Here's a letter from Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. No, really....*snicker*.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
The Essayist #9: Hurricanes, Howlers, and Pork, Oh My!
I know that many of you believe I'm nothing more than a Rovedrone who recieves his missives direct from the White House Communications Office, but there have been several days when I have wanted to slap the President, and they've been piling up of late. Now, let me be clear: I'm still an optimist on Iraq (for reasons why, click this link and just keep scrolling), and I'm not of the species that seems to want to blame the New Orleans Water Park on FEMA. I've yet to see anything from a source I trust that indicates that FEMA did anything different in regards to Katrina than they did with regard to any other natural disaster in living memory, and I'm pretty well convinced that the caterwauling to that end is a cynical manipulation by a bored press and a frustrated opposition upon discovering that the Cindy Sheehan and Hokum and Wailing Circus wasn't going to be the spark that lit the Bonfire of Bush's Vanities.
So what am I cheesed about? Well, quite frankly, it has to do with Big Government Conservatism once more rearing it's ugly head: Bush using Katrina and Rita as an excuse to give Federalize all emergency management operations, and turning the relief effort into a mini-Great Society for Southern Lousisiana. This is dumb for several reasons:
1. Katrina devestated the Southern parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and even portions of Alabama. Only in Lousisiana was this disaster met with chaos, looting, and people sitting in football stadiums without food, water, or a place to go. Assuming that the time and competence of the federal response was the same in all places, where do we conclude that the system broke down? That's right, with the Mayor of NO and the Governor of LA, who panicked and ran away. Federalizing the problem rewards the crony regime in Louisiana for abdicating their responsibilities. This isn't just my spin: the Washington Post is sick of Louisiana's politicians and their naked pork-grab. It's time to post blame where blame is truly due.
2. Federalizing also diminishes the accountability of emergency management at the local level. It's real basic: where is your vote most valuable? At the local, state, or federal level. If you said c), you might consider remedial math. A vast federal bureaucracy, answerable to Beltway politicians, is NOT going to act in the best interests of the victims of Katrina.
3. Bush's proposal is already alienating the very people who put him in power, myself included. I held my nose and voted for Bush in 2000, because I found nothing monstrously offensive in him, whereas Gore made me ill. I voted with more confidence in 2004, because I saw some real accomplishments (cutting taxes, Afghanistan), and the promise of more (Social Security and tax reform, Iraq), while the Democrats couldn't come up with any alternative proposal other than "not Bush". But now the silly sonofabitch is acting like LBJ or FDR on a bender. He's caving to media pressure and losing his base while gaining NO support from the other side. C'mon, does anyone think the Left will credit Bush for doing exactly what they would expect and demand a Democrat to do in the same situation? Forget it. Bush *cannot* win support for anything he does from the other side. It won't happen. He can only win by governing from his side of the aisle. This is NOT doing that.
4. Bill Clinton, in his much-ballyhooed "criticism" of Bush, said one very astute thing (which was bound to happen eventually, because Clinton is a smart guy). He pointed out that in the history of the Republic, we have never financed a war with foreign money. In World Wars 1 and 2, we financed it with massive bond issues. LBJ spent the 60's surplus (created by that radical supply-sider, Jack Kennedy) on Vietnam. But both our Iraq campaigns have been underwrote by international bankers. Although the defecit is smaller than earlier feared, this is still not a good thing. Maybe a new set of Liberty Loans wouldn't have worked (although I don't know why not), but finding some way to offset spending for the WOT would have put is in a much better position, I think, financially and otherwise (you can't help thinking that people buying war bonds would have given them a greater stake in our victories abroad). But we didn't do that, and now we're proposing more mammoth spending projects underwrote by the rest of the world. Somehow I don't think this is going to "improve our position," or whatever.
5. Speaking of Bill Clinton, even he didn't think that Hurricane Andrew was cause for a federal takeover of disaster relief, nor did he respond thusly to any of the other natural disasters that took place during his Presidency. Somehow, he didn't think it necessary. Somehow, Florida et al. managed to recover under the existing system. Now, what does a good conservative like myself say of someone who wants to fix a mechanism that isn't broken?
We thus have a proposal that is 1) morally irresponsible, 2) likely to be ineffective, 3) politically stupid, 4) financially dangerous, and 5) probably unnecessary. It's a Super Hat Trick, boys and girls! All thanks to a guy who's moved as far away from Jefferson's idea of government as anybody in the Democratic Party.
