A NOTE ON RAWLS'S CONTRACTUALISM (June 6 2009) Liberals became "progressives" when "liberal" became a term of derision; whether this changed the demeanor of its proponents is another question. What interests us is that the "liberal hour" has been, successfully, extended into decades, not so much in its professed objective of social welfare, but in its employment as an instrument of intellectual justification for social control. With each victory it has pushed, even higher, the demands a "progressive" ideology has placed on ordinary citizens and what is expected of them by way of social conformity. But what began as a sincere regard for unjustifiable social inequality, and prejudice, has grown to encompass a paralyzing agenda, an agenda of anti-individualism and a demand for conformity to ideals that survive unrecognizable in the vanquished creed of those who provided its original respectability, albeit in name, alone. What had begun as "liberality" of mind and being of a "liberal disposition" evolved into something unfamiliar to freedom loving people; and here I mean "political liberalism." It has now become, if not in name, then in reality an obstruction to individual justice, and a promotional device in the service of an agenda that, if fully implemented, would transform what Rawls, himself, referred to as the "basic structure." This, relatively, new concept of "political liberalism" under the name of "fairness," but closer to home is known as "progressivism."
What is lost in Rawls's version of the social contract is the state of nature. Instead, we are to imagine persons in an "original position" of peaceful negotiation. It is, largely, because of this that his two principles lay down conditions of social cooperation among persons who regard one another as free and equal. The concept of "equality" is political from the onset, even before the structure of the society is vamped in its most general structures. Because equality is an assumed condition there is little to distinguish it, except by fiat, from what he elsewhere describes as elements of a "comprehensive" moral view. So not only are we removed from the source of our original insecurity in a state of nature, but we are regulated by a number of assumptions that eventuate in two principles that codify what is, ostensibly, Rawls's own comprehensive view. A more realistic original position, one that addresses the "state of nature" and man's, recurrent, adversarial relation to his fellow man is the following:
Principles of contract must state conditions of social competition, not cooperation; they must regard as free and equal autonomous agents under circumstances of scarcity and competition.Autonomy is essential to the conservative's conception of the desired social contract and it is its success that justifies it, not a priori prescriptions with respect to principles to be once and for all held above the decision making process, which Rawls relegates to the rational as opposed to the reasonable. (Political Liberalism pp. 48-54).Another significant difference bearing on Rawls's dissimilarity to Hobbes is that for Hobbes government is a form of adaptation to nature, red in tooth and claw. It is a rational adaptation to primitive circumstances. Rawls's contract is a stipulation based on certain preconception as to what the ultimate terms of the contract should be, not, as Hobbes would suggest as they in fact are. Hobbes needed the idea of the divine right of kings because the notion of a contract in and of itself was not an obligation creating device, otherwise. Agreements do not necessarily entail obligation, such as an agreement among a large number of people to meet on a certain occasion. For Hobbes the Contract understood as a transferal of rights in exchange for safety is not an obligation creating mechanism. According to H. L. Hart, by contrast, obligation can arise from the sole fact that a law was produced in accordance with certain constitutionally prescribed procedures. Here the ultimate appeal to some basis for obligation is the exercise of laws, themselves, to be exact: secondary laws. Law (or contract) in Hobbes's sense is never self-justifying. It's existence is independent of what justifies it. Similarly, what is "legal" does not, for Hobbes, depend on being able to distinguish what is legal from what is not. Nor is "law" any more a natural kind than "belief" is for, say, Donald Davidson, although it cannot be identified with a physical presence as a belief may in fact be identified with a brain state. In commenting on H. L. Hart, Ronald Dworkin in his classic work Taking Rights Seriously remarks that societies where only rules such as those we have been describing as "adaptive" cannot be said to be "legal" since there is no way to tell the "legal" rules (or habits) from those that are not. (p. 20) However, there is a problem with this line of reasoning.
Even should it be the case that a society lacked a way of distinguishing "legal" rules from those which are not, this would not justify us in claiming that no such set of rules exists. Compare this to the fact that just because a thinker may not have a concept of belief this does not mean it is impossible to attribute, rightly, a certain belief. For if we understand what is legal and what is not we can tell which behaviors are "legal" and which are not, just as we could tell by looking at the behavior of members of our own society. Also, Hart appears to believe that habit qualifies as a accepting a rule of a sort. But what, if Dworkin is correct in his suggestion, would such a habit look like? Finally, we are not to think of habits as "basic actions," for what makes them "habits" is not bodily movement but, rather, the tendency to repeat basic actions of a sort.
Crisis with N. Korea, May 28 2009) Today N.Korea has threatened war against the U.S. and S. Korea. This follows calls for blocking entry to N. Korean ports where the cargo is nuclear material, quite likely, from Venezuela. Russia feigns concern. Iran has sent warships into the Gulf of Aden in an effort to pull U.S. Naval power south of the regions affected by this debacle. Iran had, no doubt, advanced knowledge of N. Korea's intentions. Russia will play both sides as long as it suits its purpose. Putin intimidates when this works; but when he is called to show his hand he cries for restraint; this from the man who has announced his intention to abscond with oil assets on the basis of phony geological claims etc. with the help of the Russian navy defending it flag underneath the icy waters of the N. Pole. Russia here is an impediment to world peace. But the problem is N. Korea. It has taken a leadership role vis a vis. Iran and Venezuela and to a lesser extent Russia.
N. Korea is NOT governed by irrational elements; bloodthirsty, despotic, dictatorial, and dangerous - perhaps - but not irrational. The first move that should be made is not an attack on N. Korea, unless there is an attack on the U.S. but, rather, an attack on the policies N. Korea supports in the most practical of terms. U.S. Naval forces deployed in the area of the Gulf of Aden should flex their muscles; the diplomatic repercussions with regard to China and Russia should be carefully assessed as this would be a test case. The real test is this: should Iran attempt to intimidate the U.S. Navy, Iranian warships should be sunk with impunity in THAT region. This will send a message by proxy of the possible consequences of not negotiating their thermonuclear ambitions; it would, also, send a message to N. Korea. N. Korea is a surrogate of China; Hizbollah etc., are surrogates of Iran; Georgian ethnic Russians are surrogates of Russia. There is a cooperative strategy here. Russia is not fully on board, choosing its position opportunistically without regard for Europe, which has grown effeminate and strategically. China remains Russia's biggest threat and would be defeated by China in an all out war. How China deals with this may, very well, determine Russian/Chinese relations. China is not a warlike country; China wants to be a big player. Well, now, here is its chance. If China can contribute to a resolution of this problem with some finality, and not merely cool it for a few months, then a China of real world class significance will, rapidly emerge.
