How to understand this war against globalization, which has grown in scope and virulence over the past five years? First, we must realize that it is a war in the real, not the figurative, sense of the word. It is a physical struggle being fought in the streets, not just theoretically. The demonstrators who are its shock troops are organized by activist organizations, many of them subsidized by governments, and they sack cities and lay siege to international meetings during their battles.Read the whole essay.
What motivates this extraordinary resistance? Globalization simply means freedom of movement for goods and people, and it is hard to be violently hostile to that. But behind this fight lies an older and more fundamental struggle—against economic liberalization, and against the chief representative thereof, which is the United States. Anti-globalism carnivals often feature an Uncle Sam in a Stars-and-Stripes costume as their supreme scapegoat. In this way, the new movement taps into an old socialist tradition, where opposition to economic freedom and opposition to America are impossible to separate.
The simplistic article of Marxist faith that capitalism is absolute evil, and that it is incarnated in and directed by the United States, may be the most important principle shared by the current crop of anti-globalizers. America is the object of their loathing because for a half century or more it has been the most prosperous and creative capitalist society on earth. But ultimately it is something even bigger that the anti-globalizers want to destroy: liberal democracy and free-market economics. Or quite simply liberty itself.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
World Trade and America: Twin Enemies
Frenchman Jean Francois Revel finds it hard to separate anti-globilization from anti-Americanism:
Anti-American
I guess I have a way different idea of "Anti-American" than does Bob. To me, one of the most fundamental American rights is the right to speak out against the actions of the government, irrespective of whether the aformentioned government actions are happening in time of War. I believe that this is fundamental, because our Founding Fathers realized that one of the problems they had with the British government in the 18th century was that they did not have the freedom to speak out against what they felt were wrongs committed against them on behalf of the government.
So take, for example, the concept of burning the American Flag in a show of protest against the government. Is it an effective attention getter? Sure! Is it specifically something the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were writing the Constitution? I think so, because they probably spent a fair amount of time burning the King's flag. Is it something I would do personally? Probably not. Do I care about how the flag is treated in my own house? Absolutely - I don't ever let it touch the ground. Do I think passing a Constitutional amendment against it is wrong? ABSOLUTELY! Do I think it is Anti-American to burn the flag? No way! In fact, I think it is Anti-American to talk about such a Constitutional Amendment.
Similar logic applies to political cartoons. Do I appreciate cartoons which make fun of our governments actions in time of war? No. Do I think that the people who write them are using large amounts of hyperbole to make their points? Probably. Do I think the authors really believe them? Some of them do. Do I think they are Anti-American? Not a chance. Would I personally use the same techniques? Not a chance.
For me, Anti-American would mean someone who wanted to completly overthrow the American Government, or destroy the people and/or the government. Does a political cartoon have that capability? No.
Bob's response
Rhoads appeals to logic. Let's look at the conclusion to his post above.
A political cartoon cannot "overthrow or destroy the people and/or the government." Therefore, a political cartoon cannot be anti-American.
But that's just the second part of his conclusion. Before that Rhoads wrote "For me, Anti-American would mean someone who wanted to completly overthrow the American Government." So any act or statement short of a complete overthrow of the American Government would not qualify as anti-American.
We sure do have a different definition of anti-American.
In addition to mentioning the Ted Rall cartoon I linked to the post at Portland Indymedia. The poster advocated the killing of American officers by American soldiers. Since killing American soldiers, not to mention simply advocating it, falls far short of completely overthrowing the American Government, the poster is not anti-American.
Pardon me for thinking that in his conclusion Rhoads has defined away the term "anti-American" almost completely.
A fundamental right to criticize the government does not guarantee that any and all criticism of the government is not anti-American. At least not by the public school logic I learned.
Of course Rhoads himself isn't that illogical, either. Just above his conclusion Rhoads says that burning the flag is not anti-American, but that proposing an amendment to ban flag-burning is anti-American. So in fact an act short of overthrowing the American Government qualifies to Rhoads as anti-American. So he'll have to rework that concluding definition for us.
It looks to me like it boils down to Rhoads not really having as much of a problem with people advocating the killing of American soldiers as he does with people proposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. I hope he'll corrrect me on that, because I can't believe the thinks that. But that's the impression his post left.
Rhoads' reponse
Thanks for completely truning my words and logic around, Bob. OK, let me spell it out for you. In the United States, people who protest against the governmennt should not be considered "anti-American" just because they protest against the government. People in the United States who advocate the killing of other people in the United States are called criminals and should be treated as such. You political cartoon was an example of someone protesting against the government, not of someone advocating the killing of US citizens. People in foreign countries who burn the US flag, or our president (in effigee of course), or who advocate killing of US citizens - those people I would call anti-American. People in foreign countries who make fun of our current president are probably not anti-American. However, they should probably be arrested for hunting in a baited field.
Bob's response
If quoting your words and applying logic is turning them around then I apologize. Rather than simply restating your case, you'll have to show me how I erred in my analysis of your prior comments and conclusion. I don't think you could have meant to leave the impression you left, but I didn't write your post, you did.
