least partly in the 'anti-Stalinist' sense, since that label applies to many more people I have fewer problems with (e.g. Irving Howe, Mary McCarthy).
1. In a general intellectual sense, he was a lot more complete in his analyses than a lot of his fellow Bolsheviks--he anticipates counterarguments as they arise, and what he writes has comparatively little filler (you can doze for fifty or more pages at a time even in Lenin's most significant writings, by way of comparison, and not miss anything).
2. He has, quite seriously, a well-developed rhetorical style, which includes the (always admirable) ability to effectively belittle his opposition. There is no greater put-down than his line in Terrorism or Communism "As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the “sacredness of human life.”" He's wrong about that, of course, but you have to admire a man who can put together a good phrase.
3. He had the good fortune of being totally right about Hitler and Stalin, and there was no more constant critic of both.
4. He opposed, from the very beginning, terrorism as a means of acheiving political ends, since it always gives the lie to anyone who presumes to speak for the people. To wit:
" If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?"
There are more than a few bad things, though:
1. Terrorism or Communism is a particularly vile work, which essentially argues that the state should have the right to dispose of labor as it wants, and should have the right to treat the enemy in the Civil War in whatever manner it wants.
2. Wanting to keep War Communism and avoid the NEP, and generally opposing measures to ease life for Russian farmers.
3. Kronstadt and various other dubiously moral adventures.
4. His materialist accounts of history, morality, etc.
On balance, what I conceive of when I say quasi-Trotskyist is something like the following: highly thorough-going, unwilling to equivocate in the face of wrong, with a slight preference for democratic authoritarianism in some circumstances. Obviously, this is problematic for a number of reasons, but all the words sort of randomly thrown together in my profile are there for a reason: 'deontologist Christian' rejects Trotsky's amoralism and his, erm, occasionally questionable views of what constitutes acceptable attitudes one may have about other groups of people. The 'Third-Way Democrat' hopefully implies something more like a positive political agenda, but also that (unlike Trotsky) I try to draw my inspiration from Right as well as Left. He's an awfully interesting figure to spend some time with.
Also, I'm using 'Trotskyist' at least partly in the 'anti-Stalinist' sense, since that label applies to many more people I have fewer problems with (e.g. Irving Howe, Mary McCarthy).
QUOTE: Johann Hari:
"But at least the shrugging Tories who dismiss Iraqi democracy as a joke are being honest. They freely admit they aren't too bothered about the Iraqi people. They put the British state interest (or their narrow interpretation of it) first, second and third. What's the excuse of the progressives, who purport to care about people irrespective of their nationality or race?
One friend of mine who campaigns for a Palestinian state and votes Green recently confessed: "I hope Iraq remains in chaos. It's more important that Bush loses the election and Blair is ditched than that Iraq goes right." Much of the left has simply written off Iraqi democracy in this way, seeing it as a proxy for other political fights. Yet inside Iraq, it is trade unions - usually seen as allies of the left - who are emerging as bulwarks of a peaceful, stable Iraq, just as they did in post- war Europe.
Here is a small illustration: two months ago Moqtada Sadr, the de facto leader of the Shia uprising, was leading his Army of Mehdi towards Nasiriyah . They stumbled across an aluminium plant and ordered the staff to evacuate, but the workers would not leave. Their trade union, the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq, issued a statement saying their workers "refuse to evacuate their workplaces and turn them into battlefields".
The union rejected "the two poles of terrorism in Iraq" - the armed militias and the occupying forces - and insisted on a transition to a democratic Iraq. Here we have ordinary Iraqis refusing to allow yet another war to disrupt their lives, and they are greeted with total silence from progressive Brits."
"But at least the shrugging Tories who dismiss Iraqi democracy as a joke are being honest. They freely admit they aren't too bothered about the Iraqi people. They put the British state interest (or their narrow interpretation of it) first, second and third. What's the excuse of the progressives, who purport to care about people irrespective of their nationality or race?
One friend of mine who campaigns for a Palestinian state and votes Green recently confessed: "I hope Iraq remains in chaos. It's more important that Bush loses the election and Blair is ditched than that Iraq goes right." Much of the left has simply written off Iraqi democracy in this way, seeing it as a proxy for other political fights. Yet inside Iraq, it is trade unions - usually seen as allies of the left - who are emerging as bulwarks of a peaceful, stable Iraq, just as they did in post- war Europe.
Here is a small illustration: two months ago Moqtada Sadr, the de facto leader of the Shia uprising, was leading his Army of Mehdi towards Nasiriyah . They stumbled across an aluminium plant and ordered the staff to evacuate, but the workers would not leave. Their trade union, the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq, issued a statement saying their workers "refuse to evacuate their workplaces and turn them into battlefields".
The union rejected "the two poles of terrorism in Iraq" - the armed militias and the occupying forces - and insisted on a transition to a democratic Iraq. Here we have ordinary Iraqis refusing to allow yet another war to disrupt their lives, and they are greeted with total silence from progressive Brits."
QUOTE: Paul Berman (via Harry's Place:
"A truly large and powerful protest movement took to the streets all over the Western world only in February 2003--and this was not to denounce the terrible dictatorship, but to prevent an invasion from overthrowing the terrible dictatorship. Those were the largest mass protests in the history of the world. Some of the protesters marched in a mood of cautious practicality, fearful that overthrowing Saddam might unleash still worse horrors, or might undermine the manhunt for Al Qaeda. But there was also in those marches, and in the larger mood of the moment, an unmistakable moral fervor--an outraged feeling that invading Iraq was a criminal act.
.....
And how did the peace marchers react, afterward, to the mass graves and other discoveries? The abstract principles of "just war" and U.N. legitimacy pressed on one side of the balance and the human realities of extreme suffering pressed on the other. And the abstractions were found to be weightier.
.....
...during this last year we have learned that people who smirk at putting the words "liberal democracy" and "Iraq" into a single sentence ought to reduce their smirk by 20 percent, in proportion to Iraq's Kurdish population. We have learned that, in Kurdistan, the democratic left has turned out to be especially strong. And we have learned that, in some of the world's liberal democracies, other democratic leftists couldn't care less. "They shall not pass" was the slogan of the left in the Spanish Civil War. "Yes, they will," is the slogan of Spanish socialism today. Iraqi success, as much as Iraqi suffering, turns out to be invisible in the modern world."
"A truly large and powerful protest movement took to the streets all over the Western world only in February 2003--and this was not to denounce the terrible dictatorship, but to prevent an invasion from overthrowing the terrible dictatorship. Those were the largest mass protests in the history of the world. Some of the protesters marched in a mood of cautious practicality, fearful that overthrowing Saddam might unleash still worse horrors, or might undermine the manhunt for Al Qaeda. But there was also in those marches, and in the larger mood of the moment, an unmistakable moral fervor--an outraged feeling that invading Iraq was a criminal act.
.....
And how did the peace marchers react, afterward, to the mass graves and other discoveries? The abstract principles of "just war" and U.N. legitimacy pressed on one side of the balance and the human realities of extreme suffering pressed on the other. And the abstractions were found to be weightier.
.....
...during this last year we have learned that people who smirk at putting the words "liberal democracy" and "Iraq" into a single sentence ought to reduce their smirk by 20 percent, in proportion to Iraq's Kurdish population. We have learned that, in Kurdistan, the democratic left has turned out to be especially strong. And we have learned that, in some of the world's liberal democracies, other democratic leftists couldn't care less. "They shall not pass" was the slogan of the left in the Spanish Civil War. "Yes, they will," is the slogan of Spanish socialism today. Iraqi success, as much as Iraqi suffering, turns out to be invisible in the modern world."
LINK: A good collection of links and commentary on people who have trouble with the Iraq-al Qaeda connection.
TMFTML UPDATE:
He should get an award for being able to so seamlessly namecheck quality rock-and-roll o' the past.
Also, this is hilarious.
And also this:
"Its etymology — Philippi, the biblical city where Paul preached the gospel to a group of women and, finding himself short of material, padded out his speech by performing comic impersonations of the Apostles..."
He should get an award for being able to so seamlessly namecheck quality rock-and-roll o' the past.
Also, this is hilarious.
And also this:
"Its etymology — Philippi, the biblical city where Paul preached the gospel to a group of women and, finding himself short of material, padded out his speech by performing comic impersonations of the Apostles..."
LINK: I'm not sure whether this story or this one is more amusing. I vote for the cab-driver-on-ecstasy story.
LINK: Unless I'm missing the sarcasm here (or unless the guy quoted practices an odd brand of economics), AAIO gets their snarkiness backwards--he's ragging on NYC, not Ann Arbor.
LINK: My preliminary thought about this is that it's skirting the boundary between the hierarchical nature of the family unit and the proposed non-hierarchical nature of society, but I'll have more substantive thoughts later.
HEH: Will Baude:
"On the other hand, my cab driver last night explained to me that the prophesies of Mohammed make it quite clear that any day now 99 our of every 100 people in Iraq is going to be slain by some earthborne cataclysm, so maybe bad times are still to come."
"On the other hand, my cab driver last night explained to me that the prophesies of Mohammed make it quite clear that any day now 99 our of every 100 people in Iraq is going to be slain by some earthborne cataclysm, so maybe bad times are still to come."
LINK: though Ben Domenech is right about Andrew Sullivan (he changes his politics daily), Sullivan sounds a lot like a Republican today, though perhaps it's just because it gives him an excuse to bash the NYT (by the way, has there been a more recent personnel decision that came back to haunt the former publication more than the NYT mag firing him?).