The U.S. must evaluate its military position and work in tandem with Japan and S. Korea. Any distress caused to China should be addressed by the United States and its allies. No one in his or her right mind can believe that China is passive in this matter because of fear of refugees. That is not only nonsense; it is nonsense beyond belief.
Obama's FIRST Foreign Policy Failure (May 26, 2009) The Obama administration has suffered its first, palpable, foreign policy failure as, today (May 26.2009), it was announced that a second thermonuclear device has been detonated by N. Korea. There has been some criticism from China, but China, as in its dealings with Iran, has remained an impediment to containing the spread of nuclear weapons. China's move is clever and reveals, as does recent Russian behavior, the approach to be taken in dethroning the only power that stands in the way of a new world order, one to be parsed by three axes of power: Venezuela, Russia, and China.
U.S. strategists predicted a testing of Obama's resolve and expectations were of something dramatic, such as the seizure of oil reserves at the N. Pole. But the price of oil does not make this a propitious occasion for this sort of drama, even though it is, almost, certain the U.S. would back down given the current U.S. leadership, or lack of it. In addition, such a strategy would dilute Russian interests insofar as it would be unilateral. In fact it would create consternation both political and economic in Venezuela and China. Instead, there is a new strategy invisible to the naive new president of the United States. That strategy is to bleed U.S. influence using a number of flash points that dwindle in luminosity as the current president shrinks, quietly, in order to avoid domestic criticism over the long haul. Thus Pyongyang's twice refusing bilateral meetings with the Obama people has been received, agreeably, by the Chinese. The pattern fits that of Iran in this, and a number of other instances, such as withholding U.N. action. China is letting Pelosi and company know who the new boss is, viz., the owner of U.S. debt in a crisis that doesn't, nor can it, affect China radically, even in a worse case scenario. Here I disagree with many, otherwise, competent economists who fail to look at the China outside of the major cities.
Pelosi who is, more or less, in charge of U.S. policy both domestic and otherwise, has been a long time critic of China and she is now being given a dose of medicine she, probably, deserves, although the implications for U.S. policy and world peace are diminished to the detriment of China, in fact. The louder the hoots and hollers from Congressional moralists the more quietly is the "lesson" applied to U.S. policy makers. President Obama's learning curve is, at this point, relatively flat. Hilary Clinton now has a definite failure under her belt: the Chinese have become alienated both by the hypocrisy of this administration and the far from cloistered condescending messages Pelosi and company continue to send. Administration moralizing is, often, self deception, but it is deception in the belief that errors can be papered over by simplistic moral messaging. China's message: "Ok, Ms. Pelosi, you have the Dali Lama but we own your ass!" Under the Bush administration the failure of this administration on China would be a topic of lively conversation. Instead, Ms. Pelosi shows her weakness overseas and her strength at home. Hilary is in a fix on this one because her hypocrisy is no less evident than that of Ms. Pelosi, and Pelosi is showing Hilary who is in fact in charge, i.e. the congressional leadership. The economy continues to conceal the foreign policy idiocy these two women continue to promote. Meanwhile the foreign policy establishments of China, Iran, and Russia are having a good laugh at how incompetent policy makers can be.
There will be more small threats; Obama's people will continue to capitulate in the name of peace and the snickers will be followed by real advances, politically, in places like Israel, which by moving towards Europe move away from the U.S. Columbia, which now must negotiate one way or the other with Chavez, compliments of president find itself, also, left in a lurch. The enemies of the U.S. are sticking out their tongues; Obama shakes them like he's shaking hands; smiles and continues to critique his own country for its past "mistakes."
China is playing the right cards, unlike Russia. Russia differs in having a history well understood by the Europeans; China does not own this liability. In fact, a move on Taiwan would provoke only speeches at the White House and a, sudden, change in policy just before such an attack. A new leader of the free world is needed. Who might it be? The west, and the EU in particular is moving away from democracy and towards centralized authority. There is a vacancy sign on the door of the U.S.: wanted a leader of the free world. America's only answer is: "Maybe we haven't been multiculural enough; maybe this freedom isn't so great, after all." The grinning CEOs who have had their testicles kicked down wall street by the adminstration know what is going on, but many are bad businessmen and women. The Chinese are better at business, at politics, and maybe one day at leading the free world. They have the temperment, but as of now no experience. A concluding comment on news I've read since beginning to write this blog.
Ahmadinejad sends six warships to the Gulf of Aden on the same day N. Korea detonates its thermonuclear device; this after he test fires new and dangerous long range missiles, mirroring N.Korea's move. Putin is silent, but the government he runs calls for a new approach to Iran. What is president Obama's response? He invites the Iranians to a game of soccer. Someone is out of touch; someone is the ball of string and someone is the cat; someone is playing and someone is the toy. President Obama had better seek new advice. He's being outmanuevered to the point where soon the voters in the U.S. will see what is going on. He is lucky to be busy giving, almost, daily speeches to soccer moms and out of touch lame brain surbanites, otherwise he might be compelled to attend to the realities that accompany high office,realities that once perceived might force what his political allies would regard as an undesirable change of character as they ponder the challenges of such things as global warming.
Obama's Lesson in Foreign Policy (April 21, 2009) When I was 13 I thought I was a pretty good chess player. Oh, I wasn't Bobby Fisher, or even close, but I could beat a lot of grown-ups and I could play a significant number of moves without a board. But one day I came across another kid who would teach me a lasting lesson. He was a few years older, but the game we played was fair competition.