We have no disagreement that "people who protest against the governmennt should not be considered 'anti-American' just because they protest against the government." I would even extend that beyond our borders. The mere fact of protest in any isolated case, even in many cases, does not by itself make a person anti-American. I do believe that a person can be both American (a U.S. citizen) and anti-American. People are American by birth or by choice, but "American" in contrast to "anti-American" means agreeing on more than simply the right to protest the government. It looks to me like you're saying since political protest is a fundamental American right, the act of political protest is the perfect shield for a U.S. citizen against the charge that one is anti-American. I don't agree with that.
Here is the text of the post from Portland Indymedia which Citizen Smash clipped (after which Smash linked to the political cartoon as an aside):
The tasteless political cartoon that Citizen Smash linked to may not have been anti-American, just stupid and disgusting. I can accept that. But do you mean to leave the impression that by definition no political cartoon written by an American in the U.S. can be anti-American? Can a U.S. citizen who chronically burns the U.S. flag in protest, year after year, administration after administration be anti-American if he stops short of advocating the total overthrow of the government? How about a political cartoon that advocates a constitutional ban on flag burning?
Is "talking about" a constitutional ban on flag burning the only action an American can undertake short of advocating the complete overthrow of the government that qualifies as anti-American by the Rhoads definition? If not, give me another. Is there any form of political protest, short of advocating the complete overthrow of the government, that could possibly earn the protester the tag "anti-American" in your view?
So take, for example, the concept of burning the American Flag in a show of protest against the government. Is it an effective attention getter? Sure! Is it specifically something the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were writing the Constitution? I think so, because they probably spent a fair amount of time burning the King's flag. Is it something I would do personally? Probably not. Do I care about how the flag is treated in my own house? Absolutely - I don't ever let it touch the ground. Do I think passing a Constitutional amendment against it is wrong? ABSOLUTELY! Do I think it is Anti-American to burn the flag? No way! In fact, I think it is Anti-American to talk about such a Constitutional Amendment.
Similar logic applies to political cartoons. Do I appreciate cartoons which make fun of our governments actions in time of war? No. Do I think that the people who write them are using large amounts of hyperbole to make their points? Probably. Do I think the authors really believe them? Some of them do. Do I think they are Anti-American? Not a chance. Would I personally use the same techniques? Not a chance.
For me, Anti-American would mean someone who wanted to completly overthrow the American Government, or destroy the people and/or the government. Does a political cartoon have that capability? No.
Bob's response
Rhoads appeals to logic. Let's look at the conclusion to his post above.
A political cartoon cannot "overthrow or destroy the people and/or the government." Therefore, a political cartoon cannot be anti-American.
But that's just the second part of his conclusion. Before that Rhoads wrote "For me, Anti-American would mean someone who wanted to completly overthrow the American Government." So any act or statement short of a complete overthrow of the American Government would not qualify as anti-American.
We sure do have a different definition of anti-American.
In addition to mentioning the Ted Rall cartoon I linked to the post at Portland Indymedia. The poster advocated the killing of American officers by American soldiers. Since killing American soldiers, not to mention simply advocating it, falls far short of completely overthrowing the American Government, the poster is not anti-American.
Pardon me for thinking that in his conclusion Rhoads has defined away the term "anti-American" almost completely.
A fundamental right to criticize the government does not guarantee that any and all criticism of the government is not anti-American. At least not by the public school logic I learned.
Of course Rhoads himself isn't that illogical, either. Just above his conclusion Rhoads says that burning the flag is not anti-American, but that proposing an amendment to ban flag-burning is anti-American. So in fact an act short of overthrowing the American Government qualifies to Rhoads as anti-American. So he'll have to rework that concluding definition for us.
It looks to me like it boils down to Rhoads not really having as much of a problem with people advocating the killing of American soldiers as he does with people proposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. I hope he'll corrrect me on that, because I can't believe the thinks that. But that's the impression his post left.
Rhoads' reponse
Thanks for completely truning my words and logic around, Bob. OK, let me spell it out for you. In the United States, people who protest against the governmennt should not be considered "anti-American" just because they protest against the government. People in the United States who advocate the killing of other people in the United States are called criminals and should be treated as such. You political cartoon was an example of someone protesting against the government, not of someone advocating the killing of US citizens. People in foreign countries who burn the US flag, or our president (in effigee of course), or who advocate killing of US citizens - those people I would call anti-American. People in foreign countries who make fun of our current president are probably not anti-American. However, they should probably be arrested for hunting in a baited field.
Bob's response
If quoting your words and applying logic is turning them around then I apologize. Rather than simply restating your case, you'll have to show me how I erred in my analysis of your prior comments and conclusion. I don't think you could have meant to leave the impression you left, but I didn't write your post, you did.
We have no disagreement that "people who protest against the governmennt should not be considered 'anti-American' just because they protest against the government." I would even extend that beyond our borders. The mere fact of protest in any isolated case, even in many cases, does not by itself make a person anti-American. I do believe that a person can be both American (a U.S. citizen) and anti-American. People are American by birth or by choice, but "American" in contrast to "anti-American" means agreeing on more than simply the right to protest the government. It looks to me like you're saying since political protest is a fundamental American right, the act of political protest is the perfect shield for a U.S. citizen against the charge that one is anti-American. I don't agree with that.
