The Supreme Court is the great threat to voting rights in our era. We miss this because we think of voting rights as a question of who gets to vote but we miss the question of what they get to vote on. You have not gained voting rights if as the proportion of people who get to vote increases the number of things they get to vote on decreases. After finally helping to win the battel to expand the electorate the Supreme Court now occupies itself with contracting the range of issues the electorate is able to vote on. The nature of marriage, bi-lingual education, abortion, crime control--in area after area of public policy the people's right to vote has been eliminated or rendered meaningless.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Laughter
They say you have to be able to laugh at your problems, but the really important thing is to be able to laugh at other people's problems
Monday, September 27, 2004
UN
Every story on Dafur should mention that Sudan is the chair of the United Nations human Rights Commission.
A man who would substitute the judgment of the UN for his own conscience is better off not having a conscience.
A man who would substitute the judgment of the UN for his own conscience is better off not having a conscience.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Fundamental conceit
The fundamental conceit of anti-war activists is that you can be against one side without being for the other. War is the ultimate zero-sum game. What is a gain for one side is a loss for the other.
That is what is so creepy about the criticisms of the possibility of elections not being held in every single place in Iraq. Or rather, the seriousness with which the criticisms are being treated. They are in effect telling the enemy if you can keep blowing up cars and assassinating people in public so that people are afraid to line up and vote then you can win, the vote is called off or even if it is held it is illegitimate. If the election is ‘seen’ as illegitimate then the resistance will be defacto legitimate. The people fretting about whether the election will be ‘seen’ as legitimate are exactly the same people that making it so. And what is even more galling is that the UN had no trouble with the legitimacy of Sadaam’s regime or of any of the dictators in the region. They have put Sudan in the chair of the human rights commission for the UN and have the gall to ‘question’ the legitimacy of an election that takes place in only 15 of 18 provinces?
But of course they don’t see themselves as being pro-resistance, they are just anti-US. That justifies everything.
That is what is so creepy about the criticisms of the possibility of elections not being held in every single place in Iraq. Or rather, the seriousness with which the criticisms are being treated. They are in effect telling the enemy if you can keep blowing up cars and assassinating people in public so that people are afraid to line up and vote then you can win, the vote is called off or even if it is held it is illegitimate. If the election is ‘seen’ as illegitimate then the resistance will be defacto legitimate. The people fretting about whether the election will be ‘seen’ as legitimate are exactly the same people that making it so. And what is even more galling is that the UN had no trouble with the legitimacy of Sadaam’s regime or of any of the dictators in the region. They have put Sudan in the chair of the human rights commission for the UN and have the gall to ‘question’ the legitimacy of an election that takes place in only 15 of 18 provinces?
But of course they don’t see themselves as being pro-resistance, they are just anti-US. That justifies everything.
Iraq
It is just amazing that the press still manages to frame the insurgency as being motivated by animus agianst us. Can they possibly believe that the people running around blowing stuff up there want democracy and self-determination for the people of Iraq? Surely it is obvious by now that what they want is a return, a return either to a dictatorship or the 13th century.
What is their carping criticism in service of? Do they want the United Nations to run things? as if the UN would stand up to suicide bombers and Islamists? Do they really want another thug that would get along with the Arab league?
Well, of course, they aren't for anything, all they are for is seeing the US lose. They don't have to propose anything. that is the great advantage of peace activism. the left has never felt obligated to say what it is they would be for, not in any serious way. They don't have to say what the jews should have done in Hitler's Germany and they don't have to in Iraq. They believe that we, the powerful, are the root of all evil. If we stop fighting/exploiting/whatever the hell it is that we do which is somehow the ultimate explanation for all the world's troubles then in the long run everything will be alright. Of course the medium term, say the next four of five years, may see a temporary worsening of the situation, but that is only part of our penance.
It is just that the medium term is the final term for those who don't have the privilege living behind the great exploiter's armies.
What is their carping criticism in service of? Do they want the United Nations to run things? as if the UN would stand up to suicide bombers and Islamists? Do they really want another thug that would get along with the Arab league?