He played Sicilian but I wasn't sure what he was up to. His variations were aggressive and I was slow to figure out what he was trying to do. However, I was defeated in fewer than twenty moves. It wasn't embarrassing and the other kid was a pretty "cool" guy. By this I mean he didn't derive pleasure so much in beating other people as in playing the game. Maybe this is why he didn't, to the best of my knowledge, become a Grand Master. Still, he taught me a lesson I would, given the chance, impart to president Obama. I asked the kid where I had gone wrong. I felt that while he had played an excellent game, the problem was a defect in my playing more than his extra-ordinary strength. His answer has stuck with me to this day.
"Well," he said, "you weren't sure what I was up to, about the seventh move, and, so, you moved one of your pawns. I realized this was a vacuous move, so I took advantage of your lapse and set out to control the center." I realized, at once, that he was right. "Hey, thanks," I said. I will remember the lesson." This lesson has application in politics. I view Obama smiling and shaking hands with Chavez and others. These guys are thugs, just thugs, and I'm thinking to myself "What move is president Obama making? What is his gambit?" I thought about this for a while and, finally, came to a conclusion one would hope is wrong. I concluded that president Obama didn't really have a "gambit," and that he was making a pointless move. Now I don't believe he thought it was pointless. I believe that he believed that by doing this he would put the ball in Hugo's corner. Obama's gesture was of this sort: "Ok, I've made my move; now, it is your move." But there is a problem.
In fact, president Obama's gesture was no move at all, not even by the usual civilized standards that elude Hugo Chavez. What Hugo (and company) are thinking is: "Well, you've shown us this little dance step, but where's the action?" In other words, the president's friendliness, suggested no further action on his own part, just a wait and see attitude. "Surely," Chavez surmised, "you can't expect me to respond to a hug with real action. After all, you've come to me and, so, I await your offer!" The president has made an unnecessary move and, just as in the case of my chess game, he has by forfeit allowed the opposition the comfort of inaction or action. In other words, president Obama, contrary to his intention has lost the initiative, not taken it. This ain't good.
Diplomacy is not a game in the ordinary sense, but it is game-theoretic in the sense that wasted moves add to the opponents options. In diplomacy the upper hand is not attained by practical reasoning, at least in many important instances. One shapes the playing field by first creating, not finding, holes in the opponents available strategies. One must assume not only a rational opponent, but keep open the possibility of an irrational opponent endowed with the ability to reason. President Obama must realize that he cannot go around shaking the hand of every dictator, sit back and await such a a reaction suggestive of some pattern to be exploited. There is a danger in what Obama has done, particularly with respect to Israel.
At some point, Obama will realize that his gesture was impotent. He will realize that it is he, not Chavez, who is now expected to take the initiative. But what can Obama do that would be consistent with slapping the dictators on the back and exchanging "precious" gifts? There is only one area of foreign policy where Obama has the political capital to compromise U.S. interests, invisibly, as far as the voter is concerned: Israel. Even U.S. Jewry is not keen on Israel. The conservative Christians are incapable of delivering the electoral goods and the media is decidedly anti-Israel. The danger is that once he has realized that he, Obama, is going to have to take the initiative, it will be Israel on the chopping block! The betrayal will be shrouded in the usual platitudes of world peace and contrition and a professed desire for change, if it occurs. Will it occur. The test will be Iran and the "two state solution." Obama will take the initiative by pushing against attacking Iran; if he relents the cost will be, for Israel, pursuing a two state solution. The problem is that two states is not the strongest desire in the Arab world or the other players. A recursive game of conflict suits anti-Israel forces. Iran, therefore, will continue to be a problem and president obama will "take the initiative" after making useless moves at the expense of old friends.
The lesson is: don't make unnecessary moves, otherwise you will be compelled to make more desperate moves in the future. This desperation may drive U.S. foreign policy if this sort of international campaigning continues as a substitute for policy. By the way, the "kid" I played chess with later made significant contributions to the mathematical theory of games. I wonder if he's still around. If he is, and I were Obama, I'd put him on the team.
Obama's Big Foreign Policy Mistake(April 20, 2009) My what a big smile you have Mr. Chavez. President Obama returns the smile. We don't know what the president has to smile about, but we might have some idea what makes Chavez smile, even with oil prices being what they are. But he is not alone. Ahmadinijad is smiling, too, but he is always smiling (like a boxer that has just been hit in the face). But Fidel is smiling, as well. Why is he smiling? All these men are in a smiling mode because it is one substitute for not doing anything significant or because they believe they have achieved symbolic gains. Indeed, all but Obama have gained by Obama's smile. Is THIS why they are smiling?
While Chavez offered the president hugs and some anti-American literature which Obama gratefully accepted, Bolivian President Evo Morales attacked the U.S. and Daniel Ortega went ballistic. The frowns and smiles were orchestrated; the responsive smile on Obama's part was a sign of weakness. But why should it be a sign of weakness to accept hugs and gifts from despots under the guise of improving relations with the common people of S. America. Well, for one, this was not about the common people of S. America, nor was it about U.S. contrition for past mistakes. President Obama, simply, does not know what to do. The Fidels and Ortegas and Chavezs know, exactly, what to do. Obama believes that despotism is the acceptable status quo in S. America. He knows the people are weak and responsive to blame that doesn't call for action on their part, as evidenced in particular by the erosion of freedom in Chavez's Venezuela. Dictators "understand" that the people must be led; Obama does too, except his intention is to lead them out of the wilderness not into it. Obama knows that he will not be president forever; and this is one sharp contrast between S. American dictators (and European ones as well) and president Obama. He thinks short term; they think longer term. But not realizing this is not the biggest mistake Obama is making.
Obama's biggest mistake is not understanding that Chavez and company have only one interest: the projection of their personal influence. It is natural for a nation to want to excel, but global influence for the sake of global influence is a characteristic of leaders of nations and not nations, particularly nations which are satisfactorily endowed with the tools for building prosperous econonomies. The destruction of Venezuela's private sector increases the desire for continued paternal reliance on Chavez. This is to be contrasted with paternalism in China which is less interested in "projection of power" than attracting respect and possessing influence in its region commensurate with its prosperity and influence. China may not be democratic, but the world, barely, knows the names of the leaders of China. The world knows the names of the dictators who are interested in the projection of their own, very personal, influence. Obama's mistake is in believing that Chavez is sincere, that he is engaged in a world cause, when in fact Chavez is engaged in one cause: the cause of Chavez.