Here is the text of the post from Portland Indymedia which Citizen Smash clipped (after which Smash linked to the political cartoon as an aside):
Write a letter to a soldier to let him/her know what people really think of this war. Send a photo of a dead Iraqi civilian. Send a photo or message about an anti-war protest... Outreach to soldiers is the best way to persuade them to stop killing civilians. Maybe they will even begin fragging (killing their officers) like in Vietnam. It's worth a try...This is an American, anti-war protestor suggesting that it would be good to encourage the killing of American officers by American soldiers. Does this behavior, a written political protest by an American advocating the killing of American officers, qualify under the Rhoads definition of anti-American?
The tasteless political cartoon that Citizen Smash linked to may not have been anti-American, just stupid and disgusting. I can accept that. But do you mean to leave the impression that by definition no political cartoon written by an American in the U.S. can be anti-American? Can a U.S. citizen who chronically burns the U.S. flag in protest, year after year, administration after administration be anti-American if he stops short of advocating the total overthrow of the government? How about a political cartoon that advocates a constitutional ban on flag burning?
Is "talking about" a constitutional ban on flag burning the only action an American can undertake short of advocating the complete overthrow of the government that qualifies as anti-American by the Rhoads definition? If not, give me another. Is there any form of political protest, short of advocating the complete overthrow of the government, that could possibly earn the protester the tag "anti-American" in your view?
Monday, May 03, 2004
Is this Anti-American?
Click, read, and check out the Ted Rall cartoon. I call that anti-American.
Luckily, this America endures anyway. I doubt the people we meet from Dover to Wyoming underestimate the costs of war.
(Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for both links.)
Luckily, this America endures anyway. I doubt the people we meet from Dover to Wyoming underestimate the costs of war.
(Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for both links.)
My how time flies
Robert Tagorda has a post titled "What a difference a few months makes" where he notices quite a turnaround on the jobs picture by John Kerry. It looks like sometime in the last two months ten years of waiting for jobs creation vanished.
Kerry Called Unfit
A few weeks ago I wrote that while we may survive a Kerry presidency I didn't think it would be a good thing if the military held their commander-in-chief in contempt. Rhoads' doubted that the views of Lt. Gen (Ret) Hudson reflected those of the military more broadly. Rhoads also said that, of course, if he were in the military he'd prefer a president who actually served, say a President Kerry.
I don't think we'll ever know how the military as a whole would feel about a President Kerry, but here is a report on "[h]undreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry" who disagree with Rhoads. Tommorow they will say John Kerry is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."
UPDATE: Here's the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website and their mission statement.
I don't think we'll ever know how the military as a whole would feel about a President Kerry, but here is a report on "[h]undreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry" who disagree with Rhoads. Tommorow they will say John Kerry is "unfit to be commander-in-chief."
B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.Stay tuned.
"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.
UPDATE: Here's the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website and their mission statement.
Great minds think alike
Lots of links to links to links here but Arnold Kling has a post that quotes Zimran Ahmed commenting on an article by David Warsh reviewing a book by by Paul Seabright that echoes the conclusion of my recent post on economics and and another on the "nation building" metaphor. Phew. Got that? Enough linking. Here's what Kling cut and pasted from Zimran Ahmed:
P.S. On a walk in the neighborhood with my wife, me, and my dog my mother-in-law pointed out a beautiful rock garden. A rock garden. "Hey, those don't spread," I thought. "And you have to build 'em!" Drat. I'll have to amend my garden metaphor to exclude rock gardens. No metaphor is perfect, I guess.
I've been thinking of why people find economics so fundamentally repugnant, and I think the fact that it goes against millenni[a] of natural selection that re-enforced building, monitoring, and maintaining social relationships, is a large part of that. We humans are hard-wired to prefer interacting with those we know and trust, those we consider family and friends, and the soul-less transactional nature of the market makes that cozy circle compete with anonymous firms, tellers, recorded voices, etc. [emphasis added]Kling agrees and so do I. Rhoads agreed with my "nation building" post, maybe he agrees with me and Kling on this one, too.
P.S. On a walk in the neighborhood with my wife, me, and my dog my mother-in-law pointed out a beautiful rock garden. A rock garden. "Hey, those don't spread," I thought. "And you have to build 'em!" Drat. I'll have to amend my garden metaphor to exclude rock gardens. No metaphor is perfect, I guess.
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Costs of War
Ted Koppel says ''The most important thing a journalist can do is remind people of the cost of war.'' Mark Steyn begs to differ. Steyn lets us know just how long it would take Koppel to remind us of the costs of some prior wars.