Incidentally, if anyone would like to think that based on this rant I'm ready to applaud Nancy Pelosi and her bold pork-renumeration, I have but this to say: show me the money. If the Democrats suddenly become the let's-cut-spending party, I'm willing to pay attention, and even reward them. Being a conservative, I believe in competition, and for one party to have a monopoly on the fiscal restraint position means that they're never in a position to actually provide any. I wouldn't mind seeing that change. But given their history and constituency, I don't believe it's anything other than a temporary pose. And I'm still hoping that the revolt among GOP backbenchers gets somewhere. But for the moment, we all seem to still believe in the money fairy, and that does us as much damage as our much-maligned "dependence on foreign oil".
So what am I cheesed about? Well, quite frankly, it has to do with Big Government Conservatism once more rearing it's ugly head: Bush using Katrina and Rita as an excuse to give Federalize all emergency management operations, and turning the relief effort into a mini-Great Society for Southern Lousisiana. This is dumb for several reasons:
1. Katrina devestated the Southern parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and even portions of Alabama. Only in Lousisiana was this disaster met with chaos, looting, and people sitting in football stadiums without food, water, or a place to go. Assuming that the time and competence of the federal response was the same in all places, where do we conclude that the system broke down? That's right, with the Mayor of NO and the Governor of LA, who panicked and ran away. Federalizing the problem rewards the crony regime in Louisiana for abdicating their responsibilities. This isn't just my spin: the Washington Post is sick of Louisiana's politicians and their naked pork-grab. It's time to post blame where blame is truly due.
2. Federalizing also diminishes the accountability of emergency management at the local level. It's real basic: where is your vote most valuable? At the local, state, or federal level. If you said c), you might consider remedial math. A vast federal bureaucracy, answerable to Beltway politicians, is NOT going to act in the best interests of the victims of Katrina.
3. Bush's proposal is already alienating the very people who put him in power, myself included. I held my nose and voted for Bush in 2000, because I found nothing monstrously offensive in him, whereas Gore made me ill. I voted with more confidence in 2004, because I saw some real accomplishments (cutting taxes, Afghanistan), and the promise of more (Social Security and tax reform, Iraq), while the Democrats couldn't come up with any alternative proposal other than "not Bush". But now the silly sonofabitch is acting like LBJ or FDR on a bender. He's caving to media pressure and losing his base while gaining NO support from the other side. C'mon, does anyone think the Left will credit Bush for doing exactly what they would expect and demand a Democrat to do in the same situation? Forget it. Bush *cannot* win support for anything he does from the other side. It won't happen. He can only win by governing from his side of the aisle. This is NOT doing that.
4. Bill Clinton, in his much-ballyhooed "criticism" of Bush, said one very astute thing (which was bound to happen eventually, because Clinton is a smart guy). He pointed out that in the history of the Republic, we have never financed a war with foreign money. In World Wars 1 and 2, we financed it with massive bond issues. LBJ spent the 60's surplus (created by that radical supply-sider, Jack Kennedy) on Vietnam. But both our Iraq campaigns have been underwrote by international bankers. Although the defecit is smaller than earlier feared, this is still not a good thing. Maybe a new set of Liberty Loans wouldn't have worked (although I don't know why not), but finding some way to offset spending for the WOT would have put is in a much better position, I think, financially and otherwise (you can't help thinking that people buying war bonds would have given them a greater stake in our victories abroad). But we didn't do that, and now we're proposing more mammoth spending projects underwrote by the rest of the world. Somehow I don't think this is going to "improve our position," or whatever.
5. Speaking of Bill Clinton, even he didn't think that Hurricane Andrew was cause for a federal takeover of disaster relief, nor did he respond thusly to any of the other natural disasters that took place during his Presidency. Somehow, he didn't think it necessary. Somehow, Florida et al. managed to recover under the existing system. Now, what does a good conservative like myself say of someone who wants to fix a mechanism that isn't broken?
We thus have a proposal that is 1) morally irresponsible, 2) likely to be ineffective, 3) politically stupid, 4) financially dangerous, and 5) probably unnecessary. It's a Super Hat Trick, boys and girls! All thanks to a guy who's moved as far away from Jefferson's idea of government as anybody in the Democratic Party.