Well, of course, they aren't for anything, all they are for is seeing the US lose. They don't have to propose anything. that is the great advantage of peace activism. the left has never felt obligated to say what it is they would be for, not in any serious way. They don't have to say what the jews should have done in Hitler's Germany and they don't have to in Iraq. They believe that we, the powerful, are the root of all evil. If we stop fighting/exploiting/whatever the hell it is that we do which is somehow the ultimate explanation for all the world's troubles then in the long run everything will be alright. Of course the medium term, say the next four of five years, may see a temporary worsening of the situation, but that is only part of our penance.
It is just that the medium term is the final term for those who don't have the privilege living behind the great exploiter's armies.
Colson and Sullivan
Andrew sullivan posts the following excertp from Chuck Colson as an example of anti-gay prejudice:
DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: "Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America's decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers. One vital goal of the war in Iraq, and the war against terrorism, is to bring democracy to the heart of the Islamic world. Our hope is to make freedom so attractive that other Muslim countries will follow suit. But when radical Islamists see American women abusing Muslim men, as they did in the Abu Ghraib prison, and when they see news coverage of same-sex couples being "married" in U.S. towns, we make our kind of freedom abhorrent—the kind they see as a blot on Allah's creation. Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it's also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us." - Charles Colson, Christianity Today.
It is clear that Colson is anti-gay. I think Mr. Colson has every right to criticise the policy of gay marriage and on the merits of the issue itself I find myself, to a considerable degree, agreement with him. But I also find myself rather offended that one would use the fact that the policy would offend the sensibilities of our enemies as an argument against a policy. We should do what we think is right and if it offends the monsters we are fighting then so be it.
But I also wonder if this argument doesn't expose something of a contradiction in the argument of those on the left that claim we should be worrying more about what we are doing to offend the Muslim world. It is surely correct to point out that our overthrowing a dictator and trying to put in place a representative democracy has inflamed the hatreds of much of the Muslim world, but is that any reason to rethink the rightness of our policy? If the Muslim world is offended by our doing the right thing by the people of Iraq, doesn't that say more about them than about us?
DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: "Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America's decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers. One vital goal of the war in Iraq, and the war against terrorism, is to bring democracy to the heart of the Islamic world. Our hope is to make freedom so attractive that other Muslim countries will follow suit. But when radical Islamists see American women abusing Muslim men, as they did in the Abu Ghraib prison, and when they see news coverage of same-sex couples being "married" in U.S. towns, we make our kind of freedom abhorrent—the kind they see as a blot on Allah's creation. Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it's also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us." - Charles Colson, Christianity Today.
It is clear that Colson is anti-gay. I think Mr. Colson has every right to criticise the policy of gay marriage and on the merits of the issue itself I find myself, to a considerable degree, agreement with him. But I also find myself rather offended that one would use the fact that the policy would offend the sensibilities of our enemies as an argument against a policy. We should do what we think is right and if it offends the monsters we are fighting then so be it.
But I also wonder if this argument doesn't expose something of a contradiction in the argument of those on the left that claim we should be worrying more about what we are doing to offend the Muslim world. It is surely correct to point out that our overthrowing a dictator and trying to put in place a representative democracy has inflamed the hatreds of much of the Muslim world, but is that any reason to rethink the rightness of our policy? If the Muslim world is offended by our doing the right thing by the people of Iraq, doesn't that say more about them than about us?
Guerrilla War
I think when we look back on this war we will find that one of the things that consistently caused problems was the tendency of certain key words to import fallacious assumptions into out thinking. One of these is “Guerilla” war. We thought that Iraq would be easier than or Vietnam because Guerrilla war would not be a possibility there; Iraq is a desert, guerrillas require dense jungles or amenable terrain to fight in.
I think this is a mistake caused by an incidental association in our minds between tactics and the geography of most of the guerrilla wars we happen to have fought in. Actually, what a guerrilla hides behind is not trees but people. It is his willingness to sacrifice the lives of civilians and the unwillingness of the opponent to do that same that makes guerrilla tactics effective and possible.