LINK: Another snarky post from Crooked Timber, this time glazing over one of the more serious problems of utilitarianism by quining away (man, have I waited a long time to use that word in context) the lack of in-every-case moral direction by pretending that outrageous counterfactuals shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe. Or maybe you can construct plausible still troubling counterfactuals, and people just choose these because the underlying problem is more pronounced there.
17.6.04
TROTSKYISTS FOR BUSH:
"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce...
As ever, weakness has taken refuge in a belief in miracles, had fancied the enemy overcome when he was only conjured away in imagination, and lost all understanding of the present in a passive glorification of the future that was in store for it and of the deeds it had in petto, but merely did not want to carry out yet."
-Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (say what you will about Marx and his followers, they were masters of the put-down)
I'm not, I don't think, an unquestioning supporter of the Bush administration. They're screwed some stuff up (less, on balance, than I think everyone thinks they have right now), and to the extent that they have, I'm not so fond* of them. But, by and large, if democracy promotion's your thing (and if it isn't, why not?), you know that your man in the White House is going to be George W. Bush.
Which is why the prospect of a Kerry election terrifies me. It's not as if I'm choosing between a unilateral idealist foreign policy and a more sedate multilateral idealism: I can stick to my guns (democracy has to be promoted around the world), or I can fall back into a morally equivocating realism which cares more about economies than people (read up on Kerry's plans for China or North Korea and you'll see some of what I mean). But there's more.
As Marx (and Lenin and Trotsky) could've told you, revolution begets counter-revolution**. So I don't think it's merely the case that Kerry would revert to the occasionally realist occasionally idealist stance of the Clinton years--the ascendant faction in the Democratic party at the moment is that of hard-core realism, and there's little to no principled, unwavering support for democracy as a primary foreign policy principle. As a matter of fact, you'll have a hard time finding any foundational principles at all.
So, I'm voting for Bush: he may not always do what I'd want him to do, but I see the alternative, and I know it'd be far, far worse.
*I think you could probably argue that the torture stuff would be passable if it actually appeared more that Bush really cared about it, but you could probably say this about every political scandal (Whitewater anyone?)
**If you want to find anything remarkable about the American revolution, it's that it seems to be one of the few (if not the only) exceptions to this rule.
"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce...
As ever, weakness has taken refuge in a belief in miracles, had fancied the enemy overcome when he was only conjured away in imagination, and lost all understanding of the present in a passive glorification of the future that was in store for it and of the deeds it had in petto, but merely did not want to carry out yet."
-Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (say what you will about Marx and his followers, they were masters of the put-down)
I'm not, I don't think, an unquestioning supporter of the Bush administration. They're screwed some stuff up (less, on balance, than I think everyone thinks they have right now), and to the extent that they have, I'm not so fond* of them. But, by and large, if democracy promotion's your thing (and if it isn't, why not?), you know that your man in the White House is going to be George W. Bush.
Which is why the prospect of a Kerry election terrifies me. It's not as if I'm choosing between a unilateral idealist foreign policy and a more sedate multilateral idealism: I can stick to my guns (democracy has to be promoted around the world), or I can fall back into a morally equivocating realism which cares more about economies than people (read up on Kerry's plans for China or North Korea and you'll see some of what I mean). But there's more.
As Marx (and Lenin and Trotsky) could've told you, revolution begets counter-revolution**. So I don't think it's merely the case that Kerry would revert to the occasionally realist occasionally idealist stance of the Clinton years--the ascendant faction in the Democratic party at the moment is that of hard-core realism, and there's little to no principled, unwavering support for democracy as a primary foreign policy principle. As a matter of fact, you'll have a hard time finding any foundational principles at all.
So, I'm voting for Bush: he may not always do what I'd want him to do, but I see the alternative, and I know it'd be far, far worse.
*I think you could probably argue that the torture stuff would be passable if it actually appeared more that Bush really cared about it, but you could probably say this about every political scandal (Whitewater anyone?)
**If you want to find anything remarkable about the American revolution, it's that it seems to be one of the few (if not the only) exceptions to this rule.
LINK: I know I should be sad about the madpony news, but mostly I'm baffled. To paraphrase Johnson, "when a man is tired of blogging, he is tired of life."
LINK: As someone whose speech is occasionally infested by anglicisms (I have to post a letter, I was off at the grocer, etc), I can appreciate this
16.6.04
LINK: Both disturbing and amusing. Also, this passage is much creepier if your cusor is over the '1':
"Exhibit B: my 16-year-old cousin who, with parental consent, dates a goateed man in his 30s."
"Exhibit B: my 16-year-old cousin who, with parental consent, dates a goateed man in his 30s."
HILARIOUS:
"Ulysses is a terrible novel and deserves to die an ignominious death. The book is nothing less than a horid waste of paper and ink. As one astute reviewer noted, “For Ulysses to be any worse of a book, it would have to break into your house and defecate on your bed."
Some of you may think I protest too much. You may be wondering, “Is it truly as bad as all that? Yes it is Yes."
"Ulysses is a terrible novel and deserves to die an ignominious death. The book is nothing less than a horid waste of paper and ink. As one astute reviewer noted, “For Ulysses to be any worse of a book, it would have to break into your house and defecate on your bed."
Some of you may think I protest too much. You may be wondering, “Is it truly as bad as all that? Yes it is Yes."
LINK: I'm pretty sure you can short-cut around problems of whether man can know as much as God (or, if you're atheist, everything there is to know) as discussed here by simply pointing out that there are two examples that pop up in philosophical literature about this: the Pocket Oracle and the Book of Life, each of which gives you a perfect description of all the true facts about the world over time. So clearly you can have all possible information available to you.
Except, of course, that you either have to accept the truth of the Book by fiat, or else you end up with the problem of induction (imagine a Book of Life with one error, or perhaps ten, to get an idea of how indistinguishable it'd be from one which was totally correct). So even if you (along with everyone else) reject Cartesian skepticism, there's still a perfectly good reason to think that people are operating with imperfect information.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that Christian propositions get around this problem precisely because we believe them to be true by fiat.
Except, of course, that you either have to accept the truth of the Book by fiat, or else you end up with the problem of induction (imagine a Book of Life with one error, or perhaps ten, to get an idea of how indistinguishable it'd be from one which was totally correct). So even if you (along with everyone else) reject Cartesian skepticism, there's still a perfectly good reason to think that people are operating with imperfect information.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that Christian propositions get around this problem precisely because we believe them to be true by fiat.
LINK: I read Chris Lawrence's suggestion for an American politics paper:
"Incidentally, there’s probably a good undergraduate or first-year graduate student paper in an analysis of the effects of various electoral college allocation systems (PR, bonus PR, congressional district, plurality), with particular focus on elections with relatively large third-party voting (1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000)."
And I had a bit all prepared about how this sort of thing is exactly the reason I'm not an Americanist, when it occurred to me that this would actually make for a rather interesting paper (even if the data collection would bore me to death). All that stuff my professors used to harp on (change the voting system and you can change the outcome! even with the exact same expressed preferences! it's just like Riker says!) apparently still piques my interest*.
Damn that Michigan education.
*All the quants at Duke are in International Relations (or so they tell me, and John Aldrich excepted), so this is a paper I'll probably never write, but you never know.
"Incidentally, there’s probably a good undergraduate or first-year graduate student paper in an analysis of the effects of various electoral college allocation systems (PR, bonus PR, congressional district, plurality), with particular focus on elections with relatively large third-party voting (1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000)."
And I had a bit all prepared about how this sort of thing is exactly the reason I'm not an Americanist, when it occurred to me that this would actually make for a rather interesting paper (even if the data collection would bore me to death). All that stuff my professors used to harp on (change the voting system and you can change the outcome! even with the exact same expressed preferences! it's just like Riker says!) apparently still piques my interest*.
Damn that Michigan education.
*All the quants at Duke are in International Relations (or so they tell me, and John Aldrich excepted), so this is a paper I'll probably never write, but you never know.
LINK: I'm not going to accuse Andrew Sullivan of going wobbly, but this is ridiculous:
"Maybe in a decade or so, we'll see the real fruits of this noble, flawed experiment."
Simple question, yo: can you name any country that's gone from authoritarian government to perfectly functional republican government in 10 years*? I think I projected a reasonable amount of time to wait and see at 50 years.
For a man who got a degree in government from Harvard (in theory, no less), his politics seem to be more slapdash than most.
*the only three things that strike me as even possible exceptions are the U.S., India and South Africa (from apartheid out), but I think you can argue that each of those didn't emerge from an authoritarian state in the sort of lawless quasi-totalitarian way we mean it with Iraq (that is, each was accomplished by people acting within their laws and morality and merely seeking a fuller, truer expression of them).
"Maybe in a decade or so, we'll see the real fruits of this noble, flawed experiment."
Simple question, yo: can you name any country that's gone from authoritarian government to perfectly functional republican government in 10 years*? I think I projected a reasonable amount of time to wait and see at 50 years.
For a man who got a degree in government from Harvard (in theory, no less), his politics seem to be more slapdash than most.
*the only three things that strike me as even possible exceptions are the U.S., India and South Africa (from apartheid out), but I think you can argue that each of those didn't emerge from an authoritarian state in the sort of lawless quasi-totalitarian way we mean it with Iraq (that is, each was accomplished by people acting within their laws and morality and merely seeking a fuller, truer expression of them).
15.6.04
LINK: Having just trashed newspapers below (and no doubt horrified My Foreign Correspondent), I thought I should link to a very good David Brooks column.
LINK: Joe Carter has a great post up on not reading newspapers, so it's time for my guilty confession: I no longer do, either.