Let's see what comes of this in two years; let's see if the winds of change fill the sails of the ship of state president Obama has promised to redeem at the price of indulging the subterfuge of the Chavezs of this world. He will discover the clever (Putin and Kim Jong-il), and the not so clever (Chavez, Ortega etc). Ahmadinejad is someone Obama understands a little bit better. But there is a, potential, political risk for president Obama: after apologizing to Chavez, Castro, for the errors of U.S. policies, he will be confronted with some damaging photos of hugs and kisses. If he doesn't succeed in making the tyrants love him, then these photos will work to the benefit of his opponents. If he does succeed in making the tyrants love him then the photos will, also, work against him. The only winning position would be to be able to say that he has positioned the U.S. in a greater position of strength. Chavez knows this and, so, Chavez sends him a message through Ortega and friends. The message is: "We are going to have you for lunch on one day and dinner on another." Sarkozy sees Obama's weakness on these matters, as does Putin. Kim Jong-il is testing the waters in tandem with the leadership of Iran. The pattern is familiar: threaten with big bombs, test long range missiles, grab reporters as hostages. The patterns are identical in the cases of Iran and N. Korea. The ochestra plays on, but president Obama pretends not to hear the music. The American public is interested in sitcoms, sex, drugs, cars and sports. 47% of the U.S. public think capitalism may not be or is not superior to socialism. The public school systems have made Obama's big mistake difficult to correct, shrouded as it is the continued economic difficulties the administration continues to mishandle.
Three Things to Fear(March 26, 2009) There are three things one must, always, fear.
Which of these men do I fear most? Most certainly, the last; for it is this man who stands the greatest chance of robbing me of my freedom. He will, sometimes, announce that he will borrow my freedom, keeping it only until it is safe for me to be free once again. But that day will never come. I fear him because his strength is the fear of freedom felt by those who, instead of taking freedom as a condition of rational deliberation, regard it as an empty assumption, one that, typically, serves as a justification for inaction, a "dead battery" one keeps telling one's self can be used just in case of emergency - even while harboring doubts that won't go away. You see, just as Eric Fromm suggested in his book Escape from Freedom, the expectations that accompany freedom are uncertainty and insecurity. We fear freedom when we take the initiative freedom guarantees. The "escape from freedom" is an escape from having to take any new initiative. Such fear leaves open the door to a paternalism that offers a false sense of security in exchange for those tools required in order to make freedom productive and not a source of uncertainty. So I fear these people most. So you say you are doing this for my own good? And who might you be? And what do you, really, want?
- First, one must fear the man who says God speaks to him. Such a man carries the word of God in the form of new Commandments or invocations to action. I fear this sort of man because a lot of people pay attention to people of this sort.
- Second, one must fear the man who calls other men bigots. Such a man, commonly, cloisters his own bigotry while calling for action against those whom he despises. Shrouded in the mere appearance of virtue he incites, rather than enlightens; his protest against injustice, as he would define it, takes the form of punishment of those with whom he disagrees. I fear such a man because his professed good intentions leverage action by means of invisible motives of his own. Motives made visible only by the shadow of his own indifference to what he claims to value most.
- Third, is the man who who is intent on saving me from myself. He is condescending and his taste in government is, typically, at the extremes of paternalism. I fear him because, however I may resist, he will use my "self interest" to promote his own.
The Cambridge online dictionary defines 'fascism' this way:
Bernanke's Fallacy; Geithner's Evasion, 2009) Tuesday March 24 Geithner was asked by my former House Representative, Michael Capuano, whether toxic assets were being used to collateralize debt obligations. To what must of been the astonishment of many, Geithner replied that the FDIC was, indeed, doing this very thing; but he argued that this was not included as coming at taxpayer's expense because the FDIC is not a public entity. Capuano, a dyed in the wool Democrat, expressed dissatisfaction with the answer, correctly pointing out that the FDIC receives the de facto backing of the tax payer. Clearly if the Democratically controlled Congress is going to bail out GM, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, auto-parts companies...and the list goes on...they sure as hell aren't going to let the FDIC fail. Indeed a look at FDIC borrowing reveals increased reliance on government entities. This is a clear example of the sleight of hand we are growing accustomed to as "child emperor" Geithner continues to pursue with unabashed naivete a policy that will not succeed. In support, however, of its success Bernanke offered a fallacy only a mystic would accept.
When asked for evidence that the policies were succeeding,given given that the taxpayers had lost about 40% of all they owned in pensions, retirement and holdings, Bernanke replied that if they hadn't taken the actions they did the taxpayer would have lost 70%, not 40%, of his assets. "Well, that makes me feel a lot better," was the reply to his answer. But the interlocutor would have done well to provide a lesson in elementary reasoning to the highly tauted Bernanke. What Bernanke offers us is a fallacy. Economics is a science; a human science, but a science. Science has certain standards of acceptance based on verification. So when Bernanke was asked for evidence FOR a theory he replied with ANOTHER THEORY (!), viz. the THEORY that things would have been worse. The fallacy is compound. Not only is his reasoning circular in assuming the truth of the theory on which his economic reasoning is based but he offers as VERIFICATION just another THEORY. A fallacious bit of logic. It is as if to say to the FDA were to approve a drug because although only a few thousand died a few million would have died otherwise WITHOUT offering positive data. Bottom line: you can't prove a theory by offering another theory.