We make the same mistake when we compare the house to house fighting of WWII in Europe to the situation in Iraq. The important fact is not the architecture of the places we are fighting in but the moral standards of the enemy we face. German soldiers did not deliberately engineer situations where they put their own civilians’ lives at risk—at least not as a matter of routine. For our enemy in Iraq terrorizing the civilian population and using it for protection is the center piece of their strategy. What is important in both cases is not the physical typography of the place combatants are fighting but the moral standards of the combatants.
I think this is a mistake caused by an incidental association in our minds between tactics and the geography of most of the guerrilla wars we happen to have fought in. Actually, what a guerrilla hides behind is not trees but people. It is his willingness to sacrifice the lives of civilians and the unwillingness of the opponent to do that same that makes guerrilla tactics effective and possible.
We make the same mistake when we compare the house to house fighting of WWII in Europe to the situation in Iraq. The important fact is not the architecture of the places we are fighting in but the moral standards of the enemy we face. German soldiers did not deliberately engineer situations where they put their own civilians’ lives at risk—at least not as a matter of routine. For our enemy in Iraq terrorizing the civilian population and using it for protection is the center piece of their strategy. What is important in both cases is not the physical typography of the place combatants are fighting but the moral standards of the combatants.
Guerrilla War
I think when we look back on this war we will find that one of the things that consistently caused problems was the tendency of certain key words to import fallacious assumptions into out thinking. One of these is “Guerilla” war. We thought that Iraq would be easier than or Vietnam because Guerrilla war would not be a possibility there; Iraq is a desert, guerrillas require dense jungles or amenable terrain to fight in.
I think this is a mistake caused by an incidental association in our minds between tactics and the geography of most of the guerrilla wars we happen to have fought in. Actually, what a guerrilla hides behind is not trees but people. It is his willingness to sacrifice the lives of civilians and the unwillingness of the opponent to do that same that makes guerrilla tactics effective and possible.
We make the same mistake when we compare the house to house fighting of WWII in Europe to the situation in Iraq. The important fact is not the architecture of the places we are fighting in but the moral standards of the enemy we face. German soldiers did not deliberately engineer situations where they put their own civilians’ lives at risk—at least not as a matter of routine. For our enemy in Iraq terrorizing the civilian population and using it for protection is the center piece of their strategy. What is important in both cases is not the physical typography of the place combatants are fighting but the moral standards of the combatants.
I think this is a mistake caused by an incidental association in our minds between tactics and the geography of most of the guerrilla wars we happen to have fought in. Actually, what a guerrilla hides behind is not trees but people. It is his willingness to sacrifice the lives of civilians and the unwillingness of the opponent to do that same that makes guerrilla tactics effective and possible.
We make the same mistake when we compare the house to house fighting of WWII in Europe to the situation in Iraq. The important fact is not the architecture of the places we are fighting in but the moral standards of the enemy we face. German soldiers did not deliberately engineer situations where they put their own civilians’ lives at risk—at least not as a matter of routine. For our enemy in Iraq terrorizing the civilian population and using it for protection is the center piece of their strategy. What is important in both cases is not the physical typography of the place combatants are fighting but the moral standards of the combatants.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Alwalli
Can't spell the guy's name. Sorry.
I heard something amazing during Alwalli's interview on C-span. Madiline Albright asked him how he could have elections if three provinces didn't participate? Afterall, we couldn't have an election here and call it legitimate if, say, California, Texas and (some other state, I forgot which she used) weren't able to participate.
I think this is a very interesting question that gets at the entire problem in how we have allowed the situation to be defined in a way that benefits the enemy.
It depends on the reason that these three states couldn't participate. If we didn't let them participate then it would be illegitimate. If on the other hand they couldn't participate becasue they, or at least some critical mass of their population, were supporting a campaign of terrorism that was making it impossible to carry out elections then I think without question we would go ahead with elections. Afterall, we did exactly that during the Civil War. We can hardly let a handful of terrorists with the support of 1o to 30 percent of the population--whatever the number a minority--deny the rest of the polity the right to determine their future by elections. What could be more undemocratic than giving a veto to any minority willing to engage in random acts of violence.