Time was, I read through the WaPo and NYT every day, as well as various other stories off the Detroit Free Press and the Guardian (for the international perspective). But what I discovered is mostly that: stories aren't on topics I find even remotely interesting, the detail involved is insufficient for my interest (or lacks references to the relevant primary sources), simply rehashes tired cliches (especially bad in writing about politics) or (as I've discovered as I get more into the political science thing--I'd be interested in Chris Lawrence's views on this, since he's further down that pike than I am) they engage in bad statistical, logical or theoretical work, which sort of compromises how good the end product can be.
To take yesterday's Newdow ruling as an example: why read what the NYT has to say when you can go to How Appealing, read the ruling yourself, then check around on the Volokh Conspiracy and elsewhere to get commentary on it? What, in short, can a news story tell me that I can't find out on my own with sufficient motivation*? Isn't the opportunity cost of reading a story first and then going to read more about it higher than just doing that other reading in the first place?
*It's not as if my failing to read something on a topic to which I have no first-hand access to knowledge myself (e.g. the political situation in Pakistan) means I can never have knowledge of it.
Time was, I read through the WaPo and NYT every day, as well as various other stories off the Detroit Free Press and the Guardian (for the international perspective). But what I discovered is mostly that: stories aren't on topics I find even remotely interesting, the detail involved is insufficient for my interest (or lacks references to the relevant primary sources), simply rehashes tired cliches (especially bad in writing about politics) or (as I've discovered as I get more into the political science thing--I'd be interested in Chris Lawrence's views on this, since he's further down that pike than I am) they engage in bad statistical, logical or theoretical work, which sort of compromises how good the end product can be.
To take yesterday's Newdow ruling as an example: why read what the NYT has to say when you can go to How Appealing, read the ruling yourself, then check around on the Volokh Conspiracy and elsewhere to get commentary on it? What, in short, can a news story tell me that I can't find out on my own with sufficient motivation*? Isn't the opportunity cost of reading a story first and then going to read more about it higher than just doing that other reading in the first place?
*It's not as if my failing to read something on a topic to which I have no first-hand access to knowledge myself (e.g. the political situation in Pakistan) means I can never have knowledge of it.
LINE OF THE DAY: Dahlia Lithwick:
"You can call them "technicalities." I like to call them "children.""
See also The Curmudgeonly Clerk:
" I think that reasonable minds may differ on the constitutional issue, but the reportage and state-court litigation concerning custody gives one the impression that that Michael Newdow is a self-involved ideologue or lunatic with an awfully limited sense of what's in the best interests of his child. Newdow, of course, intends to relitigate the issue."
"You can call them "technicalities." I like to call them "children.""
See also The Curmudgeonly Clerk:
" I think that reasonable minds may differ on the constitutional issue, but the reportage and state-court litigation concerning custody gives one the impression that that Michael Newdow is a self-involved ideologue or lunatic with an awfully limited sense of what's in the best interests of his child. Newdow, of course, intends to relitigate the issue."
LINK: hear hear, from the Hitch:
"Yes, but what about the ticking bomb? Listen: There's always going to be a ticking bomb somewhere. Some of these will go off, and it's just as likely to be in my part of Washington, D.C., as anywhere else. But we shall be fighting a war against jihad for decades to come. And the jihadists will continue to make big mistakes based on their mad theory. And they are not superhuman: They can be infiltrated, bribed, and turned. You don't have to tell them what time of day it is, or where they are, or when the next meal will be served. (Though it must be served.) But you must not bring in that pig or that electrode. That way lies madness and corruption and the extraction of junk confessions. So even if law and principle didn't enter into the question, we sure as hell know what doesn't work."
"Yes, but what about the ticking bomb? Listen: There's always going to be a ticking bomb somewhere. Some of these will go off, and it's just as likely to be in my part of Washington, D.C., as anywhere else. But we shall be fighting a war against jihad for decades to come. And the jihadists will continue to make big mistakes based on their mad theory. And they are not superhuman: They can be infiltrated, bribed, and turned. You don't have to tell them what time of day it is, or where they are, or when the next meal will be served. (Though it must be served.) But you must not bring in that pig or that electrode. That way lies madness and corruption and the extraction of junk confessions. So even if law and principle didn't enter into the question, we sure as hell know what doesn't work."
LINK: What would I do without T-Muffle to keep me sane at work?
Also, the link to the Illustrated Smiths is pretty cool.
Also, the link to the Illustrated Smiths is pretty cool.
LINK: One of the Timberers has a good post up on the emerging Kerry problem:
"All in all, it served to confirm my overall impression that the Democrats are still having difficulty in selling Kerry as a positive quantity, rather than as an alternative to the (undoubtedly execrable) incumbent. Some of this could be my bias as a non-US lefty who has no emotional commitment to the Democrats, but it seemed to me that Kerry still has a lot of work to do if he’s going to maintain his narrow lead, let alone extend it."
"All in all, it served to confirm my overall impression that the Democrats are still having difficulty in selling Kerry as a positive quantity, rather than as an alternative to the (undoubtedly execrable) incumbent. Some of this could be my bias as a non-US lefty who has no emotional commitment to the Democrats, but it seemed to me that Kerry still has a lot of work to do if he’s going to maintain his narrow lead, let alone extend it."
LINK: Unsurprisingly, most of these questions take the form "could you please justify my political outlook?"
MORAL REALISM AND DEONTOLOGY:
"The motto of the deontologist is "let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.""
-Prof. Curley
"If popular views are resistant (as they are) to utilitarianism, there may be something to learn from that and not merely something to explain about it."
-Michael Walzer, "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands"
Deontology (at least the species of it that I follow) can look an awful lot like rule-utilitarianism, so I'm going to attempt to shortly explain why I personally can't accept utilitarianism as a moral system, and why I think deontological thinking is much more appropriate for governmental and personal life.
The reason I can't be a utilitarian is, essentially, because I'm a moral realist: I think that right and wrong are concepts that attach themselves to actions in meaningful ways, and further that it's entirely possible that a person can not know what the right action is at any given moment, or decide not to do it because of bad logic or any other reason you like. The failure of people to do the good (or even to recognize the good) has nothing to do with what is the good. So the utilitarian ethic has to be rejected because there will be at least some cases in which what a person will decide benefits them most is not what is actually good for them (of which there are numerous examples in moral philosophy, pick the one you like).
Deontology sort of builds on this concept by saying that an action that's morally wrong is always morally wrong, no matter what the context or outcome: if it's wrong to kill someone, it's just as wrong to kill a child as it is to kill Osama bin Laden.
The general criticism of deontology is that this is an overly harsh way of approaching things: it's not at all the same type of act to kill the two above-listed people, even if the same action is happening.
This isn't, I think, what deontology on balance wants to say: it merely wants to assert that utility-following is going to lead you down the wrong path sometimes, and also that the moral elements of a complex action don't get washed away because the action is complex. To use the example floating around the blogosphere at the moment: suppose there's the ticking time bomb and the known terrorist who's in on the plot who's the only one who knows where the bomb is. Should you torture him to get the information?
Yes, the utilitarian will say, because whatever you lose you gain (and more) by preventing the bomb from going off. Right to do so. End of story.
Yes, the deontologist will say, because you've got two (at least) competing moral claims, but your obligations as someone with the welfare of others on your head outweighs (in this case) your obligations to your own conscience. So do it. But you should feel perfectly awful for doing so, because you just broke one of the big moral no-nos.
Why does deontology make for a better politics? It encourages two trends which are helpful:
1. An ethic that's built around the idea of positive obligations you have towards other people (which is important, since we know there are some people who are radically corrosive of moral norms, and it's in everyone's interest that they be stopped).
2. That moral rules are not to be taken lightly--they aren't determined by the circumstances (only the actions are), and that the moral status of actions is something that should be front and center whenever a political actor is making decisions.
"The motto of the deontologist is "let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.""
-Prof. Curley
"If popular views are resistant (as they are) to utilitarianism, there may be something to learn from that and not merely something to explain about it."
-Michael Walzer, "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands"
Deontology (at least the species of it that I follow) can look an awful lot like rule-utilitarianism, so I'm going to attempt to shortly explain why I personally can't accept utilitarianism as a moral system, and why I think deontological thinking is much more appropriate for governmental and personal life.
The reason I can't be a utilitarian is, essentially, because I'm a moral realist: I think that right and wrong are concepts that attach themselves to actions in meaningful ways, and further that it's entirely possible that a person can not know what the right action is at any given moment, or decide not to do it because of bad logic or any other reason you like. The failure of people to do the good (or even to recognize the good) has nothing to do with what is the good. So the utilitarian ethic has to be rejected because there will be at least some cases in which what a person will decide benefits them most is not what is actually good for them (of which there are numerous examples in moral philosophy, pick the one you like).
Deontology sort of builds on this concept by saying that an action that's morally wrong is always morally wrong, no matter what the context or outcome: if it's wrong to kill someone, it's just as wrong to kill a child as it is to kill Osama bin Laden.
The general criticism of deontology is that this is an overly harsh way of approaching things: it's not at all the same type of act to kill the two above-listed people, even if the same action is happening.
This isn't, I think, what deontology on balance wants to say: it merely wants to assert that utility-following is going to lead you down the wrong path sometimes, and also that the moral elements of a complex action don't get washed away because the action is complex. To use the example floating around the blogosphere at the moment: suppose there's the ticking time bomb and the known terrorist who's in on the plot who's the only one who knows where the bomb is. Should you torture him to get the information?
Yes, the utilitarian will say, because whatever you lose you gain (and more) by preventing the bomb from going off. Right to do so. End of story.