A. To honor the dead. (What about the dead in Afghanistan?)
B. To let us know the costs of war. (What about the costs of the war in Afghanistan?)
C. Ratings stunt. (His producer didn't know when sweeps were.)
D. He wants to strengthen our resolve to fight on. (The Life photos had the opposite effect.)
E. He wants to weaken our resolve to fight on. (The effect Life magazine photos had.)
F. He wants to hurt Bush in an election year. (He couldn't be so crass.)
At two seconds per name, to read out the combat deaths of the War of 1812 he'd have to persuade ABC to extend the show to an hour and a quarter. To read out the combat deaths of the Korean War, he'd need a 19-hour show. For World War II, he'd have to get ABC to let him read out names of the dead 24/7 for an entire week. If he wants to, I'd be happy to fly him to London so he can go on the BBC and read out the names of the 3,097,392 British combat deaths in World War I, which would take him the best part of three months, without taking bathroom breaks, or indeed pausing for breath.What were Koppel's motives for listing our combat deaths in Iraq? I'll toss out some possible motives:
A. To honor the dead. (What about the dead in Afghanistan?)
B. To let us know the costs of war. (What about the costs of the war in Afghanistan?)
C. Ratings stunt. (His producer didn't know when sweeps were.)
D. He wants to strengthen our resolve to fight on. (The Life photos had the opposite effect.)
E. He wants to weaken our resolve to fight on. (The effect Life magazine photos had.)
F. He wants to hurt Bush in an election year. (He couldn't be so crass.)
I'm a day late
May Day: A Day of Remembrance is the title of a post on Cattallarchy.net. The post is really an introduction to a series of essays, the first of which is called "The Tally". "The Tally" breaks down by country the roughly 100 million people who were killed by Marxist rulers. It looks like an unintended consequence of the ideology of the workers' paradise was the paradise of the grave for millions of workers.
May Day seems like a good time to celebrate the death of communism in most of the world. Maybe some day we'll be able to say all the world.
May Day seems like a good time to celebrate the death of communism in most of the world. Maybe some day we'll be able to say all the world.
Abuse in Iraq
The U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq will quite likely spend the rest of their lives in the middle of Kansas, as they should. Of course as Glenn Reynolds pointed out, the difference between the U.S. military and Saddam's Iraqi military is that such abuse was "a top-down policy" under Saddam.
Arabs are rightly outraged at this behavior. No civilized person can condone or accept it. The guilty soldiers will be dealt with harshly. That being said, where was the similar outrage from Arabs and Muslim clerics when American contractors were killed and their bodies burned in Fallujah? As Daniel Drezner said, "[S]pare me the righteous indignation of the Arab street."
Arabs are rightly outraged at this behavior. No civilized person can condone or accept it. The guilty soldiers will be dealt with harshly. That being said, where was the similar outrage from Arabs and Muslim clerics when American contractors were killed and their bodies burned in Fallujah? As Daniel Drezner said, "[S]pare me the righteous indignation of the Arab street."
No Time for Air America
Calling Al Franken. Glenn Reynolds alerts us to a Washington Post story on a Lying Liar Against the War. Looks like a fake former Army Ranger named Micah Ian Wright even fooled my old favorite Kurt Vonnegut enough to have Vonnegut endorse his made up book.
Needless to say the military bloggers are none to pleased. Glenn has some links and reactions. I wonder if this lying liar, Wright, has earned the tag anti-American?
Needless to say the military bloggers are none to pleased. Glenn has some links and reactions. I wonder if this lying liar, Wright, has earned the tag anti-American?
Saturday, May 01, 2004
Another reasonable Democrat
As of December 2003, science fiction writer and Democrat Orson Scott Card wasn't planning on voting for any Democrats in November 2004. He explains why in this OpinionJournal.com piece titled "The Campaign of Hate and Fear: Some of my fellow Democrats are unpatriotic."
Rhoads' response
That's a ridiculous article, full of so many ridiculous assumptions that it is, well, ridiculous.
Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not.Ouch. John Kerry's latest speech may be an effort to win back people like Mr. Card. He may lose the Teds, Kennedy and Koppel, who seem to think the Vietnam strategy is a winner.
And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us.
Osama bin Laden's military strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home. Now, bin Laden isn't actually all that bright; his campaign to make us go home is in fact what brought us into Afghanistan and Iraq. But he's still telling his followers: Keep killing Americans and eventually, antigovernment factions within the United States will choose to give up the struggle.
It's what happened in Somalia, isn't it? And it's what happened in Vietnam, too.
Rhoads' response
That's a ridiculous article, full of so many ridiculous assumptions that it is, well, ridiculous.
May I be allowed to work in that coal mine, please?
Bummed that I'm not in Omaha this morning I loogged onto Omaha.com to catch up on all the goings on. After reading a story about the Berkshire annual meeting I noticed another story, headline Omaha councilman proposes smoking ban for workplace. I live in Boulder which has a smoking ban pretty much everywhere and I was born and raised in Minnesota, motto "The State Where Absolutely Nothing is Allowed." Naturally I clicked on the story to see what was up in seemingly more reasonable Omaha, NE.
The fellow with the bright idea to ban smoking in the workplace is Councilman Marc Kraft. Why does he think Omaha lawmakers should force employers to ban smoking in the workplace?
Judging by the reactions from other members of Council, customers and business owners quoted in the story it looks like my faith in the good sense of the people of Omaha is justified. The ban will probably fail.
The fellow with the bright idea to ban smoking in the workplace is Councilman Marc Kraft. Why does he think Omaha lawmakers should force employers to ban smoking in the workplace?
"We don't allow people to work in areas full of asbestos or other carcinogens," he said.Leaving aside the question of whether tobacco smoke is analogous to asbestos or any carcinogen, look at what the man said. Big Brother only allows people to work in certain conditions. Any civil libertarians bothered by that?