It is amazing how responsibility has been shifted by words. I think the key here is the words "provide security." This makes it seem as if security is a good to be spread around equitably. This makes sense when you are talking about posting a nightwatchman in a parking lot or providing beat cops to neighborhoods. It makes very little sense when the security problem is not random acts of criminality but an orchestrated campaign to prevent a democratic vote. The Union didn't fail to provide security to the South. We had a war. What we are failing to provide is victory.
I heard something amazing during Alwalli's interview on C-span. Madiline Albright asked him how he could have elections if three provinces didn't participate? Afterall, we couldn't have an election here and call it legitimate if, say, California, Texas and (some other state, I forgot which she used) weren't able to participate.
I think this is a very interesting question that gets at the entire problem in how we have allowed the situation to be defined in a way that benefits the enemy.
It depends on the reason that these three states couldn't participate. If we didn't let them participate then it would be illegitimate. If on the other hand they couldn't participate becasue they, or at least some critical mass of their population, were supporting a campaign of terrorism that was making it impossible to carry out elections then I think without question we would go ahead with elections. Afterall, we did exactly that during the Civil War. We can hardly let a handful of terrorists with the support of 1o to 30 percent of the population--whatever the number a minority--deny the rest of the polity the right to determine their future by elections. What could be more undemocratic than giving a veto to any minority willing to engage in random acts of violence.
It is amazing how responsibility has been shifted by words. I think the key here is the words "provide security." This makes it seem as if security is a good to be spread around equitably. This makes sense when you are talking about posting a nightwatchman in a parking lot or providing beat cops to neighborhoods. It makes very little sense when the security problem is not random acts of criminality but an orchestrated campaign to prevent a democratic vote. The Union didn't fail to provide security to the South. We had a war. What we are failing to provide is victory.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Clinton
Doctor said Clinton "...is sedated but arousable." Good to hear that everything is back to normal.
Clinton
I am really sorry to hear about President Clinton's bypass surgery. It sounds really terrible. I was going to go on making my usual Clinton jokes but now they would be in poor taste. Still, in all seriousness, it seems hard to believe; you would think he would manage somehow to talk himself out of it. He is that good. Someone should approach him to join the Republicans--we could use the talent and if they really are going to bypass his heart he might consider it.
Chechnya
Interesting interview at Winds of Change with the leader of the group that is fighting in Chechnya. His aim is the, " establishment of a caliphate from the Black Sea to the Caspian, not to Russian withdrawl from Chechnya."
The parallel with situation in Israel is obvious. "Peace" advocates propose Israeli pull-out from territories on the theory that the Arabs will then be satisfied, all in the face of the most open statements from Arab leaders (at least when they are speaking in Arabic) that thier aim is the destruction of Israel. Whatever one thinks of how Russia or Isreal has behaved in the predominantly Muslim territories it can hardly be maintained that the Muslim's will stop murdering if the infidels leave. The other side has made thier intentions clear for all who are interested in seeing.
But of course the apologists for terrorism don't see the terrorists as having intentions. Terrorists are merely 'reacting' to thier oppression. The fact that terrorists are not seen as rational agents makes it possible to excuse their actions and to ignore their stated intentions.
The parallel with situation in Israel is obvious. "Peace" advocates propose Israeli pull-out from territories on the theory that the Arabs will then be satisfied, all in the face of the most open statements from Arab leaders (at least when they are speaking in Arabic) that thier aim is the destruction of Israel. Whatever one thinks of how Russia or Isreal has behaved in the predominantly Muslim territories it can hardly be maintained that the Muslim's will stop murdering if the infidels leave. The other side has made thier intentions clear for all who are interested in seeing.
But of course the apologists for terrorism don't see the terrorists as having intentions. Terrorists are merely 'reacting' to thier oppression. The fact that terrorists are not seen as rational agents makes it possible to excuse their actions and to ignore their stated intentions.
Depravity
Did you see the pictures of the body bags laid out in Beslan? It takes a second. You think they are empty, then you realize they are filled with children.
How depraved do you have to be to shoot a fleeing child in the back? That is the only thing they have to fight with. Thier depraved indifference to thier own lives, to the lives of the people they kill, to the lives of the people they hide behind. We truely face an enemy whose only weapon is its own depravity.