Yes, the deontologist will say, because you've got two (at least) competing moral claims, but your obligations as someone with the welfare of others on your head outweighs (in this case) your obligations to your own conscience. So do it. But you should feel perfectly awful for doing so, because you just broke one of the big moral no-nos.
Why does deontology make for a better politics? It encourages two trends which are helpful:
1. An ethic that's built around the idea of positive obligations you have towards other people (which is important, since we know there are some people who are radically corrosive of moral norms, and it's in everyone's interest that they be stopped).
2. That moral rules are not to be taken lightly--they aren't determined by the circumstances (only the actions are), and that the moral status of actions is something that should be front and center whenever a political actor is making decisions.
QUOTE: From Best of the Web Today:
"The New York Times magazine reports that some public-health experts have hit upon an innovative way of preventing AIDS:
There is another way to reduce the spread of H.I.V.--one that is increasingly recognized by public-health experts but that has been relegated, thus far, to an afterthought: fidelity--either in marriage or in a committed relationship. As experts come to understand more about the African AIDS epidemic, it seems clear that regular sexual contact with more than one person is the key human behavior that enables the rapid spread of H.I.V.
Of course, inasmuch as this involves encouraging marriage, it might be seen in some quarters as antiwoman."
"The New York Times magazine reports that some public-health experts have hit upon an innovative way of preventing AIDS:
There is another way to reduce the spread of H.I.V.--one that is increasingly recognized by public-health experts but that has been relegated, thus far, to an afterthought: fidelity--either in marriage or in a committed relationship. As experts come to understand more about the African AIDS epidemic, it seems clear that regular sexual contact with more than one person is the key human behavior that enables the rapid spread of H.I.V.
Of course, inasmuch as this involves encouraging marriage, it might be seen in some quarters as antiwoman."
14.6.04
LINKS: Chris Lawrence and Kevin Yaroch wonder why the Supremes granted cert only to deny Newdow standing. I tend to think the relevant fact is that everyone signed on to dismissing it on standing grounds--which might be symbolically important for reasons discussed here. My guess is that they weren't really sure where to land on the standing issue, but they had an idea that it might have wide-reaching consequences if they skipped over it. Just a theory, though.
WELL: I was posting some recommendations on short stories to evangelical outpost, and I though I'd pass them along here:
"I'd add "A Rose for Emily" by William Faulkner (once described to me as the best American short story ever, described by me as really good but unintentionally creepy)
and "A Simple Heart" by Flaubert (though all of his short stories, as memory serves, are quite good).
Also "The Wall," which is by sartre, and is probably as good a meditation on moral responsibility and absurdity as you're likely to read.
And "A Hunger Artist" by Kafka.
And "The Nose" and "The Overcoat" by Gogol."
"I'd add "A Rose for Emily" by William Faulkner (once described to me as the best American short story ever, described by me as really good but unintentionally creepy)
and "A Simple Heart" by Flaubert (though all of his short stories, as memory serves, are quite good).
Also "The Wall," which is by sartre, and is probably as good a meditation on moral responsibility and absurdity as you're likely to read.
And "A Hunger Artist" by Kafka.
And "The Nose" and "The Overcoat" by Gogol."
EVIL: part II in my 'foundational principles' series (part I is here). I wanted to do deontology next, but I can't really explain the way out of the main line of criticism without touching on this:
"What then is the missing component in Socrates' definition of sin? It is: the will, defiance. Greek intellectuality was too fortunate, too naive, too aesthetic, too ironic, too-- too sinful-- to be able to get it into its head that someone would knowingly refrain from doing the good, or knowing what is right, knowingly doing what is wrong."
-Soren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death
"No! Let's rather say an even harder thing: that evil may not be as far beneath our surfaces as we like to say it is. --That, in fact, we fall towards it naturally, that is, not against our natures."
-Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses
There are three types of people in the world:
1. People who do at least some morally unacceptable things at least some of the time (lying would probably be a fantastic example)
2. People who are, for reasons of complicated and deep-seated physiological and psychological nature (like people with OCD, for example) who cannot reasonably have moral praise and blame attributed to them.
3. People who are, in serious analysis, unwilling to follow the rules of morality, who present serious dangers to the people around them, and who cannot be 'cured.' (your Stalins and serial killers).
It's the reality of the first of these that makes interaction amongst people as complicated as it is, but it's the reality of the third which has to define our moral and political commitments.
"What then is the missing component in Socrates' definition of sin? It is: the will, defiance. Greek intellectuality was too fortunate, too naive, too aesthetic, too ironic, too-- too sinful-- to be able to get it into its head that someone would knowingly refrain from doing the good, or knowing what is right, knowingly doing what is wrong."
-Soren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death
"No! Let's rather say an even harder thing: that evil may not be as far beneath our surfaces as we like to say it is. --That, in fact, we fall towards it naturally, that is, not against our natures."
-Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses
There are three types of people in the world:
1. People who do at least some morally unacceptable things at least some of the time (lying would probably be a fantastic example)
2. People who are, for reasons of complicated and deep-seated physiological and psychological nature (like people with OCD, for example) who cannot reasonably have moral praise and blame attributed to them.
3. People who are, in serious analysis, unwilling to follow the rules of morality, who present serious dangers to the people around them, and who cannot be 'cured.' (your Stalins and serial killers).
It's the reality of the first of these that makes interaction amongst people as complicated as it is, but it's the reality of the third which has to define our moral and political commitments.
LINK: The first person I ever voted for was John McCain, and I'd do it again at any opportunity that presented itself.
Some things I've been listening to recently:
"Earn Enough for Us" -XTC
"The Ballad of El Goodo" -Alex Chilton (if you want your basic early-aughts No Depression hipness source, it's gotta be Big Star covering a Flying Burrito Brothers song)
"Till the End of the Day" -Big Star (outtake from Third)
"Unchain My Heart" -Ray Charles
"Earn Enough for Us" -XTC
"The Ballad of El Goodo" -Alex Chilton (if you want your basic early-aughts No Depression hipness source, it's gotta be Big Star covering a Flying Burrito Brothers song)
"Till the End of the Day" -Big Star (outtake from Third)
"Unchain My Heart" -Ray Charles
WELL: Interesting discussion of abortion by Joe Carter. The defense of safe, legal and rare abortion would go something like this: we know:
a. at least some women will get abortions whether they are legal or not
b. the difference between the medical safety of legal and illegal abortions is probably pretty significant (though I don't have lots of information on the topic, so this could be wrong)
therefore, on narrow utilitarian grounds, you could justify it, even if (I suppose) you thought it was morally wrong. I'm becoming less fond of this argument as I go on because I'm not a utilitarian, and it seems to me like there are some analogous situations I'd rather not port this logic to. But that's just me.
Nevertheless, this comment actually hit on something:
"For the left, there are no "dilemmas""
quite so, as Matt Yglesias would say, assuming one replaces "left" with "utilitarian," which I always found to be one of the more unsavory aspects of that moral theory.
a. at least some women will get abortions whether they are legal or not
b. the difference between the medical safety of legal and illegal abortions is probably pretty significant (though I don't have lots of information on the topic, so this could be wrong)
therefore, on narrow utilitarian grounds, you could justify it, even if (I suppose) you thought it was morally wrong. I'm becoming less fond of this argument as I go on because I'm not a utilitarian, and it seems to me like there are some analogous situations I'd rather not port this logic to. But that's just me.
Nevertheless, this comment actually hit on something:
"For the left, there are no "dilemmas""
quite so, as Matt Yglesias would say, assuming one replaces "left" with "utilitarian," which I always found to be one of the more unsavory aspects of that moral theory.
LINK: Anti-EU Party does better than expected at the British polls for European Parliament. Also, the SDP in Germany gets creamed by the Christian Democrats, but it was my understanding that Gerhardt Schroder was living on borrowed time anyway (having appealed to anti-Americanism last time around to narrowly pull out a GE win), so I'm less surprised by that.
In other related news, I read a very interesting article in the Journal of Democracy on European anti-Americanism, about which I'll blog later.
In other related news, I read a very interesting article in the Journal of Democracy on European anti-Americanism, about which I'll blog later.
LINK: Ben Domenech on the Pistons. I only have one thing to add, really: if you watched ESPN's package of press conference stuff before the game, all the Lakers were saying, "no, it's not Detroit playing well; we're just not playing as well as we can." Arrogant much?
Oh, and yesterday's suit was nowhere near as bad as that Madras disaster from Game 2.
Oh, and yesterday's suit was nowhere near as bad as that Madras disaster from Game 2.
LINK: I for one am glad the whole sham-standing issue got shot down, but I like Prof. Volokh's reason better.
Also, I'm no legal guy, but the NYT headline says "Supreme Court Case on Pledge is Dismissed on Technicality," which is true, except that the technicality is that the guy bringing the suit had no right to bring it, which seems like more than a technicality.
Also, I'm no legal guy, but the NYT headline says "Supreme Court Case on Pledge is Dismissed on Technicality," which is true, except that the technicality is that the guy bringing the suit had no right to bring it, which seems like more than a technicality.
12.6.04
11.6.04
QUOTE: From today's Best of the Web Today:
"A familiar topic in this column is the press's use of Orwellian language to promote an attitude of moral relativism--Reuters' policy that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" and the pervasive formulation "what opponents call 'partial-birth abortion' " are doubtless the best examples. But here's one that really caused our jaw to drop.
The New York Times the other day published a piece giving the encouraging news that African countries are moving away from a barbaric and horrific practice. Here's how the article, datelined Nairobi, Kenya, opened:
Isnino Shuriye still remembers the pride she felt years ago when she leaned over each of her three daughters, knife in hand, and sliced into their genitals.