Incidentally, if anyone would like to think that based on this rant I'm ready to applaud Nancy Pelosi and her bold pork-renumeration, I have but this to say: show me the money. If the Democrats suddenly become the let's-cut-spending party, I'm willing to pay attention, and even reward them. Being a conservative, I believe in competition, and for one party to have a monopoly on the fiscal restraint position means that they're never in a position to actually provide any. I wouldn't mind seeing that change. But given their history and constituency, I don't believe it's anything other than a temporary pose. And I'm still hoping that the revolt among GOP backbenchers gets somewhere. But for the moment, we all seem to still believe in the money fairy, and that does us as much damage as our much-maligned "dependence on foreign oil".
Saturday, September 24, 2005
A Moment of Clarity in the Blogosphere:
By the way, it’s funny: I read lib. and con. blogs and I see that each side uses the exact same words to describe the other: loony, dangerous, demented, uninformed, batty, wingnuts, unAmerican, bungling idiots, etc., etc. We may not communicate with each other. But it’s clear we all speak the same language ;).
You'll have to look down the comments to find it, but it's there, amid the back-and-forth.
You'll have to look down the comments to find it, but it's there, amid the back-and-forth.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
OY.
No two ways, about it, This is not good. It's going to retard the Iraqi Government, and slow the pace of the Iraqi army's takeover of the war against the insurgents, which, eventually, they're going to have to fight on their own. This means more time for U.S. troops in-country, and more deaths for U.S. troops. The fact that there are apparently "U.S. representatives" involved is even worse.
And yet, I can't help feeling admiration for the government that's brought it to light. A state must control its military, and its ministries, and not permit waste and abuse. Nine officials have been fired, ex-ministers are soon to be arrested. That's moving fast. They're taking it seriously. They want this to work.
It will be interesting to see how the story plays out.
And yet, I can't help feeling admiration for the government that's brought it to light. A state must control its military, and its ministries, and not permit waste and abuse. Nine officials have been fired, ex-ministers are soon to be arrested. That's moving fast. They're taking it seriously. They want this to work.
It will be interesting to see how the story plays out.
Speaking the Other's Language
In my past, I have prided myself on my ability to "speak woman." Which is to say, I understood that the fairer sex has a tendency to attach different connotations and layers of meaning to different words. A statement that would be perfectly innocuous to a man is fraught with portent for a woman, and vice versa. Then I managed to keep a girlfriend for more than a couple of months and discovered that I knew jack squat about the "thinking of the fairer sex", because there's really no such thing. Each person has his own bag of perception, and while tendencies can be pointed to, they need to be carefully applied to individuals.
Carrying this logic further, why has no one considered that the same word-interpretation issues apply to our political divisions? How many times has a Republican been accused of racism because he used a phrase that lefties determined to be "code" for something? We know what happens here: The GOPer loudly exclaims "I didn't say a word about race! I've never been a racist! What the fuck? Damn liberals, everything's about race to them! They're the real racists" and the lefties say "Quit blowing smoke and accept that you got tagged. Don't pretend that you aren't aware of how words can carry. You're either a closet racist or ignorant of the history of this country, and either way, shut up." Both sides walk away...convinced of what they were already convinced of before.
A deliberately vague example, because we should all be familiar with this kind of exchange, or iterations thereof. Take the word "fascist." When a Republican says it, he means something that looks like Hiter's and Mussolini's doctrines on the corporate state, complete with secret police, camps, declarations of racial pride, and the like. It's narrowly defined, and that suits the Republicans' interest, because on the face of it, no party could be more far removed from the platform of NASDAP than the GOP, which combines the laissez-faire economics of the post-Civil War era with the trad morality/Christian identity movement of the Evangelical explosion of the last few decades, both of which Hitler despised.
But when a Democrat says it, he means anybody who possesses too great a relish for military solutions to international problems and anyone who calls too fiercely for national pride and traditional morality. It's a (very) loose definition, and this suits the Democrats' interest, because it draws attention away from the fact that both Hitler and Mussolini were products of socialist traditions, both were statists who presided over vast centralization and made strides towards guarunteeing the kind of "economic security" that the left has long advocated. If you leave out the war and the genocide, Hitler looks damn progressive. Say this to a liberal though, and he'll pitch a fit.
All of which is a build-up to this post by war hawk Uncle Jimbo, who went head-to-head with one of the new favorite bete-noirs of the anti-war left, British Labor MP George Galloway. Despite the gulf of disagreement between them, they found common ground, or at least discovered an area for exchanging ideas. Here's how it was managed:
"Don't you think it's a bit simplistic..." is practically a shibboleth among leftie intellectuals and lefties who think they're intellectuals. It's shorthand for "There's more than one way to look at this, and I'm aware of that, and I think you should be aware of it, too." The point that UJ actually made regarding Osama's motivation isn't new, in fact, you could read it all over the ditto-head web sites in the wake of 9/11. But the wording of it made it a point that could get past Galloway's emotional armor, and thus be acceptable.