Judging by the reactions from other members of Council, customers and business owners quoted in the story it looks like my faith in the good sense of the people of Omaha is justified. The ban will probably fail.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Worth 1,000 words
Mrs. Du Toit posts 15 Life magazine covers from WWII above 15 Life magazine covers from the Vietnam War. The context is a criticism of Ted Koppel's decision to run pictures of the Fallen in Iraq on Nightline tonight. Here is her lead in to the Life covers:
Does Koppel agree with Kerry?
It is impossible not to believe that the decision to list of the names of the Fallen in Iraq is politically motivated, and is done as an anti-war gesture. If that was not the case, why not include the names of the Fallen from Afghanistan? That intentional omission clearly defines the motives of those who wish to use the names of the dead, before this war is over, as a method of getting to the public and attempt to rattle their resolve.John Kerry said "that failure is not an option in Iraq."
Pictures have done that in the past. And as evidence, I'm posting a few pictures that have shaped or altered American public opinion. Never forget, that wars are lost not on the battlefield, but on the home front.
Does Koppel agree with Kerry?
Book recommendations
Arnold Kling put Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies on his must reading list for college students. I finished it a few days ago and highly recommend it.
Though the author tells me this book was written for an audience that hasn't been born yet, I also enjoyed Judgments Under Stress by Ken Hammond. I'll admit it seems silly to recommend a book whose audience hasn't been born yet. But heck, Ken wrote it and Oxford University Press published it. They must think there are others like me who are ahead of our time.
Both books are part of the BRG Library.
Though the author tells me this book was written for an audience that hasn't been born yet, I also enjoyed Judgments Under Stress by Ken Hammond. I'll admit it seems silly to recommend a book whose audience hasn't been born yet. But heck, Ken wrote it and Oxford University Press published it. They must think there are others like me who are ahead of our time.
Both books are part of the BRG Library.
Kerry steps up
John Kerry stepped up and delivered a speech that, if it becomes a pattern, may allow him to avoid the electoral pounding that I predicted.
Like Glenn Reynolds I wonder about the internationalization of the effort that Kerry proposes, but he sounds more sensible in this speech than in anything I've heard him say so far. In light of the oil-for-food scandal Kerry downplayed the importance of the UN, instead focusing on NATO. Good move. Earlier Kerry seemed to favor stability over democracy in Iraq as an exit strategy. In this speech he clearly says a democratic Iraq is a must. Another good move.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that he uses the hated "nation building" metaphor a number of times. Argh. Everyone seems to use it so I don't hold that against him anymore than I hold it against anyone else. I hope it's just a figure of speech, but I fear all these guys really believe in building things like nations.
(Link courtesy of Instapundit as are so darn many of my links.)
Like Glenn Reynolds I wonder about the internationalization of the effort that Kerry proposes, but he sounds more sensible in this speech than in anything I've heard him say so far. In light of the oil-for-food scandal Kerry downplayed the importance of the UN, instead focusing on NATO. Good move. Earlier Kerry seemed to favor stability over democracy in Iraq as an exit strategy. In this speech he clearly says a democratic Iraq is a must. Another good move.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that he uses the hated "nation building" metaphor a number of times. Argh. Everyone seems to use it so I don't hold that against him anymore than I hold it against anyone else. I hope it's just a figure of speech, but I fear all these guys really believe in building things like nations.
(Link courtesy of Instapundit as are so darn many of my links.)
Lileks sends me down memory lane
James Lileks was once a writer and editor for a college newspaper. That was way back in the mid-1980s. Here's how he describes his type back then:
The part I cut and pasted brought back memories of college for me. Join me for a stroll down memory lane, won't you.
During my first couple of years in college I was busy taking calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy and physiology courses. That sort of curriculum, even at the nation's number one party school, didn't leave me a lot of time to keep up with with local, national or global political issues. Well, not when you toss in athletics, drinking and so forth, but I digress. If anything my first two and one half years of college were my most liberal time (in the modern, statist-leaning sense). I blame my Vonnegut reading. But again I digress.
At some point a lesson from a principles of economics class sunk in. Specialize and trade. Do what you like and what comes easiest. Do what you're good at while others do what they're good at. I noticed that economics came easier for me than organic chemistry so I took more economics classes and punted the organic chemistry. I left the heavy lifting of chemistry and physics to the students who found that easy, fascinating, or both.
I suddenly had a lot more time to read and think. It was at this time that I noticed the students Lileks describes.
They were demonstrating against Rocky Flats. They were "freeze voters". They were pro-Sandinista, U.S. hands off Nicaragua types (who had to ask a friend of mine outside the Trident in Boulder how to spell Nicaragua). They proposed "National Industrial Policy" and wanted rent controls and higher minimum wages.
I noticed these students and the many marxist and socialist faculty members in various academic departments. Where earlier I ignored them or thought that maybe socialism was a better way -- after all Swedish women were awfully attractive and maybe it would be in my best interests to embrace a "third way" if you know what I mean... Where was I? Oh, yes. Where earlier I'd ignored or even sympathized with some of what these folks had to say, I came to think, "These people are missing something. What is it they don't understand?"