Each time, as the blood started to flow, she quickly dropped the knife and picked up a needle and thread. Quickly, expertly, she sewed her daughters' vaginas almost shut.
"I was full of pride," she recalled recently. "I felt like I was doing the right thing in the eyes of God. I was preparing them for marriage by sealing their vaginas."
Now she feels like a butcher, a sinner, a mother who harmed her own flesh and blood, not to mention the thousands of other girls she says she circumcised in the last quarter-century as part of a traditional rite still common in Africa.
Scroll down a bit and you find this sentence: "She started as an apprentice while still an adolescent by holding down girls' legs for her mother to perform the rite, which opponents call genital mutilation." The reason opponents call it genital mutilation, of course, is because that's precisely what it is. Why does the New York Times, which supporters call a newspaper, feel obliged to distance itself from a clear, factual description?"
"A familiar topic in this column is the press's use of Orwellian language to promote an attitude of moral relativism--Reuters' policy that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" and the pervasive formulation "what opponents call 'partial-birth abortion' " are doubtless the best examples. But here's one that really caused our jaw to drop.
The New York Times the other day published a piece giving the encouraging news that African countries are moving away from a barbaric and horrific practice. Here's how the article, datelined Nairobi, Kenya, opened:
Isnino Shuriye still remembers the pride she felt years ago when she leaned over each of her three daughters, knife in hand, and sliced into their genitals.
Each time, as the blood started to flow, she quickly dropped the knife and picked up a needle and thread. Quickly, expertly, she sewed her daughters' vaginas almost shut.
"I was full of pride," she recalled recently. "I felt like I was doing the right thing in the eyes of God. I was preparing them for marriage by sealing their vaginas."
Now she feels like a butcher, a sinner, a mother who harmed her own flesh and blood, not to mention the thousands of other girls she says she circumcised in the last quarter-century as part of a traditional rite still common in Africa.
Scroll down a bit and you find this sentence: "She started as an apprentice while still an adolescent by holding down girls' legs for her mother to perform the rite, which opponents call genital mutilation." The reason opponents call it genital mutilation, of course, is because that's precisely what it is. Why does the New York Times, which supporters call a newspaper, feel obliged to distance itself from a clear, factual description?"
SOLIDARITY: So it occurs to me that one of the things I don't particularly like about blogs is that they encourage piecemeal responses to political questions, so you can often end up feeling like there's nothing particularly systematic about the way some people approach political questions. Being a theory guy, and having spent a lot of time recently going over reading for a provisional dissertation-type project (I pitched it without actually giving much thought to whether it'd work at extended length), I've been reading up on liberal anti-communism in the 30s-50s, and one of the things I'm really struck by is how open everyone is about the foundations for and entailments of their own political beliefs. To that end, I thought I'd expand a little on the operational principles of my politics, starting with the first and most basic, which is for me the concept of solidarity.
“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.”
-Christopher Hitchens
"That town was the kind of place he remembered where you prayed side by side with your neighbors. And if things were going wrong for them, you prayed for them and knew they'd pray for you if things went wrong for you."
-Pres. Bush, on Ronald Reagan
You can spin in one way or another (religious or secular, liberal or conservative), but the basic pinciple of politics ought to be the idea that people who inhabit a certain position in the world (members of a democratic society, relatively free and relatively well off), should be all about making common cause with people whose ends are similar. This seems like it should manifest in two ways: internally, by saying that the people around you are engaged in the same struggle, and insomuch as they are, you have the exact same obligation to help them get ahead as you'd place on yourself--you should refuse no reasonable effort for the sake of your fellow men. Externally, it recognizes that there are lots of people who desire the things we have and do not yet have them, and that we ought to fight just as hard for them as we would for anyone else.
(do note that the above can be nicely justified within Christianity, by noting both the obligation we have to love others as ourselves and the realization we all must have that man is corrupted by sin, which means men will sometimes need vigorous defense, and we have to be the ones to provide it. This is not intended as liberation theology--I don't mean to imply that God obligates us or sides himself with oppressed or downtrodden people, but merely that we shouldn't forget our obligations to them when they are faced with the cruelty of others)
This is intended to replace the concepts of equality and fraternity--men don't meet as equals because they're not equals, nor should their bonds be merely brotherly--there's an essential obligation on everyone's head to act rightly (though there are obviously some problems with cashing this out in practice, it doesn't lessen our obligation to it).
“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.”
-Christopher Hitchens
"That town was the kind of place he remembered where you prayed side by side with your neighbors. And if things were going wrong for them, you prayed for them and knew they'd pray for you if things went wrong for you."
-Pres. Bush, on Ronald Reagan
You can spin in one way or another (religious or secular, liberal or conservative), but the basic pinciple of politics ought to be the idea that people who inhabit a certain position in the world (members of a democratic society, relatively free and relatively well off), should be all about making common cause with people whose ends are similar. This seems like it should manifest in two ways: internally, by saying that the people around you are engaged in the same struggle, and insomuch as they are, you have the exact same obligation to help them get ahead as you'd place on yourself--you should refuse no reasonable effort for the sake of your fellow men. Externally, it recognizes that there are lots of people who desire the things we have and do not yet have them, and that we ought to fight just as hard for them as we would for anyone else.
(do note that the above can be nicely justified within Christianity, by noting both the obligation we have to love others as ourselves and the realization we all must have that man is corrupted by sin, which means men will sometimes need vigorous defense, and we have to be the ones to provide it. This is not intended as liberation theology--I don't mean to imply that God obligates us or sides himself with oppressed or downtrodden people, but merely that we shouldn't forget our obligations to them when they are faced with the cruelty of others)
This is intended to replace the concepts of equality and fraternity--men don't meet as equals because they're not equals, nor should their bonds be merely brotherly--there's an essential obligation on everyone's head to act rightly (though there are obviously some problems with cashing this out in practice, it doesn't lessen our obligation to it).
LINK: Forget everything else you’ve read about Tony Blair: he’s in big hot water over this. You can lament the fickle nature of American voters, but they don’t even hold a candle to most parliamentary systems, especially the British one, where the perception that you might cause your party to lose will get you kicked out well before any actual elections take place. I give him three months.
IN WHICH MR. YAROCH STUMBLES ACROSS THE THESIS OF REALIST DEMOCRATIC THEORY: here:
"Democracy is supposed to affirm the dignity and rational nature of all citizens by allowing them to hold their rulers accountable. In reality, large-scale democracy promotes elitist thinking. When we consider voters as an aggregate, as we do, they seem like a pliable mass that candidates must attempt to channel, rather than people who are equal to their leaders and the intellectual elite. (Naturally, political commentators consider themselves part of the elite.)"
Which is half-right, I think--people actually tend to affiliate themselves to parties before other sectional groups (with some exceptions). And the cold, hard fact is that most voters, when it comes to political issues, do happen to know less about the relevant topics than political leaders or other people who have to professionally follow these things. I also follow Prof. Achen in believing that you can make too much out of the fact that most people don't follow politics. Our hierarchy generally runs politics->everything else, but I'm not sure that's in any way superior to a preference order that runs everything else->politics.
"Democracy is supposed to affirm the dignity and rational nature of all citizens by allowing them to hold their rulers accountable. In reality, large-scale democracy promotes elitist thinking. When we consider voters as an aggregate, as we do, they seem like a pliable mass that candidates must attempt to channel, rather than people who are equal to their leaders and the intellectual elite. (Naturally, political commentators consider themselves part of the elite.)"
Which is half-right, I think--people actually tend to affiliate themselves to parties before other sectional groups (with some exceptions). And the cold, hard fact is that most voters, when it comes to political issues, do happen to know less about the relevant topics than political leaders or other people who have to professionally follow these things. I also follow Prof. Achen in believing that you can make too much out of the fact that most people don't follow politics. Our hierarchy generally runs politics->everything else, but I'm not sure that's in any way superior to a preference order that runs everything else->politics.
LINK: Johann Hari has a hilarious (no, really) interview with the Dalai Lama, which is also generally a good read.
LINK: Partisan differences aside, I feel bad for Matt, and he certainly has my sympathy and my prayers.
LINK: I imagine that Chris Bertram finds this to be a refutation of something:
"Thank Ivan. It does not disparage the brave men who died in the North African desert or the cold forests around Bastogne to recall that 70% of the Wehrmacht is buried not in French fields but on the Russian steppes. In the struggle against Nazism, approximately 40 "Ivans" died for every "Private Ryan". Scholars now believe that as many as 27 million Soviet soldiers and citizens perished in the second world war."
Let us not forget, after all, that authoritarian regimes with no respect for human life whatsoever are quite willing to throw away even more of those lives for a cause that happened to be, by the by, good. All the more reason to be proud of the willingness of the US not to throw away their people’s lives unnecessarily.
"Thank Ivan. It does not disparage the brave men who died in the North African desert or the cold forests around Bastogne to recall that 70% of the Wehrmacht is buried not in French fields but on the Russian steppes. In the struggle against Nazism, approximately 40 "Ivans" died for every "Private Ryan". Scholars now believe that as many as 27 million Soviet soldiers and citizens perished in the second world war."
Let us not forget, after all, that authoritarian regimes with no respect for human life whatsoever are quite willing to throw away even more of those lives for a cause that happened to be, by the by, good. All the more reason to be proud of the willingness of the US not to throw away their people’s lives unnecessarily.
LINK: OxBlog discusses whether or not torture is ever acceptable. Sayeth David Adensik:
"So let me clarify: I recognize that there are certain extreme situations in which torture is justified. If a terrorist knows that a chemical warhead is about to explode in downtown Baghdad, then the gloves come off.