Likewise, the response "I'm beginning to get the impression you might be an honest man," is a typically British excess-of-subordinate-clauses meaning "Nicely done." So the rightie scores a point, and the leftie gets to look like a gent for scoring it for him. And the twain shall meet.
I for one am not convinced that Galloway isn't a shill for Saddam; he's a shill for the UN and the EU, anyway, who were Saddam's biggest enablers. But if even this guy can reach across the aisle when approached in the right way, then none of us are incapable. Be honest, who wants to read anymore flame templates? Can we put together a list of words and phrases to be rejected by serious debaters? Here's a few I think can be safely dispensed with:
1. "I guess you're too balled up in your ideology to understand facts."
2. "echo chamber"
3. "How sad for you to have to confront reality"
4. "talking points"
5. "the people are tired of your lies and distortion"
6. "spin"
And finally...
7. "support the troops."
Carrying this logic further, why has no one considered that the same word-interpretation issues apply to our political divisions? How many times has a Republican been accused of racism because he used a phrase that lefties determined to be "code" for something? We know what happens here: The GOPer loudly exclaims "I didn't say a word about race! I've never been a racist! What the fuck? Damn liberals, everything's about race to them! They're the real racists" and the lefties say "Quit blowing smoke and accept that you got tagged. Don't pretend that you aren't aware of how words can carry. You're either a closet racist or ignorant of the history of this country, and either way, shut up." Both sides walk away...convinced of what they were already convinced of before.
A deliberately vague example, because we should all be familiar with this kind of exchange, or iterations thereof. Take the word "fascist." When a Republican says it, he means something that looks like Hiter's and Mussolini's doctrines on the corporate state, complete with secret police, camps, declarations of racial pride, and the like. It's narrowly defined, and that suits the Republicans' interest, because on the face of it, no party could be more far removed from the platform of NASDAP than the GOP, which combines the laissez-faire economics of the post-Civil War era with the trad morality/Christian identity movement of the Evangelical explosion of the last few decades, both of which Hitler despised.
But when a Democrat says it, he means anybody who possesses too great a relish for military solutions to international problems and anyone who calls too fiercely for national pride and traditional morality. It's a (very) loose definition, and this suits the Democrats' interest, because it draws attention away from the fact that both Hitler and Mussolini were products of socialist traditions, both were statists who presided over vast centralization and made strides towards guarunteeing the kind of "economic security" that the left has long advocated. If you leave out the war and the genocide, Hitler looks damn progressive. Say this to a liberal though, and he'll pitch a fit.
All of which is a build-up to this post by war hawk Uncle Jimbo, who went head-to-head with one of the new favorite bete-noirs of the anti-war left, British Labor MP George Galloway. Despite the gulf of disagreement between them, they found common ground, or at least discovered an area for exchanging ideas. Here's how it was managed:
...I looked him in the eye and he said "OK, I'll let you back in" following an explanation of his statement that the planes on 9/11 didn't come out of a clear, blue sky they came out of a swamp created by western policies. My question was, given that Bin Laden's own statements contain many grievances dating to the 12th century wasn't it simplistic to consider recent actions as the cause.
Then he did it. He tagged me with a sentence that may haunt me. I saw him nodding his head during my question and it appeared he came to the conclusion that I was actually calling him fairly on a point. He began his answer saying "I'm beginning to get the impression you might be an honest man" Damn! Now he obviously meant it in a way I could appreciate and he separated me from the squads of ditto-head style wankers bludgeoning him with Nerf bats...
"Don't you think it's a bit simplistic..." is practically a shibboleth among leftie intellectuals and lefties who think they're intellectuals. It's shorthand for "There's more than one way to look at this, and I'm aware of that, and I think you should be aware of it, too." The point that UJ actually made regarding Osama's motivation isn't new, in fact, you could read it all over the ditto-head web sites in the wake of 9/11. But the wording of it made it a point that could get past Galloway's emotional armor, and thus be acceptable.
Likewise, the response "I'm beginning to get the impression you might be an honest man," is a typically British excess-of-subordinate-clauses meaning "Nicely done." So the rightie scores a point, and the leftie gets to look like a gent for scoring it for him. And the twain shall meet.