No that is incomplete. The depravity of our own elites. The people who cite this depraved behavior as evidence that our enemies are victims. that is our enemy's real weapon. If it were not for the intellectuals of our own society that look at the murdered Russians, Jews, Americans and, increasingly, fellow Muslims and say, "look, you see what they have done? Surely they must have a terrible greivance against us to do such things." And then the inevitable search for things we can do for our murderers. that is the real source of our enemies' power. In the absence of opinion leaders that take the hatred of this brutal and backward civilization for us as evidence of our need to accomodate them our enemy would be as impotent as it is depraved.
How depraved do you have to be to shoot a fleeing child in the back? That is the only thing they have to fight with. Thier depraved indifference to thier own lives, to the lives of the people they kill, to the lives of the people they hide behind. We truely face an enemy whose only weapon is its own depravity.
No that is incomplete. The depravity of our own elites. The people who cite this depraved behavior as evidence that our enemies are victims. that is our enemy's real weapon. If it were not for the intellectuals of our own society that look at the murdered Russians, Jews, Americans and, increasingly, fellow Muslims and say, "look, you see what they have done? Surely they must have a terrible greivance against us to do such things." And then the inevitable search for things we can do for our murderers. that is the real source of our enemies' power. In the absence of opinion leaders that take the hatred of this brutal and backward civilization for us as evidence of our need to accomodate them our enemy would be as impotent as it is depraved.
Depravity
Did you see the pictures of the body bags laid out in Beslan? It takes a second. You think they are empty, then you realize they are filled with children.
How depraved do you have to be to shoot a fleeing child in the back? That is the only thing they have to fight with. Thier depraved indifference to thier own lives, to the lives of the people they kill, to the lives of the people they hide behind. We truely face an enemy whose only weapon is its own depravity.
No that is incomplete. The depravity of our own elites. The people who cite this depraved behavior as evidence that our enemies are victims. that is our enemy's real weapon. If it were not for the intellectuals of our own society that look at the murdered Russians, Jews, Americans and, increasingly, fellow Muslims and say, "look, you see what they have done? Surely they must have a terrible greivance against us to do such things." And then the inevitable search for things we can do for our murderers. that is the real source of our enemies' power. In the absence of opinion leaders that take the hatred of this brutal and backward civilization for us as evidence of our need to accomodate them our enemy would be as impotent as it is depraved.
How depraved do you have to be to shoot a fleeing child in the back? That is the only thing they have to fight with. Thier depraved indifference to thier own lives, to the lives of the people they kill, to the lives of the people they hide behind. We truely face an enemy whose only weapon is its own depravity.
No that is incomplete. The depravity of our own elites. The people who cite this depraved behavior as evidence that our enemies are victims. that is our enemy's real weapon. If it were not for the intellectuals of our own society that look at the murdered Russians, Jews, Americans and, increasingly, fellow Muslims and say, "look, you see what they have done? Surely they must have a terrible greivance against us to do such things." And then the inevitable search for things we can do for our murderers. that is the real source of our enemies' power. In the absence of opinion leaders that take the hatred of this brutal and backward civilization for us as evidence of our need to accomodate them our enemy would be as impotent as it is depraved.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Zell
It was so nice of Zell to give a real stem-winder just when I needed to explain to my students what a stemwinder was.
You don't see them anymore. Actually, you do see them but they are usually not successful. One reason is that you see them given by Northerners. Northerners giving stemwinders make a number of mistakes, usually from inexperience. Take Dean. Dean was in the midst of giving a perfectly respectable stemwinder. You find when you are standing in front of a group of people giving a list of items that each just naturally has to be bigger, louder, better than the last. You sense this naturally when you are in front of a crowd giving the speech. But Dean had not started out with an ending in mind. So when he got through the end of his list of states he found himself with nothing to say but "Aheeeeee..." Not Presidential. You just know that Zell knew exactly where he was going to end when he began. He started with "Spitballs?!!" and wrote himself a list that would get him there.
As fun as the speech was, you can see why they have gone out of style. I found myself a little worried as the speech went on. When I found myself wondering silently if I could entirely agree with one of Zell's statements I suddenly had a vision of Zell stopping in the middle of his rotation and fixing his eyes on me, like he could sense I was less than %100, reaching out and grabbing me by the neck, "I said unfit, professor boy!"