But in general, I think is premature to say either that torture is an efficient method of interrogation or that it is the only method. Moreover, the negative repercussions of torture in terms of both domestic and foreign opinion are so great that we can only afford to use it as a method of last resort."
Myself, I'd go for the Michael Walzer formulation (from 'The Problem of Dirty Hands') that there's not really anything wrong (in a political sense) with political leaders being willing to go the extra mile, provided a few conditions apply: 1. the people who are being tortured or what have you are actually guilty of something or complicit in whatever's happening. 2. It's a last resort option. 3. The person ordering the torture feels properly (that is to say actually, in the relevant way, and not merely publicly) bad about the decision.
Obviously the moral dimension is what it is, no matter what.
"So let me clarify: I recognize that there are certain extreme situations in which torture is justified. If a terrorist knows that a chemical warhead is about to explode in downtown Baghdad, then the gloves come off.
But in general, I think is premature to say either that torture is an efficient method of interrogation or that it is the only method. Moreover, the negative repercussions of torture in terms of both domestic and foreign opinion are so great that we can only afford to use it as a method of last resort."
Myself, I'd go for the Michael Walzer formulation (from 'The Problem of Dirty Hands') that there's not really anything wrong (in a political sense) with political leaders being willing to go the extra mile, provided a few conditions apply: 1. the people who are being tortured or what have you are actually guilty of something or complicit in whatever's happening. 2. It's a last resort option. 3. The person ordering the torture feels properly (that is to say actually, in the relevant way, and not merely publicly) bad about the decision.
Obviously the moral dimension is what it is, no matter what.
9.6.04
FILE UNDER 'THE NEW MADPONY': this hilarity:
"now, you could argue that the whole experience was educational. indeed, it was: i learned a whole lot about the whims of the human body, and also some bonus tips to life-prolongation such as:
1) don't smoke, your lungs will turn black and won't look nice and spongy like the healthy set lying next to it at a warehouse in frankfurt;
2) don't drink too much alcohol (same reason, just with liver);
3) don't let social insecurities and a lack of plans for the evening give you justification for spending said evening with the deceased;
4) if a mysterious german professor invites you into his laboratory for a "check-up," whatever you do, do NOT go in there."
"now, you could argue that the whole experience was educational. indeed, it was: i learned a whole lot about the whims of the human body, and also some bonus tips to life-prolongation such as:
1) don't smoke, your lungs will turn black and won't look nice and spongy like the healthy set lying next to it at a warehouse in frankfurt;
2) don't drink too much alcohol (same reason, just with liver);
3) don't let social insecurities and a lack of plans for the evening give you justification for spending said evening with the deceased;
4) if a mysterious german professor invites you into his laboratory for a "check-up," whatever you do, do NOT go in there."
LINK: Jollyblogger has an interesting post up on the debate over the Christian symbolism (or lack thereof) in the Harry Potter books.
As for me, I knew they were sneaking in Christian symbolism when Hagrid introduced himself as the "keeper of the keys," which ought to set off some iconography lights in people's heads.
As for me, I knew they were sneaking in Christian symbolism when Hagrid introduced himself as the "keeper of the keys," which ought to set off some iconography lights in people's heads.
8.6.04
LINK: To continue a bit on with the below, the following question from Dean Esmay:
"I guess my real question is, is this really the common wisdom among political scientists? That partisanship-first is how the vast majority of American voters operate? Party first, ideas second?"
This is the way is was taught to me, with some exceptions:
Obviously, interest group activity is tangental to this, but it would be anyway, since interests groups are more often focused on legislation, etc, rather than electoral outcomes (I'll punt to OGIW on this one, but I'd imagine most interest groups would rather get their ideal law passed than have their ideal candidate elected).
the second would be that people who write and read blogs primarily about politics are much more likely to be in the portion of the electorate where general findings seem to apply less.
Then again, there are exceptions: no one likes to particularly admit that they fall back on party affiliation, though most people probably do.
"I guess my real question is, is this really the common wisdom among political scientists? That partisanship-first is how the vast majority of American voters operate? Party first, ideas second?"
This is the way is was taught to me, with some exceptions:
Obviously, interest group activity is tangental to this, but it would be anyway, since interests groups are more often focused on legislation, etc, rather than electoral outcomes (I'll punt to OGIW on this one, but I'd imagine most interest groups would rather get their ideal law passed than have their ideal candidate elected).
the second would be that people who write and read blogs primarily about politics are much more likely to be in the portion of the electorate where general findings seem to apply less.
Then again, there are exceptions: no one likes to particularly admit that they fall back on party affiliation, though most people probably do.
LINK: Chris Lawrenece has a much more thorough explanation of voting habits, and the particular question of what exactly people are doing when they vote. I found this bit interesting:
"I can say this because my training is about 3/4 Michigan school, by way of Ohio State, with a healthy dollop of Rochester-style behaviorism thrown in just for entertainment value."
I'm faintly amused by the incestuous political science link between the Unversity of Rochester and U of M. Two of my favorite pofessors spent a period of the careers working with William Riker at Rochester (indeed, when I was arguing with Prof. Achen about the merits of gerrymandering, we used Rochester as our example).
the link is also why I ended up going to Duke and not Chicago (er, part of the reason: grad students, professors, and generally pleasant weather also played important roles), but that's a slightly longer story.
"I can say this because my training is about 3/4 Michigan school, by way of Ohio State, with a healthy dollop of Rochester-style behaviorism thrown in just for entertainment value."
I'm faintly amused by the incestuous political science link between the Unversity of Rochester and U of M. Two of my favorite pofessors spent a period of the careers working with William Riker at Rochester (indeed, when I was arguing with Prof. Achen about the merits of gerrymandering, we used Rochester as our example).
the link is also why I ended up going to Duke and not Chicago (er, part of the reason: grad students, professors, and generally pleasant weather also played important roles), but that's a slightly longer story.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
"We must change all that. We can, and must, reject totally the Marxian thesis that material things are primary and spiritual things only secondary. Slavery and despotism, even if they seem expedient, can never be right. We must not be afraid to recapture faith in the primacy of human liberty and freedom, and to hold to the religious view that man is destined by God to be more than a material producer, and that his chief end is something more than physical security. We must believe that men everywhere ought to be released from the spiritual, intellectual, economic and political strait jackets into which they are increasingly being put on the theory that it will improve the material welfare of the social group to which they belong.
Equally, we must clearly see that a society of freedom is not a society of uncoordinated self-seeking individuals. It is a society that is coordinated. But the bonds are primarily the bonds of fellowship which derive from the belief that men are destined to be brothers through the Fatherhood of God, that each man is his brother's keeper, and that we should love our neighbors as ourselves."
-John Foster Dulles, War or Peace
"We must change all that. We can, and must, reject totally the Marxian thesis that material things are primary and spiritual things only secondary. Slavery and despotism, even if they seem expedient, can never be right. We must not be afraid to recapture faith in the primacy of human liberty and freedom, and to hold to the religious view that man is destined by God to be more than a material producer, and that his chief end is something more than physical security. We must believe that men everywhere ought to be released from the spiritual, intellectual, economic and political strait jackets into which they are increasingly being put on the theory that it will improve the material welfare of the social group to which they belong.
Equally, we must clearly see that a society of freedom is not a society of uncoordinated self-seeking individuals. It is a society that is coordinated. But the bonds are primarily the bonds of fellowship which derive from the belief that men are destined to be brothers through the Fatherhood of God, that each man is his brother's keeper, and that we should love our neighbors as ourselves."
-John Foster Dulles, War or Peace
7.6.04
HEH: The Hitch:
"Sen. John Kerry waited until the first week of June 2004 to tell us that he met Ahmad Chalabi in London in 1998 and that he didn't care for him then. That makes six intervening years in which the senator could have alerted us to this lurking danger to national security. But something kept him quiet. One must hope that that something wasn't the tendency to pile on. Cheer up, though. At least this shows that Kerry has no pre-emptive capacity."
"Sen. John Kerry waited until the first week of June 2004 to tell us that he met Ahmad Chalabi in London in 1998 and that he didn't care for him then. That makes six intervening years in which the senator could have alerted us to this lurking danger to national security. But something kept him quiet. One must hope that that something wasn't the tendency to pile on. Cheer up, though. At least this shows that Kerry has no pre-emptive capacity."
QUOTE: Uncle Grambo, no Republican lover he, gets it about right on people crossing the line of decency:
"oh yeah, I heard that someone else semi-famous also died this weekend. Slate eulogizes him as "The Man Who Ruined Republicans" ... hey Slate, it's one thing to be critical of the man, but it's another to completely s*** on his memory. couldn't your team have thought of a more appropriate headline?"
"oh yeah, I heard that someone else semi-famous also died this weekend. Slate eulogizes him as "The Man Who Ruined Republicans" ... hey Slate, it's one thing to be critical of the man, but it's another to completely s*** on his memory. couldn't your team have thought of a more appropriate headline?"
SO DOES THIS MEAN WE'RE, LIKE, ADULTS AND STUFF:
A hearty congratulations to Sara Butler on her upcoming employment. I don't know much about the Insitute for American Values, but if they have Jean Bethke Elshtain, they have to be wicked good.
This and the end of undergrad party they're having at Crescat Sententia, as well as dinner last week with my friend who's getting married (and additionally finding out that one of my friends from high school is both married and with child), and my own impending launch into grad school make me wonder: at what point do we all actually become adults? I reflected earlier this week that by the time my parents were this age, they were already married, my father'd already gotten a job with the company he's still with (albeit in a much higher position within the company), and they were a year away from home ownership and having my older brother. So that's four signs of definite adult-type maturity right there; most people I know are managing along with one (or, at most, two). So I wonder: is it just an intergenerational norm shift? Or is it (again I go with the selection bias) that most of the people I know are going on to grad or professional school, and it's actually normal to delay marriage, home purchase, etc, amongst these people, and it always has been?