Support Adam Andrezejewski for Governor of Illinois
Illinois Representatives Refuse to Take a Stand on Direct Elections Another example of What is Wrong with the Illinois Republican Party
Feb 23, 2009)
A TALE OF TWO GM DEALERSHIPS; Advice for GM Recently, I purchase a GM car. It was a Cobalt (2008). It has good mileage, maneuvers well, and is dependable in cold weather. I like the car. It's simplicity of design, aside from the forty dollar key with the bar code, which I think is nuts. Still it is a fine car, one that proves GMs ability to make cars in a competitive market. I want GM to succeed. I buy GM and hope for the best. I oppose the bailout, however, and have a couple of ideas about how GM got in this mess, even though they can make a good car when they want, or need to.
The problem with GM is, largely, in sales. Not that they don't have salesmen, or can't sell, but, rather, that they don't sell as well because they are making some mistakes in how their dealerships operate. My experience in buying my Cobalt is one example of the problem. Here's the story. I wanted a second car; what I didn't want was a high end gas guzzler with such a complex engineering design that there would be a million things that go wrong. I don't like power windows; I don't like power trunk latches; power locks etc. I don't like things that are designed with the intent of "helping me." I've found myself locked out of these fancy models because of the sequencing of the automatic locking systems. So I wanted a simple, efficient, well put together car.
My first approach was to call the local dealership in my town. Larry Roesch Chevrolet. It's huge; it sprawls over several acres of land and is situated among a number of competing brand name distributors. They had a huge inventory. I had brought in my other vehicle for repair and when I left I asked about deals on a Cobalt - I'd researched the pertinent data, already. Ok, the guy at repair tells me he'd fix me up with one of the dealers, one of the owner's family involved in the business. "Ok, fine," I said. So l took the card of the salesman and left. I came back to pick up my car. I couldn't find the guy who recommended the salesman. "Where is X?" I asked. "Oh, he had a disagreement with how the business should be run with the owner and isn't here anymore." That should have told me something. Anyway, I took the salesman's card and gave him a call. "Well, he's not in right now. He's shoveling snow. But come in there is someone to take care of you." I am undaunted. I don't feel like running all over creation looking for a car. The prices are all about the same and they had all those cars, so I said "I'll be over soon."
I showed up at the dealership and a young kid puts down a broom and comes over to help. He's an affable young man, but he barely knows how to pop the hood. He can't answer my questions, and I'm beginning to think he is the janitor or the owners nephew. There are a couple of "businessy" guys, both looking like they are doing important things. I see that I'm getting nowhere, so I politely take my leave. I drive to Downer's Grove Illinois, which is close, but not real close.
I go down Ogden, and there it is. Less huge, but huge. (Ogden Chevrolet). I walk in the door. The look like car salesmen, or "repo-men" not sure which description fits best. Everybody is busy. There is a kid (in his twenties) watching. I am making all the "I'm in the market to buy gestures." Well, you know. The kid swiftly approaches. I show him an advertisement from the other guys. There is a price. I put it simply: "Can you beat this price? If you can, you might have a sale." He literally runs to the big round thing with an important looking guy standing behind it. While he talks I look at the other guys. The others, and there were others, are at their computers or going through the motions. In my early youth I was a salesman; I still talk a lot, and love sales. The kid returns. He says he will beat the price. We go into the office, and suddenly the rest of the world of cars has an interest. I felt that since I'm buying and have the money to do that he will willingly endure my interrogation.
"What are all those guys doing at computers?" I ask. "Oh they are checking their mail; they do a lot of business by answering questions like that." "I see," I said, "they are basically order takers." "Order takers?" he replied. I mentioned to him that back in the days when I sold for Fuller Brush, door to door, we had an expression to set ourselves apart from those who just "take orders." What we did by contrast was thought of as "the hard sell," which is the opposite of "order taking." I mentioned to the fellow, his name was Troy, that I admired the way he was waiting for customers, rather than doing online sales. He got the sale; they guys on the computer are, probably, still playing with email. Later when I returned to pick up the car, Troy said that he had jokingly referred to his colleagues as "order takers." He laughed and said that it upset them. I told him he was a good business man, and asked about his ambitions. He said he would probably leave. "Why?" I asked. "Well, it's a family owned and operated business; I'm not family; things might be better, future wise." A while later when the time for an oil change had come, I discovered that Troy was gone. Probably scooped up by someone who wanted a smart, believable, businessman without the usual MBA symptomology. What is my advice to GM?
My advice to GM is this: When you reduce your dealerships, don't be swayed by the "you can't put families out of business." All too often they are ingrown and resistant to ideas. You want to survive selling electric cars and wind propellers on the roof? Good luck! If you are going to sell this sort of junk - solar cars etc - then you are going to need good sales people. Family owned businesses are not fine; they offer nothing to the natural salesman. The best salesmen are born not made; and the talent is not a matter of kinship.
Bertrand Russell on Locke Jan. 18, 2009)
Bertrand Russell's view of Locke contains some disturbing misunderstandings of Locke's political philosophy. And here I mean some remarks he makes in Chpt. XIV of HWP.
Russell is right to attribute the labor theory of value to Locke, rather than Marx, as its original source. But, I think, this realization led to subtle difficulties in his view of Locke. One is that there is a difference between one's labor and the output of one's labor. Russell seems to think that only the latter amounts to property in Locke's sense. But this is a mistake. So what is property for Locke? If Russell is right, it appears to be a bunch of "stuff." But is this really true? Consider:
...every man has a property in his own person...The labor of his body and the work of his hands...For this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man can have a right to what that is once joined to." (The Second Treatise on Government, Library of Liberal Arts, Bobbs-Merrill. p. 18.Here it is not the products of his labor but, rather, his labor per se. There is an act/object distinction that escapes Russell, or so it seems. A distinction that Marx didn't miss, for example, in the 1844 Manuscripts. But there is more. Russell concludes,
"When an international government has been created, much of Locke's political philosophy will agian become applicable, though not the part of it that deals with private property." (op. cit. p. 640)But Locke never talks about "private property"; never! So Russell is lumping together a few things are inventing something. I think it's the former. The problem is that Russell and other anti-captialist thinkers have CONFUSED what Locke meant by 'property'. He did NOT mean 'stuff I possess', as in personal possessions. Sure they are included but there is something far more imporant for Looke which the left wing commentators have, perhaps consciously, neglected to discuss. Included in property is, according to Locke "life, liberty, and estate." (op. cit. p. 48) Only the last is on the "agenda" to discredit Locke, which is pervasive in U.S. institutions of "higher" learning.