I have to say, I can't stand this "well, everyone is right," "can't we all just get along?" drivel. For one thing it is no good having Michael Moore out there with a movie claiming that Bush was actually conspiring with the Bin Laden family and being feted at the Democratic convention and then turn around and start whinning about negative campaigning. But even leaving aside the who started it issue, what is so bad about being negative? If you actually believe Bush is bringing the country into international disrepute why wouldn't you be angry?
Everything is being made for what we think are dictates of television. Don't be hot, its a cool medium. Don't talk for more than 30 minutes--people have short attention spans. I thought that Juliani's speech was just the length it needed to be, as long as he is making good arguments it stays interesting. Interest is a function of content, not length. And why are we ashamed of anger? Was not our Lord angry when he saw injustice? What is it with us, that we are willing to talk about sex as if it were a spectator sport but are ashamed of getting good and ticked off?
There is something about the South that lets them get away with this. When Barry Goldwater gave a good stem-winder it scared people, made him look mentally unbalanced. For some reason Southerners are able to be angry in public and still look dignified.
By the way, on this subject, I was told once by a Shakespeare teacher that he loved teaching Shakespeare to Southerners. It seems that they naturally are able to read the verse. Just by reading it in thier own accent they lengthen the vowels when they should (on the short words) and come up in thier intonation at the end of a line as is required. people from the mountains of West Virginia read it and the rhymes even work. It kind of makes sense. Shakespeare is just a series of stemwinders leading to challenges to duels--pretty much a desrcription of Zell's weekend.
You don't see them anymore. Actually, you do see them but they are usually not successful. One reason is that you see them given by Northerners. Northerners giving stemwinders make a number of mistakes, usually from inexperience. Take Dean. Dean was in the midst of giving a perfectly respectable stemwinder. You find when you are standing in front of a group of people giving a list of items that each just naturally has to be bigger, louder, better than the last. You sense this naturally when you are in front of a crowd giving the speech. But Dean had not started out with an ending in mind. So when he got through the end of his list of states he found himself with nothing to say but "Aheeeeee..." Not Presidential. You just know that Zell knew exactly where he was going to end when he began. He started with "Spitballs?!!" and wrote himself a list that would get him there.
As fun as the speech was, you can see why they have gone out of style. I found myself a little worried as the speech went on. When I found myself wondering silently if I could entirely agree with one of Zell's statements I suddenly had a vision of Zell stopping in the middle of his rotation and fixing his eyes on me, like he could sense I was less than %100, reaching out and grabbing me by the neck, "I said unfit, professor boy!"
I have to say, I can't stand this "well, everyone is right," "can't we all just get along?" drivel. For one thing it is no good having Michael Moore out there with a movie claiming that Bush was actually conspiring with the Bin Laden family and being feted at the Democratic convention and then turn around and start whinning about negative campaigning. But even leaving aside the who started it issue, what is so bad about being negative? If you actually believe Bush is bringing the country into international disrepute why wouldn't you be angry?
Everything is being made for what we think are dictates of television. Don't be hot, its a cool medium. Don't talk for more than 30 minutes--people have short attention spans. I thought that Juliani's speech was just the length it needed to be, as long as he is making good arguments it stays interesting. Interest is a function of content, not length. And why are we ashamed of anger? Was not our Lord angry when he saw injustice? What is it with us, that we are willing to talk about sex as if it were a spectator sport but are ashamed of getting good and ticked off?
There is something about the South that lets them get away with this. When Barry Goldwater gave a good stem-winder it scared people, made him look mentally unbalanced. For some reason Southerners are able to be angry in public and still look dignified.
By the way, on this subject, I was told once by a Shakespeare teacher that he loved teaching Shakespeare to Southerners. It seems that they naturally are able to read the verse. Just by reading it in thier own accent they lengthen the vowels when they should (on the short words) and come up in thier intonation at the end of a line as is required. people from the mountains of West Virginia read it and the rhymes even work. It kind of makes sense. Shakespeare is just a series of stemwinders leading to challenges to duels--pretty much a desrcription of Zell's weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)