I for one am not convinced that Galloway isn't a shill for Saddam; he's a shill for the UN and the EU, anyway, who were Saddam's biggest enablers. But if even this guy can reach across the aisle when approached in the right way, then none of us are incapable. Be honest, who wants to read anymore flame templates? Can we put together a list of words and phrases to be rejected by serious debaters? Here's a few I think can be safely dispensed with:
1. "I guess you're too balled up in your ideology to understand facts."
2. "echo chamber"
3. "How sad for you to have to confront reality"
4. "talking points"
5. "the people are tired of your lies and distortion"
6. "spin"
And finally...
7. "support the troops."
Monday, September 19, 2005
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Island of Un-Topia
I've been conducting an insteresting experiment in human socialization. As a prequel to studying the Stone Age and the rise of early civilization in Ancient World History, I have come up with a class group activity that requires them to reconstruct human civilization on a small but survivable island in the wake of a nuclear war.
That, however, is not the clever bit. The clever bit is the division of the class into two groups. Group One (The Grassland Tribe) was given one instruction: Survive. You're on your own. Do your best. Group Two (The River Tribe) was instructed to sub-divide into committees for Basic Survival, Work Assignments, Government/Law, and Society/Culture. Hilarity Ensues.
This the record of what they came up with:
Period 6's Grassland Tribe fell under the sway of one ambitious fellow who thought it most profitable to attack and conquer the River Tribe. Despite the fact that he was in a minority, he brought the rest of the Group to his point of view. They even drew up a hit list of who was to be killed and who to be used as slaves. Rumours of war came to the River Tribe and they began to construct panicky plans for a defense, mostly centered on a defensive wall to be built of some kind of mud brick or stone.
Period 7's Grassland tribe likewise fell into a hunter/gatherer dynamic and decided to steal what extra they might need from the River Tribe, presumably by frequent raiding. When questioned about this, they countered that they were justified in doing whatever was necessary to serve their group's needs. The River Tribe was busy constructing their society and had no idea this was even being planned.
Period 1's Grassland tribe supplemented hunting, fishing, and gathering with domesticating the island's goats for milk. The River Tribe had a similar dynamic, yet when asked for comments believed that their society was far more advanced because they had a formal government, which the Grasslanders did not. Otherwise, there was no thought of dealing with the other.
Period 2 is still working. So far the Grassland Tribe has managed to knock over my podium, and the River Tribe is not conducting it's business quietly.
UPDATE: No open declarations of hostility, but conflict seemed ready to arise when the Grassland Tribe declared their intent to use the river as a toilet. The River Tribe's peaceful query of grabbing a few of the goatelopes for domestication purposes was loudly rebuffed, and followed by hard words on both sides. I declared that conflict seemed likely, and everyone agreed.
Incidentally, "Grassland Tribe" and "River Tribe" are terms I use in this post. They weren't used in class.
That, however, is not the clever bit. The clever bit is the division of the class into two groups. Group One (The Grassland Tribe) was given one instruction: Survive. You're on your own. Do your best. Group Two (The River Tribe) was instructed to sub-divide into committees for Basic Survival, Work Assignments, Government/Law, and Society/Culture. Hilarity Ensues.
This the record of what they came up with:
Period 6's Grassland Tribe fell under the sway of one ambitious fellow who thought it most profitable to attack and conquer the River Tribe. Despite the fact that he was in a minority, he brought the rest of the Group to his point of view. They even drew up a hit list of who was to be killed and who to be used as slaves. Rumours of war came to the River Tribe and they began to construct panicky plans for a defense, mostly centered on a defensive wall to be built of some kind of mud brick or stone.
Period 7's Grassland tribe likewise fell into a hunter/gatherer dynamic and decided to steal what extra they might need from the River Tribe, presumably by frequent raiding. When questioned about this, they countered that they were justified in doing whatever was necessary to serve their group's needs. The River Tribe was busy constructing their society and had no idea this was even being planned.
Period 1's Grassland tribe supplemented hunting, fishing, and gathering with domesticating the island's goats for milk. The River Tribe had a similar dynamic, yet when asked for comments believed that their society was far more advanced because they had a formal government, which the Grasslanders did not. Otherwise, there was no thought of dealing with the other.
Period 2 is still working. So far the Grassland Tribe has managed to knock over my podium, and the River Tribe is not conducting it's business quietly.