Locke is insistent on this inclusion. He even goes so far as to remind the reader.
"By Property I must be understood here, as in other places, to mean that property which men have in their persons *as well as goods*." (op. cit. p. 98).So Russell is partly responsible for a misunderstanding of Locke that persists among opponents of capitalism. Would that they knew what, exactly, they are talking about, before making Locke such an easy target for public thrashing before their eager sophomores.
An Example of Overregulation 2008) Philip A. Hart authored the first truth in packaging legislation. He was opposed by members of the party I support; the Republican Party. It is important that Republicans recall their mistakes and acknowledge them, when they occur. Hart, along with Paul H. Douglas and Abe Ribicoff did a great deal of work on regulative legislation that is difficult to question in this day and age. However, it is difficult to be shy about opposing some incredible legislation that has required companies to do nutty stuff. Consider the following I found on a grocery store item:
Now what do you think this item was? Now get this: The user, who is, clearly, expected to be literate, is being told to "inspect the product" and seek adult supervision. Right? Or Wrong? You figure. Further, this thing may break. Yeah. OK, but so it breaks what's the big deal. Is it glass, a bottle of mercury, poison gas? No. The item is, actually, made of plastic. And what is it? It's a Tony the Tiger plastic bowl. Now as much as I admire Senator Hart, I have to think that he would think this is nuts. Someone once said that if a good idea has been around for twenty years, someone is going to exploit it. In this instance it's politicians who can say they passed "protective legislation for children." Well, the plastic bowl could shatter; the child could snatch up the plastic parts and swallow them! By the way, if anyone wants to pay for insurance against damage by falling meteors I think I know where it is to be had... The liberals take a good idea; milk it; abuse it; and finally turn it into something ridiculous and then force people to do stupid things like issue warnings about the dangers of eating out of a plastic Tony the Tiger bowl. I saw something similar on a ladder some years ago, warning that you might fall off this ladder. That seems more likely, but the warning is equally stupid; welcome to the liberal-land of justice.WARNING! Always use this product with adult supervision. Before each use, inspect the product. Throw away at the first sign of damage or weakness. This product may break if dropped. WASH THOROUGHLY BEFORE USE.
An Example of Overregulation 2008) Philip A. Hart authored the first truth in packaging legislation. He was opposed by members of the party I support; the Republican Party. It is important that Republicans recall their mistakes and acknowledge them, when they occur. Hart, along with Paul H. Douglas and Abe Ribicoff did a great deal of work on regulative legislation that is difficult to question in this day and age. However, it is difficult to be shy about opposing some incredible legislation that has required companies to do nutty stuff. Consider the following I found on a grocery store item:
Now what do you think this item was? Now get this: The user, who is, clearly, expected to be literate, is being told to "inspect the product" and seek adult supervision. Right? Or Wrong? You figure. Further, this thing may break. Yeah. OK, but so it breaks what's the big deal. Is it glass, a bottle of mercury, poison gas? No. The item is, actually, made of plastic. And what is it? It's a Tony the Tiger plastic bowl. Now as much as I admire Senator Hart, I have to think that he would think this is nuts. Someone once said that if a good idea has been around for twenty years, someone is going to exploit it. In this instance it's politicians who can say they passed "protective legislation for children." Well, the plastic bowl could shatter; the child could snatch up the plastic parts and swallow them! By the way, if anyone wants to pay for insurance against damage by falling meteors I think I know where it is to be had... The liberals take a good idea; milk it; abuse it; and finally turn it into something ridiculous and then force people to do stupid things like issue warnings about the dangers of eating out of a plastic Tony the Tiger bowl. I saw something similar on a ladder some years ago, warning that you might fall off this ladder. That seems more likely, but the warning is equally stupid; welcome to the liberal-land of justice.WARNING! Always use this product with adult supervision. Before each use, inspect the product. Throw away at the first sign of damage or weakness. This product may break if dropped. WASH THOROUGHLY BEFORE USE.
Obama's Greatest Potential Enemies: the Civil Rights Old Guard(Nov. 23, 2008) Barack Obama's worst, political, enemy may very well turn out to be the African American political establishment, headed by people like Jess Jackson and Louis Farrakahn. Obama has, you can be sure, a way of messaging these people. I believe he has done this openly but in subtle ways. It is done in an amusing way, something like a joke. But what he may be facing is no joke.
One of the rap "artists" (ugh!) in celebratory fashion remaked "Man, it's gonna be Chocolate City!" Well, if we could figure out, exactly, what this means, we'd probably know it is false. Obama is not, racially, "provincial" and he knows that this is not what being the first African American president is all about, but that is what it is all about for a lot of these activists. Guys like Rev. Wright, Rev. Jackson, and all those other "Reverends" who are in the "business" because that is the position of influence in the black community. But Obama is not going to "deliver" and here is what is going to happen.
At some point, these guys are going to put pressure on Obama to "deliver." These people, Jesse Jackson, for one (who many years ago was a first class civil rights worker), are going to let him know that unless he divides the "spoils" he, Jackson (and others) are going to pull the rug out from under him by whispering in the ears of their followers that he is not what he appeared to be, and that he's not REALLY a black man. Obama is smarter than these guys; he's thought of this. So what is he going to do?
What Obama is going to do is return to the centrist white community and Hispanics to support him. In addition, there are elements of the southern black establishment who don't, really, like the northern leadership. Watch to see where Harold Ford Jr. out of Tennessee ends up. This guy is fine African American politician, whom I believe was more deserving that Obama of the position Obama now holds. He is from the south and he has the support of a lot of support, even though he doesn't handle the political ball as well as he should. Richardson's mediocre placement is a reflection of Obama's decision to absorb Clinton administration resources, rather than really go with "change." Richardson may now be making the effort to look like the much maligned "Frito Bandito" but his lack of a Spanish surname will prove a liability. So Obama has got to nominate an Hispanic to the SCOTUS. That is what I think he ought to do, but he might, given his academic background, go with a lefty like Ginsburg, probably the most disappointing appointment since Souter. Still, the problem is with the black established leadership.