I'm not sure I've fully answered that question in the twenty years since those days of awakening for me. My own bias is that it boils down to not understanding the complexity of the interactions between people on a large scale. I suspect that if more people understood the messages of Adam Smith and F.A. Hayek, fewer people would take to the streets protesting corporations and world trade.
But I have to admit that the message of order emerging from complexity is not one that humans take to easily. It's natural to trust the intuition that says order emerges because somebody orders things, like Smith's pieces on a chessboard. It's easier to understand the workings of a family or of a clan than to understand how it is that my Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2 pencil is made with parts coming from all over the world and without any single individual knowing how to make it. To understand the creation of my pencil you have to put on your analytical thinking cap. That isn't the cap we've evolved to wear. We've evolved to wear the intuition cap. We have to learn to analyze things.
Luckily we don't have to understand the principles behind complex interactions between billions of people in order to benefit from them. Those of us in the West, especially the U.S., are fortunate to live in a time and place where the fruits of those principles grow in abundance. As communism and brutal dictatorships fall to be replaced with the rule of law and free people living under representative governments, more people around the world share in the fruits of freedom. That's a good thing.
I hope the kids on college campuses realize how good it is.
These things we knew: Soviet influence in Central America could be blunted by a complete withdrawl of American support; Ronald Reagan was indifferent to the possibility of nuclear war; Europeans were wise rational Vulcans to our crass carnivorous Earthlings, except for isolated throwback horrors like Margaret Thatcher. All new weapons systems were boondoggles that wouldn’t work and would never be needed, and served as penis substitutes for Jack D. Ripper-type generals who probably went home and poured lighter fluid on toy soldiers, lit them with a Zippo and cackled maniacally. A nuclear freeze was the first step to a safer world, because if everyone had 10,237 ICBMs instead of 10,238 we might be less inclined to use them. The Soviets were our enemy only because we thought they were, which forced them to act like our enemy. Soldiers were brainwashed killbots or gung-ho rapist killbots who signed up only because Reagan had personally shuttered the doors of the local steel mill, depriving them of jobs. Of all wars in human history, Vietnam was the most typical. Higher taxes on the rich resulted in fewer poor people. The inexplicable mulishness of big business was the only thing that held back widespread adoption of solar power.The whole piece is worth reading, as Lileks reacts to the ravings of a lefty student from UMass who wrote an essay titled, "Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him".
The world outside the campus was crass and stupid and run by the people who went to frats and sororities. Say no more.
The part I cut and pasted brought back memories of college for me. Join me for a stroll down memory lane, won't you.
During my first couple of years in college I was busy taking calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy and physiology courses. That sort of curriculum, even at the nation's number one party school, didn't leave me a lot of time to keep up with with local, national or global political issues. Well, not when you toss in athletics, drinking and so forth, but I digress. If anything my first two and one half years of college were my most liberal time (in the modern, statist-leaning sense). I blame my Vonnegut reading. But again I digress.
At some point a lesson from a principles of economics class sunk in. Specialize and trade. Do what you like and what comes easiest. Do what you're good at while others do what they're good at. I noticed that economics came easier for me than organic chemistry so I took more economics classes and punted the organic chemistry. I left the heavy lifting of chemistry and physics to the students who found that easy, fascinating, or both.
I suddenly had a lot more time to read and think. It was at this time that I noticed the students Lileks describes.
They were demonstrating against Rocky Flats. They were "freeze voters". They were pro-Sandinista, U.S. hands off Nicaragua types (who had to ask a friend of mine outside the Trident in Boulder how to spell Nicaragua). They proposed "National Industrial Policy" and wanted rent controls and higher minimum wages.
I noticed these students and the many marxist and socialist faculty members in various academic departments. Where earlier I ignored them or thought that maybe socialism was a better way -- after all Swedish women were awfully attractive and maybe it would be in my best interests to embrace a "third way" if you know what I mean... Where was I? Oh, yes. Where earlier I'd ignored or even sympathized with some of what these folks had to say, I came to think, "These people are missing something. What is it they don't understand?"
I'm not sure I've fully answered that question in the twenty years since those days of awakening for me. My own bias is that it boils down to not understanding the complexity of the interactions between people on a large scale. I suspect that if more people understood the messages of Adam Smith and F.A. Hayek, fewer people would take to the streets protesting corporations and world trade.
But I have to admit that the message of order emerging from complexity is not one that humans take to easily. It's natural to trust the intuition that says order emerges because somebody orders things, like Smith's pieces on a chessboard. It's easier to understand the workings of a family or of a clan than to understand how it is that my Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2 pencil is made with parts coming from all over the world and without any single individual knowing how to make it. To understand the creation of my pencil you have to put on your analytical thinking cap. That isn't the cap we've evolved to wear. We've evolved to wear the intuition cap. We have to learn to analyze things.
Luckily we don't have to understand the principles behind complex interactions between billions of people in order to benefit from them. Those of us in the West, especially the U.S., are fortunate to live in a time and place where the fruits of those principles grow in abundance. As communism and brutal dictatorships fall to be replaced with the rule of law and free people living under representative governments, more people around the world share in the fruits of freedom. That's a good thing.