UPDATE: No open declarations of hostility, but conflict seemed ready to arise when the Grassland Tribe declared their intent to use the river as a toilet. The River Tribe's peaceful query of grabbing a few of the goatelopes for domestication purposes was loudly rebuffed, and followed by hard words on both sides. I declared that conflict seemed likely, and everyone agreed.
Incidentally, "Grassland Tribe" and "River Tribe" are terms I use in this post. They weren't used in class.
Monday, September 12, 2005
"Right now Kennedy et al are frantically searching for pubic hairs."
Anne Althouse blogs the Confirmation hearings (the quote is from the comments).
Might As Well Face It...
I don't know that I agree with the entire thrust of where John Fund and Instapundit are leading us, but it's an argument worth considering. The deeper problem is that we've got two political parties, and neither one of them are interested in making deep cuts in the size and scope of Government. I've suspected that Bush is trying to Starve the Beast, but the amount of pork coming out of Congress belies this idea. So it's a cudgel the Democrats could take up. But they won't.
How can I be sure? Because the economy's decent, and when the economy's decent, no one likes to hear that cuts need to be made. Moreover, the Democrats have too many underbosses from special interest groups who want more, not less. A Democrat who argued in favor of of reducing spending would never make it out of the primaries.
If anything, we'll hear the old "if we can spend money on wars" routine, ad infinitum, as a justification for MORE spending.
Fund:
This we cannot seem to do. The political classes are turned on, (I haven't noticed that McCain-Feingold has made special interests less powerful, have you?) the masses are tuned out. We're waiting for the drop.
How can I be sure? Because the economy's decent, and when the economy's decent, no one likes to hear that cuts need to be made. Moreover, the Democrats have too many underbosses from special interest groups who want more, not less. A Democrat who argued in favor of of reducing spending would never make it out of the primaries.
If anything, we'll hear the old "if we can spend money on wars" routine, ad infinitum, as a justification for MORE spending.
Fund:
One successful test to see if a democracy is mature should be its ability to establish priorities, streamline procedures and engage in fresh, new thinking after a national emergency.
This we cannot seem to do. The political classes are turned on, (I haven't noticed that McCain-Feingold has made special interests less powerful, have you?) the masses are tuned out. We're waiting for the drop.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
The Essayist #8: United Numbskulls
The persistent drumbeat among the right regarding Oil-for-Food continues, though typically ignored among the rest of the media, who would rather tell us that New Orleans is still underwater. For myself, I'm of two minds, about this scandal and the U.N. itself.
The basics first: Oil-for-Fraud may well indeed be the most disgusting display of bureaucratic vileness seen in modern times, a scheme so venal it would have done Boss Tweed proud. And I'm not interested in the excuses or the equivocation. The U.N. bureaucracy and the governments of several Western Nations either sold out the suffering people of Iraq to get their hands on oil, or looked the other way, and in doing so, made the Butcher of Baghdad more wealthy, and his stranglehold on his people more powerful.
But...what were we expecting? The right has been castigating the U.N. as a dictator's club for years. Nations with human rights records scarcely better than Saddam's get to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Nations that refuse to grasp the economic benefit of private property get to draw up expansive tracts on the "just economic order" required to lift themselves out of poverty. Nations that burn brown coal get to wag their fingers at the U.S. and call Bush an "environmental tyrant" because he refused to pay attention to a treaty that our Senate rejected. This is the usual Lower Manhattan Two-Step, whereby thugs and bloated office-seekers transform themselves into the Saviors of the Poor and Friends of the Earth.
But let us step beyond cynicism. I fear that the right's U.N. denunciation is wrongheaded. The U.N.'s purported mission is to represent the world, and in this case, I think it has done so. The source of the organization's problem isn't within. If the U.N. were to vanish tommorrow, the thugs and bloated office-seekers would still be there, and be yet more naked in their brutality and fawning. The world is the real dictator's club. If we could lose the tyrants, we could find dealing with the bureaucrats easier. At any rate, there'd be somewhat less obstruction, and much less need for baby blue helmets to stand around watching genocide.
Ah, but how? Imperial Democracy is not an act that's regularly repeatable, even if it works (I'm confident, but the jury is still out). Probably the best we may hope for is the War on Terror to morph into a Cold War on Tyrants, whereby both parties agree that the security of the U.S. requires diplomatic and occasionally military action against despotic regimes, whatever their strategic value. The logic is not difficult to follow:
1. Tyrants brutalize and engender poverty.
2. Angry, poor people are easily recruited into terrorist and criminal activity.
2a. Tyrants also tend to serve as terrorist and criminal enablers.