At some point, Rev. Wright is going to invite himself to the White House; at some point so is Jesse Jackson; and, at some point, Obama will have to make some hard choices. IF he is no longer the "black fantasy friend" (the expression is that of a Clinton operative) of soccer moms and dull witted college guys - rosy cheeked round heads with little contained therein and wolfy looking "honor students" who wear their their mortar boards to the gym - then the "racial dialogue" will, suddenly, move forward and the country will, most likely, be divided. There is one other, potential enemy, the Eurocrats! More on these boring folks later.
Obama: American African vs. African American (Nov. 10, 2008) People talk of Barack Obama as an African American. That is sometimes a liberal evasion, but sometimes something said in a way that betrays some naivete. Barack Obama is NOT an "African American" he is an "American of Immediate African Descent" or "American African." There is a distinction here that needs to be understood, if one is to understand the complexities of this, rather, large ego.Obama came to Chicago in order to advance himself as a black man, not as a white man, because as a white man he would have no chance because he is an American African. So he became or, more accurately, sought to become an African American. He could find no better place than the town I love; nor could he move to a more fitting neighborhood than the one in which I did a lot of my growing up: the South Side, although in my day it was a mixed neighborhood. Obama knew this was the place to be.
Obama was explicit in his belief that Chicago is the capital of black America.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/000317/
He is right, and his association with Rev. Wright is evidence of this belief, particulary, given that his defeat by Bobby Rush was facilitated by the advantages Rush enjoyed with African American pastors. Rush critized Obama for a lack of anything but a bookish familiarity with the Civil Rights Movement. This was an implicit challenge not only to Obama as a young recent arrival, but it was also a challenge to Obama's authenticity as a black man. Indeed, it is an unsavory fact of that election that Barack's not being black contributed to his defeat. One may question this, or criticize one for even raising the question, but consider this: Barack Obama defeated Hilary Clinton, the most formidable political personality within the Democrat establishment. He went on to demolish a well known Republican moderate, whose body had been twisted by America's enemies in time of war. Obama has defeated the insiders, the outsiders, the blacks, the whites; he has beaten virtually everyone but Bobby Rush! Think about it: the most intrepid politician America has seen since Huey Long, defeated by Bobby Rush. How on earth did this happen! Answer: Obama was not perceived as black enough, for one; for another there was another division that could not be overcome.
Any curious, perceptive American, is aware of the marked differences between Americans from Africa and African Americans, allowing for complications related to Haitians, some generalizations cannot be dismissed out of hand. One of them is that Americans from Africa have never been in the sort of need that created the African American church; this having to do with escaping slavery and adjusting to life as a free-man in a hostile white society. Obama knew this in a bookish way; he knew, also, that he could not win as a half-white black man against an "authentic" black man unless he identified with radical elements. This no doubt served him well among leftist whites who are favored in academia, whether or not they are academically superior. Obama, therefore, as an American from Africa and not an African American. Now some will question this distinction in Obama's case, but to do so is to miss the point. Yes, he was born an American, but his father was African and this set him apart both as an object of envy and scorn; the latter one would surmise when any element of competitiveness surfaces, such as in the case of Bobby Rush. Obama had to become an authentic African American and not "just" an American with immediate African roots. Obama plays basketball; he does all those requisite black things, except go on to become a brilliant Harvard Law student, graduating with distinction. Well, I don't think to this day he could beat Bobby Rush! Ask why, answer why and you will understand the next President of the United States.
The Liberal Fantasy Dialogue with Obama (Nov. 9, 2008) For those conservatives, who were not left-wing radicals in their youth, let me tell you what is happening immediately after this election in the minds of the radical left. The younger leftists have more or less forgotten the election, until the coronation. The older leftists, however, are having an imaginary dialogue with what one Clinton supporter described as their "imaginary black friend."
This is both a strength and a weakness for Obama, and suggests an answer to the question of whether Republicans ought give Obama a Honeymoon. The problem with fantasy friends is that fantasies not only fade, they can turn negative. The Republican approach to Obama, the fantasy, ought to be to see that this negative turn takes place sooner rather than later. The fantasy dialogue must be exposed for just that. In order to achieve this end, more will be required than is within the intellectual and tactical means of our present Republican leadership. Boehner's lawyerly demeanor ill suits him to the task. He is weak, ineffectual and is unable to articulate the Republican position in anything but dreadfully boring monotones. Campare Obama, who is "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," with Boehner, an organization man with nothing BUT portfolio; and while Mitch McConnnell is intellectually up to the task his persona is ill suited to the rough and tumble politics that will be required. The leadership is, quite simply put: ineffectual, mediocre, and uninspiring.
The country has been so thoroughly innundated with Obamanalia that it will grow weary of this face more quickly, despite its appeal. What Repubs ought to do is keep that face up front, but all the while casting upon it a powerful negative light. Give him a chance? Sure, but don't give his ideas a chance. Challenge them at every turn.
Here is an example of an issue that may resonate. Obama professes to be a citizen of the world, and, oh, how the America haters love it! Will he remain a citizen of the world? You bet! So, when U.S. companies leave, the U.S. the message ought to be that companies and people who work for them are, likewise, citizens of the world and should be encouraged to seek what is best for the world and their workers. Make clear that this is undesirable UNLESS your philosophy includes world citizenship in a sense which, almost a priori is anti-U.S. Hold Democrat feet to the fire.
Moreover, if Obama's economic policies are, consistently, applied they will fail and in the next two years there will be a perfect opportunity for Repubs to take advantage of his mistakes. The Repubs must HOWL or they will not so much as be heard. Along these lines, this is what will get attention and press; not Boehner offering up one of his dismal monologues. So Repubs should point out the inevitability of failure in the coming two years. They should be specific, early: if Obama can't keep unemployment down to under 7.5 during the coming year, hit him! If he changes course, hit him! Hit him on bailing out the bankers. Hit him on punishing big business while bailing it out; in particular the very ones who got us in this position. This will allow for a clear distancing from the hypocrisy of Bush (who has in other matters been unfairly bashed) and McCain (whom I supported with alacrity against Obama). The louder the Repubs are the better off they will be in the next election. Another point.