I hope the kids on college campuses realize how good it is.
County Commissioner
I just got a call from a friend who is a higher up in the Boulder County Government who told me that he sees me running for County Commissioner some day. Wow!
Does a County Commissioner have a Chief of Staff? They probably do if they don't have to pay too much.. or anything at all..
Bob's response
Little or no pay? Perfect! Sounds like BRG and the University of Colorado Board of Regents.
Does a County Commissioner have a Chief of Staff? They probably do if they don't have to pay too much.. or anything at all..
Bob's response
Little or no pay? Perfect! Sounds like BRG and the University of Colorado Board of Regents.
Nation building
I don't like that metaphor, nation building. Bush criticized Gore and the Clinton Administration for their attempts at nation building in the 2000 campaign. Now part of the strategy in the Middle East and the War on Terror in general is that if we build at least one free nation in the Middle East the idea will spread.
Here's why I hate the metaphor. Do things you build spread? Not without more building they don't. Add another wing to the ol' homestead and then sit on the porch swing and watch it. Watch it real long. It ain't spreadin'. Not without some more wood and some carpenters it ain't.
Furthermore, I don't think a nation is something that can be built. I have a better metaphor. Most people can relate to this one because it's just outside their doors. It's a garden.
Nations grow. They are not built. Gardens grow. They are not built.
Even if you don't buy seeds, you'll have a garden. The sun, rain, soil, wind and even birds and bees will see to it. If you want a particular kind of garden with particular sorts of plants you need to establish the conditions in which those plants will grow. You probably should buy the right sorts of seeds. Plant the seeds in your garden and then tend to it. Over time, if things work out, you'll have the sort of garden you desire. Maybe. Assuming you've set up the right conditions, have the right kinds of plants for where you live, can control pests like bugs, rabbits, deer, and so forth. It's not easy to grow a good garden.
It's not easy to grow a good, civil, and free society, either. But I am pretty sure you can't build one. Just like you can't build a garden.
So there.
Rhoads' Response
You know what? I absolutely agree with Bob, once again. Amazing! And that reminds me of something I heard on NPR last weekend, and I didn't catch who said it, so I apologize for the lack of a reference, but it goes like this. America would not be as great a country as it is had the French come over in 1789, kicked out the British, and said: "Here: here is your new government." The point is that one of the problems is that it is WAY hard for Iraq to form a new government because we want quite a bit of control over what that looks like. Could make for a bad seed in the garden.
Here's why I hate the metaphor. Do things you build spread? Not without more building they don't. Add another wing to the ol' homestead and then sit on the porch swing and watch it. Watch it real long. It ain't spreadin'. Not without some more wood and some carpenters it ain't.
Furthermore, I don't think a nation is something that can be built. I have a better metaphor. Most people can relate to this one because it's just outside their doors. It's a garden.
Nations grow. They are not built. Gardens grow. They are not built.
Even if you don't buy seeds, you'll have a garden. The sun, rain, soil, wind and even birds and bees will see to it. If you want a particular kind of garden with particular sorts of plants you need to establish the conditions in which those plants will grow. You probably should buy the right sorts of seeds. Plant the seeds in your garden and then tend to it. Over time, if things work out, you'll have the sort of garden you desire. Maybe. Assuming you've set up the right conditions, have the right kinds of plants for where you live, can control pests like bugs, rabbits, deer, and so forth. It's not easy to grow a good garden.
It's not easy to grow a good, civil, and free society, either. But I am pretty sure you can't build one. Just like you can't build a garden.
So there.
Rhoads' Response
You know what? I absolutely agree with Bob, once again. Amazing! And that reminds me of something I heard on NPR last weekend, and I didn't catch who said it, so I apologize for the lack of a reference, but it goes like this. America would not be as great a country as it is had the French come over in 1789, kicked out the British, and said: "Here: here is your new government." The point is that one of the problems is that it is WAY hard for Iraq to form a new government because we want quite a bit of control over what that looks like. Could make for a bad seed in the garden.
Baghdad Bob and uranium
Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the fellow you may recall who said Iraq had not attempted to acquire uranium from Niger, has a new book out. Here's the start of the WaPo story on Wilson's book:
Remind me again what the case was for not invading Iraq? Was it that the inspections were working? He was contained? It's none of our business what goes on in a sovereign nation? The French and Russian beneficiaries of the oil-for-food larceny didn't want us to disturb the status quo? That the world would hate us for butting in? The neo-cons holding the puppet strings in the White House had ill motives? No blood for oil? The goal was to enrich Haliburton and Dick Cheney?
Rhoads' reponse
I think it is perfectly reasonable to debate whether or not it is appropriate to force a regime change in a brutal regime. Why stop at Iraq? There are many many others - N. Korea and Sudan for a start. But that is not the point. The point is that we were told that the had WMD. Not that they were building them - THEY HAD THEM. AND THEY WERE AND IMMINENT THREAT. SOON. Like NEXT WEEK. etc. etc. None of which was true. Was it going to be true soon? Who knows, but I don't think so.