3. Terrorists and criminal syndicates, being non-linear threats, have a tendency to encourage free states to greatly increase their security apparati, leading to free societies becoming less so.
And if we can swallow that without protesting our own sinfulness, we can set about doing what must be done.
Update Mark Steyn agrees that U.N. reform is pointless, but doesn't give the same rational. (registration required)
The basics first: Oil-for-Fraud may well indeed be the most disgusting display of bureaucratic vileness seen in modern times, a scheme so venal it would have done Boss Tweed proud. And I'm not interested in the excuses or the equivocation. The U.N. bureaucracy and the governments of several Western Nations either sold out the suffering people of Iraq to get their hands on oil, or looked the other way, and in doing so, made the Butcher of Baghdad more wealthy, and his stranglehold on his people more powerful.
But...what were we expecting? The right has been castigating the U.N. as a dictator's club for years. Nations with human rights records scarcely better than Saddam's get to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Nations that refuse to grasp the economic benefit of private property get to draw up expansive tracts on the "just economic order" required to lift themselves out of poverty. Nations that burn brown coal get to wag their fingers at the U.S. and call Bush an "environmental tyrant" because he refused to pay attention to a treaty that our Senate rejected. This is the usual Lower Manhattan Two-Step, whereby thugs and bloated office-seekers transform themselves into the Saviors of the Poor and Friends of the Earth.
But let us step beyond cynicism. I fear that the right's U.N. denunciation is wrongheaded. The U.N.'s purported mission is to represent the world, and in this case, I think it has done so. The source of the organization's problem isn't within. If the U.N. were to vanish tommorrow, the thugs and bloated office-seekers would still be there, and be yet more naked in their brutality and fawning. The world is the real dictator's club. If we could lose the tyrants, we could find dealing with the bureaucrats easier. At any rate, there'd be somewhat less obstruction, and much less need for baby blue helmets to stand around watching genocide.
Ah, but how? Imperial Democracy is not an act that's regularly repeatable, even if it works (I'm confident, but the jury is still out). Probably the best we may hope for is the War on Terror to morph into a Cold War on Tyrants, whereby both parties agree that the security of the U.S. requires diplomatic and occasionally military action against despotic regimes, whatever their strategic value. The logic is not difficult to follow:
1. Tyrants brutalize and engender poverty.
2. Angry, poor people are easily recruited into terrorist and criminal activity.
2a. Tyrants also tend to serve as terrorist and criminal enablers.
3. Terrorists and criminal syndicates, being non-linear threats, have a tendency to encourage free states to greatly increase their security apparati, leading to free societies becoming less so.
And if we can swallow that without protesting our own sinfulness, we can set about doing what must be done.
Update Mark Steyn agrees that U.N. reform is pointless, but doesn't give the same rational. (registration required)
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Bang, Bang, You're Dead
In my younger days, I was a massively geeked out fan of the Rolling Stones. In a time (mid to late 90's) when really good, simple rock was hard to come by (at least to me), they seemed a good way to check out the music's past: rougher than the Beatles, less pretentious than the Doors or the Who, and a good link to the blues that was Rock's father. I bought a bunch of their albums, including the newer ones. I'll never forget CD-shopping with friends back in 1998, buying "Bridges to Babylon" while everyone else was grabbing stuff buy bands their own age. And as much as I new it wasn't any good, I couldn't say so. I *wanted* it to rock, and said it did.
That was seven years ago. I've vastly expanded the palette since then. I've even made peace with the New Wave wankers from the 80's that I hated so much (but not Hair Metal. NEVER Hair Metal. Hair Metal makes God cry), thanks to 24 Hour Party People and a coupla Joy Division albums.
So obviously I'm only minorly interested in the new Rolling Stones album. On the one hand, it's kinda cool that these guys are actually taking the effort to make new music, when they could coast forever on their back catalogue, occasionally releasing newer and newer compllations of the same songs, like the aforementioned Beatles and Who. I remember an old interview from say, '69, in which Jagger said that he hoped he was still doing this when he was an old man, just like Muddy Waters and Big Bill Broonzy and Mississippi John Hurt and all the guys that were his heros when he was coming up. No rock star could say that nowadays; it seems to be required to embrace ephemerality, to be way too cool to even consider making a living off of your music. So I have to think that these guys are still doing this because they like it, they enjoy the music they make, and they enjoy making more of it. There's something almost innocent about that, and a lot more honest than the hordes of indie bands who suffer guilt seizure as soon as they get mentioned in Rolling Stone.