A hearty congratulations to Sara Butler on her upcoming employment. I don't know much about the Insitute for American Values, but if they have Jean Bethke Elshtain, they have to be wicked good.
This and the end of undergrad party they're having at Crescat Sententia, as well as dinner last week with my friend who's getting married (and additionally finding out that one of my friends from high school is both married and with child), and my own impending launch into grad school make me wonder: at what point do we all actually become adults? I reflected earlier this week that by the time my parents were this age, they were already married, my father'd already gotten a job with the company he's still with (albeit in a much higher position within the company), and they were a year away from home ownership and having my older brother. So that's four signs of definite adult-type maturity right there; most people I know are managing along with one (or, at most, two). So I wonder: is it just an intergenerational norm shift? Or is it (again I go with the selection bias) that most of the people I know are going on to grad or professional school, and it's actually normal to delay marriage, home purchase, etc, amongst these people, and it always has been?
LINK: Joe Carter's appreciation of Ronald Reagan makes me wonder two things:
1. Is there a selection bias in the blogosphere toward people who've moved away from the party affiliation of their parents (rather like how libertarians seem to be overrepresented)?
2. Is part of the reason for that selection bias because people who switch party affiliations are fighting a rather pronounced demographic trend (just about everyone votes like their parents did), which may correlate to an increased interest in and knowledge of political parties, which seems to be a strong indicator of those who blog frequently?
1. Is there a selection bias in the blogosphere toward people who've moved away from the party affiliation of their parents (rather like how libertarians seem to be overrepresented)?
2. Is part of the reason for that selection bias because people who switch party affiliations are fighting a rather pronounced demographic trend (just about everyone votes like their parents did), which may correlate to an increased interest in and knowledge of political parties, which seems to be a strong indicator of those who blog frequently?
RAT CHOICERS, AT IT AGAIN:
"People act to maximize their preferences."
Ah, well, it's true enough that in some situations, people act to maximize their (payoffs? I'm not sure how one maximizes their preferences... though one could optimize them, I guess). Except, as was constantly hammered home to me in my quantitative classes, in the instances when they don't, which is actually a rather large subset of political decisions, including, I think, voting in many instances. Then again, I'm not an Americanist, so I could be totally wrong about this.
"People act to maximize their preferences."
Ah, well, it's true enough that in some situations, people act to maximize their (payoffs? I'm not sure how one maximizes their preferences... though one could optimize them, I guess). Except, as was constantly hammered home to me in my quantitative classes, in the instances when they don't, which is actually a rather large subset of political decisions, including, I think, voting in many instances. Then again, I'm not an Americanist, so I could be totally wrong about this.
LINK: It's bad that I found this to be hilarious, right?
But it does make me wonder whatever happened to David Hucul.
But it does make me wonder whatever happened to David Hucul.
FRIGHTENING, ISN'T IT: when an online quiz so neatly cuts to the core of your being (via Jollyblogger):
| Are you white bread? You're rye bread. Ooh, how interesting. Despite your average appearance, you’re quite unique on the inside and most likely have a shady past. A bit of a lurker, but it works to your advantage. Please don’t kill me.
|
| Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests. |
LINK: I was going to write something about Ronald Reagan (and I might still), but Pej has said everything there is to say. No, literally. It's a LONG post.
4.6.04
THE PROBLEM WE ALL LIVE WITH:
"The issue of totalitarianism is neither academic nor merely historical; no one can seriously engage in politics without clearly and publicly defining his attitude toward it. I deliberately say 'attitude' rather than 'analysis,' for while there can be a great many legitimate differences of analytic stress and nuance in discussing totalitarian society, morally there should be only a candid and sustained opposition to it."
-Irving Howe, "New Styles in 'Leftism'"
So, as you may know, fifteen years ago today, the world's largest totalitarian state and arguably the biggest offender against the values and beliefs of democrats everywhere, brutally came down on students who were demonstrating for the ideals we all hold dear. That the students were heroes for doing so is clear. That it is a shame that their hopes have gone unrealized should be obvious, and that it might be a generation or more of mean servitude before there is any hope for future change stinks of--well--moral failure and loss of nerve on a tremendous level.
One could make some perhaps reasonable arguments that the time isn't right yet to do something, that expending serious military resources at this point in time would be massively counterproductive and perhaps unneccesary. Maybe. But let's not kid ourselves about this: the condition of people living under authoritarian governments is directly analogous to slavery, and any attempt to explain away our clear moral imperatives is cowardice or malice, as it would be for slavery.
Which is why it's especially disappointing to read Matt Yglesias' reflections, where he mentions:
"Making it all somewhat more troubling, one would like to really hate the current government of the PRC for what they did. And yet, the intervening fifteen years of strong Chinese economic growth have been one of the great moral success stories of human history. Repressive as the current Chinese state is, today's Chinese probably enjoy more freedom than their ancestors did for any significant period of time. Would a democratic China have done just as well? It very well might have, but then again it might not."
Let's not mince words: this is an apologia for totalitarianism, plain and simple. It cannot possibly be a novel argument to Matt that 'freedom' under the rule of authoritarians bears no resemblance to actual, desirable freedom. Saying that it's good (or at least not bad) that China has succeeded in moving forward in terms of rights misses the entire point as to why those rights are desirable in the first place--what meaning do they have when a man's political choice, his expressions of his own views, his desire to live his life his own way run him the constant risk of imprisonment, exile, or worse? That the odds of this happening to any particular man have lowered is not progress. The idea that this might be praised should be repellent to all free men.
"The issue of totalitarianism is neither academic nor merely historical; no one can seriously engage in politics without clearly and publicly defining his attitude toward it. I deliberately say 'attitude' rather than 'analysis,' for while there can be a great many legitimate differences of analytic stress and nuance in discussing totalitarian society, morally there should be only a candid and sustained opposition to it."
-Irving Howe, "New Styles in 'Leftism'"
So, as you may know, fifteen years ago today, the world's largest totalitarian state and arguably the biggest offender against the values and beliefs of democrats everywhere, brutally came down on students who were demonstrating for the ideals we all hold dear. That the students were heroes for doing so is clear. That it is a shame that their hopes have gone unrealized should be obvious, and that it might be a generation or more of mean servitude before there is any hope for future change stinks of--well--moral failure and loss of nerve on a tremendous level.
One could make some perhaps reasonable arguments that the time isn't right yet to do something, that expending serious military resources at this point in time would be massively counterproductive and perhaps unneccesary. Maybe. But let's not kid ourselves about this: the condition of people living under authoritarian governments is directly analogous to slavery, and any attempt to explain away our clear moral imperatives is cowardice or malice, as it would be for slavery.
Which is why it's especially disappointing to read Matt Yglesias' reflections, where he mentions:
"Making it all somewhat more troubling, one would like to really hate the current government of the PRC for what they did. And yet, the intervening fifteen years of strong Chinese economic growth have been one of the great moral success stories of human history. Repressive as the current Chinese state is, today's Chinese probably enjoy more freedom than their ancestors did for any significant period of time. Would a democratic China have done just as well? It very well might have, but then again it might not."
Let's not mince words: this is an apologia for totalitarianism, plain and simple. It cannot possibly be a novel argument to Matt that 'freedom' under the rule of authoritarians bears no resemblance to actual, desirable freedom. Saying that it's good (or at least not bad) that China has succeeded in moving forward in terms of rights misses the entire point as to why those rights are desirable in the first place--what meaning do they have when a man's political choice, his expressions of his own views, his desire to live his life his own way run him the constant risk of imprisonment, exile, or worse? That the odds of this happening to any particular man have lowered is not progress. The idea that this might be praised should be repellent to all free men.
3.6.04
WHY OH WHY: did blogger not let me post the previous item three times, then posted it fifty times, then force me to individually delete every one of those posts in a three-step process? Insanity!
In better news, "The Chain" by Fleetwood Mac is definitely the best guilty pleasure song that it's perfectly respectable to like anyway.
In better news, "The Chain" by Fleetwood Mac is definitely the best guilty pleasure song that it's perfectly respectable to like anyway.
LINK: Joe Carter's been having a good go at libertarians lately, and I highly recommend everyone go and check it out. And reading this most recent post makes me wonder: Locke is sometimes represented as proto-libertarian (proto-liberal in that you can draw a not-insane line between him and Mill). But Locke says that a person's body isn't their own property, it's God's. If that's true, then wouldn't it completely cut off any justificatory argument for libertarianism?
WELL: for Kevin, a brief explanation on two-aspect compatibilism:
it seems like there is either determinism in the universe, or a hybrid of determinism and indeterminism. Either of these should entail no free will, because either entails that we either have no control over what we do, or else we couldn't do otherwise than what we do (this is 'theoretical reasoning').
it also seems like there are some things we ought to do in certain situations; ought implies can, so we could do otherwise than we in fact do (this is practical reasoning).
now, it looks like theoretical reasoning should give us no reason to believe we're agents. the two-aspecter will contend practical reasoning can (and does) give us reason to suspect we're agents*. The reason is that, the sense in which 'could've done otherwise' is used by each is different--because they have different purposes (to describe/explain the world, and to tell us what we want to do, respectively). There's a whole mess that goes afterward that allows you to cash the idea involved out, but I'll avoid getting into that (for now).
Anyway, I imported the terms 'inflationary/deflationary' from epistemology because nothing in the theory requires any sort of mental life above the ability to generate counterfactuals (and even that may not be required for the agent, strictly speaking), and you can read just about any level of complexity in the mind into this particular thesis (I think) unproblematically.