Bob's response
Rhoads assumes that the Bush Administration's reliance on multiple fallible indicators must turn out to be correct, ex post, to justify invading Iraq, ex ante. That's not the world we live in. We have to base decisions on the best available evidence at the time, not on evidence in the rearview mirror. Of course we were told that Iraq had WMD. They did have WMD. They used them in the past. They failed to account for where the weapons they had went. Did they destroy them? Did they go to Syria (and on to Sudan)? We don't know.
Why don't we invade North Korea and Sudan? Good questions. We don't have unlimited resources so we have to prioritize. North Korea has nuclear weapons and is right next to a nuclear power, China. Sudan would be much easier to go in and depose the government, but the threat posed by the government there to its neighbors and to the rest of the world isn't as great as the threat posed by North Korea, Iran, Syria and a number of other dangerous regimes.
Maybe the reason was that dealing with the troubles posed by Iraq, to its people, its neighbors, and potentially the rest of the world was simply too costly. That could be. But not dealing with such troubles has its costs, too. By invading we'll never know the price tag of not invading. We see the costs of invasion. I am glad it's not my job to make these sorts of decisions. Unless you have perfect information and all your choices work out perfectly you'll be attacked by your political opponents.
Remind me again why people run for President of the U.S. Must be the free food and housing.
Rhoads' response
Don't forget the big library when you are done. And the automatic pals who go with you wherever you want.
Bob's response
You don't have to fly commercial, either. Oh, and I'm pretty sure chicks dig you.
It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.Drums full of pesticides, testing of biological agents, ballistic missiles capable of traveling hundreds of kilometers, and Baghdad Bob making nice with Niger in a possible attempt to acquire uranium. No evidence at all that Iraq was developing WMD. Just your average technologically advanced country trying to make the lives of its people better. Before stealing the oil-for-food money meant for them, torturing some and putting others through plastic shredders.
That's according to a new book by Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium.
Remind me again what the case was for not invading Iraq? Was it that the inspections were working? He was contained? It's none of our business what goes on in a sovereign nation? The French and Russian beneficiaries of the oil-for-food larceny didn't want us to disturb the status quo? That the world would hate us for butting in? The neo-cons holding the puppet strings in the White House had ill motives? No blood for oil? The goal was to enrich Haliburton and Dick Cheney?
Rhoads' reponse
I think it is perfectly reasonable to debate whether or not it is appropriate to force a regime change in a brutal regime. Why stop at Iraq? There are many many others - N. Korea and Sudan for a start. But that is not the point. The point is that we were told that the had WMD. Not that they were building them - THEY HAD THEM. AND THEY WERE AND IMMINENT THREAT. SOON. Like NEXT WEEK. etc. etc. None of which was true. Was it going to be true soon? Who knows, but I don't think so.
Bob's response
Rhoads assumes that the Bush Administration's reliance on multiple fallible indicators must turn out to be correct, ex post, to justify invading Iraq, ex ante. That's not the world we live in. We have to base decisions on the best available evidence at the time, not on evidence in the rearview mirror. Of course we were told that Iraq had WMD. They did have WMD. They used them in the past. They failed to account for where the weapons they had went. Did they destroy them? Did they go to Syria (and on to Sudan)? We don't know.
Rhoads' response
Sorry, but I don't assume that at all. What I do believe is that the Bush Administration did not attack Iraq because the best available evidence suggested that it was a prudent course of action. I believe that the Bush Administration attacked Iraq because they wanted to attack Iraq, and they manipulated the evidence to support their position. That's why I am so upset. I truly believe that they were so focused on getting rid of Saddam Hussein that they forced the evidence.
Bob's response
False motives and sensationalized evidence. That's what has Rhoads so angry. OK. Fine, those are reasons to be angry with the Bush Administration. But I'll repeat my question. What was the reason for not invading Iraq?
Rhoads' response
Because war is a big deal. Unless you have an overwhelming reason to do so, you don't start one. That's the point. There was not an overwhelming reason to do so. However, calling it a War on Terrorism instead of a War on Saddam (which is what it appears to have been) makes it overwhelming in some people's eyes.
Why don't we invade North Korea and Sudan? Good questions. We don't have unlimited resources so we have to prioritize. North Korea has nuclear weapons and is right next to a nuclear power, China. Sudan would be much easier to go in and depose the government, but the threat posed by the government there to its neighbors and to the rest of the world isn't as great as the threat posed by North Korea, Iran, Syria and a number of other dangerous regimes.
Maybe the reason was that dealing with the troubles posed by Iraq, to its people, its neighbors, and potentially the rest of the world was simply too costly. That could be. But not dealing with such troubles has its costs, too. By invading we'll never know the price tag of not invading. We see the costs of invasion. I am glad it's not my job to make these sorts of decisions. Unless you have perfect information and all your choices work out perfectly you'll be attacked by your political opponents.
Remind me again why people run for President of the U.S. Must be the free food and housing.
Rhoads' response
Don't forget the big library when you are done. And the automatic pals who go with you wherever you want.
Bob's response
You don't have to fly commercial, either. Oh, and I'm pretty sure chicks dig you.
Rhoads says: I wonder if Hillary minds that part too much.
Bob: Hmm. Does she mind that part? I think I'll leave that one alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)