That said, I have a suspicion that this won't be anything to get excited about. And from the fact that they can't get played on the radio, I'm not surprised. Rock radio has taken such a beating the the last couple of years that I don't know who would play it. The Classic Rock stations would rather play a medley of '68-'72 songs when the band comes to town. The Modern Rock stations won't play anything before 1985, or something that sounds like 1985. Nothing else will play a Rock song. Despite what I've just said, the public at large has long held the Stones to be simply a recurring revival act, a traveling circus to catch if you can snag the tickets but otherwise nothing more than an excuse for Leno to trot out new variations of Viagra, old-age, and Keith-is-dead jokes.
Yet the album is #1 on Amazon. Interesting that a band that saw, even helped to bring about, the rise of rock radio will not only be around to see it fall, but will be able to sidestep the consequences thereof.
That was seven years ago. I've vastly expanded the palette since then. I've even made peace with the New Wave wankers from the 80's that I hated so much (but not Hair Metal. NEVER Hair Metal. Hair Metal makes God cry), thanks to 24 Hour Party People and a coupla Joy Division albums.
So obviously I'm only minorly interested in the new Rolling Stones album. On the one hand, it's kinda cool that these guys are actually taking the effort to make new music, when they could coast forever on their back catalogue, occasionally releasing newer and newer compllations of the same songs, like the aforementioned Beatles and Who. I remember an old interview from say, '69, in which Jagger said that he hoped he was still doing this when he was an old man, just like Muddy Waters and Big Bill Broonzy and Mississippi John Hurt and all the guys that were his heros when he was coming up. No rock star could say that nowadays; it seems to be required to embrace ephemerality, to be way too cool to even consider making a living off of your music. So I have to think that these guys are still doing this because they like it, they enjoy the music they make, and they enjoy making more of it. There's something almost innocent about that, and a lot more honest than the hordes of indie bands who suffer guilt seizure as soon as they get mentioned in Rolling Stone.
That said, I have a suspicion that this won't be anything to get excited about. And from the fact that they can't get played on the radio, I'm not surprised. Rock radio has taken such a beating the the last couple of years that I don't know who would play it. The Classic Rock stations would rather play a medley of '68-'72 songs when the band comes to town. The Modern Rock stations won't play anything before 1985, or something that sounds like 1985. Nothing else will play a Rock song. Despite what I've just said, the public at large has long held the Stones to be simply a recurring revival act, a traveling circus to catch if you can snag the tickets but otherwise nothing more than an excuse for Leno to trot out new variations of Viagra, old-age, and Keith-is-dead jokes.
Yet the album is #1 on Amazon. Interesting that a band that saw, even helped to bring about, the rise of rock radio will not only be around to see it fall, but will be able to sidestep the consequences thereof.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Up at Six, Home at Three
There are compensations to a life in education. If you use your time wisely, you can have half the afternoons to yourself.
Also, my commute goes in the opposite direction of everyone elses. All ten minutes of it.
I feel the hate flowing through you...
Also, my commute goes in the opposite direction of everyone elses. All ten minutes of it.
I feel the hate flowing through you...
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Squirrel Rant on Hurricane Hysteria
NOT work Safe. But it's pretty damn funny, and hard to argue with.
Anarchy in LA!
Fighting on the streets! Sticking it to the Man!
They don't sound happy, though. That's wierd. Where's Rousseau when you need him?
They don't sound happy, though. That's wierd. Where's Rousseau when you need him?
New Orleans: 1718-2005?
Volokh links to a WaPo analysis on how big the Katrina mess will be, long-term. It's rough, but, hey, San Francisco survived the 1906 Earthquake and Fire.
A Few Blogroll Changes
I finally added my friend Matt's new site, UnbornChickenVoice, to take the place of the old Le Tocsin, which died lamented. Incidentally, Matt, I finally saw "Matrix: Revolutions" and it made very little sense at all.
Also changed the Kausfiles link to the basic Slate link, since Kausfiles doesn't have a regular URL. Harrumph.
Also changed the Kausfiles link to the basic Slate link, since Kausfiles doesn't have a regular URL. Harrumph.
SteynOnIraq
The eternal optimist checks out the Iraqi constitution, and gives it the thumbs up. Check it out (Registration required, but hey, it's free).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)