*exactly how much agency you think is necessary for responsibility will change your judgment on how successful two-aspect theory is, but I think it all cashes out rather well in most instances. We don't need people to be fully in charge of every aspect of their decisions (it'd be odd to consciously control hormone secretions, for example), just enough so that we can reasonably attribute moral praise and blame.
it seems like there is either determinism in the universe, or a hybrid of determinism and indeterminism. Either of these should entail no free will, because either entails that we either have no control over what we do, or else we couldn't do otherwise than what we do (this is 'theoretical reasoning').
it also seems like there are some things we ought to do in certain situations; ought implies can, so we could do otherwise than we in fact do (this is practical reasoning).
now, it looks like theoretical reasoning should give us no reason to believe we're agents. the two-aspecter will contend practical reasoning can (and does) give us reason to suspect we're agents*. The reason is that, the sense in which 'could've done otherwise' is used by each is different--because they have different purposes (to describe/explain the world, and to tell us what we want to do, respectively). There's a whole mess that goes afterward that allows you to cash the idea involved out, but I'll avoid getting into that (for now).
Anyway, I imported the terms 'inflationary/deflationary' from epistemology because nothing in the theory requires any sort of mental life above the ability to generate counterfactuals (and even that may not be required for the agent, strictly speaking), and you can read just about any level of complexity in the mind into this particular thesis (I think) unproblematically.
*exactly how much agency you think is necessary for responsibility will change your judgment on how successful two-aspect theory is, but I think it all cashes out rather well in most instances. We don't need people to be fully in charge of every aspect of their decisions (it'd be odd to consciously control hormone secretions, for example), just enough so that we can reasonably attribute moral praise and blame.
WELL: Sometimes there's no better way to spend an evening than watching your favorite team and trying to determine whether "Friends" or "Out on the Tiles" is the better Led Zeppelin song from III*.
*trick question, actually: "Friends" is the better song, but "Out on the Tiles" is the best Led Zeppelin on that album.
*trick question, actually: "Friends" is the better song, but "Out on the Tiles" is the best Led Zeppelin on that album.
2.6.04
LINK: I'll have to dig out my symbolic logic notes, but I'm pretty sure Will Baude is wrong here:
"That's why I've limited my argument here to showing that the two beliefs are perfectly consistent. To do that, my task is to destroy any potential inconsistency, because that's what it is for two beliefs to be philosophically consistent with one another."
And I say it's wrong because it's setting the standard way, way too low: beliefs can be logically consistent but not otherwise (meaningfully) consistent, so, for example, one can believe both that snow is black and that loud sounds are loud. They pass Will's test--they are perfectly consistent, but one of them is false, and neither of them have anything to do with one another. Demonstrating your beliefs (especially your moral beliefs, which presumably are grounded in something) are consistent isn't accomplishing very much, argumentatively.
See also Sara Butler and DFMoore.
"That's why I've limited my argument here to showing that the two beliefs are perfectly consistent. To do that, my task is to destroy any potential inconsistency, because that's what it is for two beliefs to be philosophically consistent with one another."
And I say it's wrong because it's setting the standard way, way too low: beliefs can be logically consistent but not otherwise (meaningfully) consistent, so, for example, one can believe both that snow is black and that loud sounds are loud. They pass Will's test--they are perfectly consistent, but one of them is false, and neither of them have anything to do with one another. Demonstrating your beliefs (especially your moral beliefs, which presumably are grounded in something) are consistent isn't accomplishing very much, argumentatively.
See also Sara Butler and DFMoore.
LINK: Joe Carter makes some good points on libertarianism:
"Libertarians often claim that an individual’s body is their own property and are entitled to certain inherent rights."
I was always fond, myself, of the Lockean argument that an individual's body is, in fact, God's property, and a person does not, therefore, have the right to do whatever they want with it.
"While I hate to make such a broad generalization, a core tenet of the libertarian philosophy appears to be a belief in the absurd notion that the bad effects of human behavior can be restrained to the individual level. In rare instances that might be possible but, generally speaking, unless a person is a hermit, their actions will affect others."
I believe the traditional out for a libertarian here is the "harm principle," a slimy bit of logic that says that a person can't be held morally responsible for non-certain, non-concrete effects of their behavior.
"Libertarians often claim that an individual’s body is their own property and are entitled to certain inherent rights."
I was always fond, myself, of the Lockean argument that an individual's body is, in fact, God's property, and a person does not, therefore, have the right to do whatever they want with it.
"While I hate to make such a broad generalization, a core tenet of the libertarian philosophy appears to be a belief in the absurd notion that the bad effects of human behavior can be restrained to the individual level. In rare instances that might be possible but, generally speaking, unless a person is a hermit, their actions will affect others."
I believe the traditional out for a libertarian here is the "harm principle," a slimy bit of logic that says that a person can't be held morally responsible for non-certain, non-concrete effects of their behavior.
WELL: Eric Moberg, in the comments:
"There are certainly many aspects of international law (the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic rights are a classic example) where despotic and democratic countries share common interests."
but, as the counterargument to my counterargument would have it, this is exactly the sort of issue that makes attempts at international law horribly morally compromised, even from a utilitarian perspective. The issue is this: you can (maybe) accomplish good things even though solutions can only be incomplete, and even when dealing with despotic and democratic regimes. But what you lose in doing so is your effective position against despotic regimes (e.g., you can use Stalin's help to fight WWII, but the energy that you expend making friends and normalizing relations both legitimates all of the regime's activities and require you to ignore the more unpleasant aspects of the regime in question--the rise of diplomatic relations with China is perhaps a very fine example of this trade-off*), and you possibly extend the shelf-life of a corrupt regime (which should be normatively undesirable for obvious reasons).
So if you're a utilitarian, your case would run something like this: it makes a lot of sense to engage despotic nations to get as many good things accomplished as possible (but only if those good things end up happening), and it would make more sense to avoid building relations with them if doing that would shorten the length of time until a governmental change. In other words, you can't, on utilitarian calculations, know what the right thing to do is unless you know whether what you do would be successful. One more reason to be a deontologist.
*One of my favorite Jim Morrow stories is when we were discussing the Taiwan Straits Crisis, and he asked the class who the United States' main strategic partner in the Pacific was. Everyone said, of course, "Japan." Morrow then replied with something like: "yes, though you'd have had a hard time telling that during the Clinton Administration."
"There are certainly many aspects of international law (the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic rights are a classic example) where despotic and democratic countries share common interests."
but, as the counterargument to my counterargument would have it, this is exactly the sort of issue that makes attempts at international law horribly morally compromised, even from a utilitarian perspective. The issue is this: you can (maybe) accomplish good things even though solutions can only be incomplete, and even when dealing with despotic and democratic regimes. But what you lose in doing so is your effective position against despotic regimes (e.g., you can use Stalin's help to fight WWII, but the energy that you expend making friends and normalizing relations both legitimates all of the regime's activities and require you to ignore the more unpleasant aspects of the regime in question--the rise of diplomatic relations with China is perhaps a very fine example of this trade-off*), and you possibly extend the shelf-life of a corrupt regime (which should be normatively undesirable for obvious reasons).
So if you're a utilitarian, your case would run something like this: it makes a lot of sense to engage despotic nations to get as many good things accomplished as possible (but only if those good things end up happening), and it would make more sense to avoid building relations with them if doing that would shorten the length of time until a governmental change. In other words, you can't, on utilitarian calculations, know what the right thing to do is unless you know whether what you do would be successful. One more reason to be a deontologist.
*One of my favorite Jim Morrow stories is when we were discussing the Taiwan Straits Crisis, and he asked the class who the United States' main strategic partner in the Pacific was. Everyone said, of course, "Japan." Morrow then replied with something like: "yes, though you'd have had a hard time telling that during the Clinton Administration."
DO: note the new look. In the words of a famous sleazy cartoon mayor:
"Very well. If that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow."
"Very well. If that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow."
CHRISTIANITY BLOGGING:
Something with relevance to something significant: I made the switch a couple days ago from working my way through Jeremiah to starting with Matthew... Pentecost and all, seemed like an appropriate time to switch over to something I could get fired up about, and after some tough sledding with Isaiah, it wasn't getting any easier for me (and my lack of enthusiasm was especially troubling as I didn't, in general, feel apathetic about my Christianity). So I made the switch, but I have two sub-questions people might be able to help me out with:
a. I think part of my problem with the major prophets is that I never really have read a good exegesis of them. Any recommendations?
b. I'm aware that part of the reason to do daily Bible reading is for the discipline portion of it, and I'm a little worried that I switched over to something I was more interested in for a bad reason, or, at least, that I'm setting a bad precedent for myself. Any thoughts on the comparative importance of being engaged in what you're reading and training yourself to find it all interesting?
Something with relevance to something significant: I made the switch a couple days ago from working my way through Jeremiah to starting with Matthew... Pentecost and all, seemed like an appropriate time to switch over to something I could get fired up about, and after some tough sledding with Isaiah, it wasn't getting any easier for me (and my lack of enthusiasm was especially troubling as I didn't, in general, feel apathetic about my Christianity). So I made the switch, but I have two sub-questions people might be able to help me out with:
a. I think part of my problem with the major prophets is that I never really have read a good exegesis of them. Any recommendations?
b. I'm aware that part of the reason to do daily Bible reading is for the discipline portion of it, and I'm a little worried that I switched over to something I was more interested in for a bad reason, or, at least, that I'm setting a bad precedent for myself. Any thoughts on the comparative importance of being engaged in what you're reading and training yourself to find it all interesting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)