Rank and file Repubs who are conservative and active must purge their ranks of worthless Republican leaders, in states like Illinois. Many, not all, Illinois Republicans who are incumbants are "wowed" by the Obama's power and feel that if they are inconspicuous enough, or wishy-washy, they
Obama: American African vs. African American (Nov. 10, 2008) People talk of Barack Obama as an African American. That is sometimes a liberal evasion, but sometimes something said in a way that betrays some naivete. Barack Obama is NOT an "African American" he is an "American of Immediate African Descent" or "American African." There is a distinction endearing themselves to the voting public. My advise to Republicans: Define yourself! Engage the opposition vocally enough to receive much attention early. Bi-partisanship in the mouth of a Republican is a poison pill, offered by Democrats whose intentions are as selfish as their policies are destructive. Want an idea of where the Democrat intelligensia is going? Consider John Rawls A Theory of Justice Chapter II. You will be able to anticipate their social agenda with respect to finance by looking at this, the most influential work in philosophy in left oriented law schools. More on that later.In conclusion: the political target is to diminish the fantasy of Obama before his policies fail, then let that failure confirm the message.
Obama's First Two Years (Oct. 25, 2008) At this stage, Obama clearly appears to be a "shoe in" for the presidency, although nothing is final. Here are a few thoughts on this America transforming event.
1. Obama will destabilize U.S. enemies who suspect him of sympathizing with the jihadists. If he is smart he will exploit this to buy time and develope a foreign policy of restraint without retreat.
2. Obama will be more popular than leaders of many countries in the EU constellation. This will prove a detriment to some leaders as alignment with U.S. interests will become increasingly popular.
3. The anti-conservative "industry" in the U.S. will have little to talk about except how well things are going. This will weaken prospects for a strong showing in the next two year election.
4. Obama's election will allow moderates in the Republican party to make a move. Republicans are perceived as intolerant and narrowly self interested in little round white guys who "own their own business."
5. Obama is, basically, ignorant. This is owing to his youth. His vanity is the only thing standing in the way of his learning and acting in accordance with reality: the white left-wing elites that have fed his campaign with money and support. He must govern from the center, but not until the second or third year. The first year and a half will be all far left nonsense.
6. Vanity will provide the basis for manipulating Obama on the international stage. He is vain and it shows. He has "womanly" weaknesses and few "womanly" strengths. He has led a charmed life. This will not persist outside the U.S. press who will bill him within a couple years as the best president since Jefferson no matter what happens. John Kennedy will be forgotten.
7. Obama's election will result in a sea change in the power structure of the Democrat Party. Hilary Clinton will be strongly challenged not only by an independent or Republican opponent, but she will have to answer for her anti-Obama campaign. She's, basically, cooked. This applies to the cadre of African American politicos who have "cashed in," politically, in the left wing Establishment. Jesse Jackson is now the "mud man" of the Democratic Party. Always fashionable to dump on him, privately, (I will not name names), it will be open season - unless, and more likely, he is forgotten to death! Since Obama is from Chicago this exacerbates his dilemma. Jackson "The Younger," a Chicago politicians will have to make nice, but this will to some degree cut into his support.
8. The political deck, so to speak, will consist in about 30 "race cards." Every criticism of substance will be challenged as racially motivated. Long a trump card, it may lose some of its power, excepting for one fact.
9. The racial divide under Obama's leadership will increase, owing mainly to the Pelosi types and other white elitists in the Democrat Party. This will result, regrettably, in a huge increase in, actual, racist organizations - both black and white.
10. Hispanic Americans will be relegated to the back row. Why? Because Obamaniacs will have to assuage skeptical whites who voted for him; and they will have to explain why - contrary to what one "rapper" guy predicted - there is no "Chocolate City." So Hispanics will get the crumbs, providing the Repubs with their best opportunity.
11. Republicans will have to restructure or die. The present leadership is a joke, if not a menace to the principles which have held the Party together. The anti-gay stuff will have to be muted. It didn't work this election; it won't work in the next; and it harks back to a bygone era best forgotten; and here I am NOT really addressing the gay "issue" per se. Indeed, there is a larger issue of tolerance. The Repubs have to cultivate a live and let live image.
12. Democrats in Congress will via the "fairness doctrine" go through conservative talk radio and cut it's throat. This will provide a major victory, along with labor law legislation allowing prohibition of secrecy at the union ballot box. This is just a beginning: education will suffer even more, as the ideologues on the left become even more entrenched.
13. America haters can rejoice; this is their day. How long will it last? I think forever. The decendency of the U.S. is now inevitable; the excuse for failure will redound upon Bush. Reagan was the whipping boy for over a decade; all they need is one more decade and it will be complete. The old/new left will disappear and a few historians will ponder how the U.S. became a banana republic.
14. U.S. international corporations will continue to leave the States. They will be penalized at first, but this will make little difference; they will leave and start up companies will dwindle. Welcome to the new United States. If you hate us; you will come to love Obama if you don't already.
15. One area where Obama will be a good thing for the States is that there will be improved relations with African nations south of the Sahara. All the money and effort on the part of China to curry the favor of African politicos will have been, largely, wasted. This won't be obvious because African leaders are all too often underestimated in their ability to understand global relations. They aren't Somalian pirates; no, many are very clever and, at heart, not anti-American.
16. Over time the Eurocrats are going to be in for something of a surprise. Gradually Europe is going to become FAR less important to the American political scene. Obama is, in his words, intent on "changing the world." His interests are global and sociological, less than political. This is too his credit. He is a good human being with a conscience. As much as I oppose him, I believe he will be among the most morally correct U.S. presidents in history. But, taken together, with the growing S. American population the ascendency of Obamania will, slowly, but surely dissolve U.S. ties with Europe. The Eurocrats won't care. The Terrorists will be a bit alarmed but patient. There will be nothing to tie the U.S. and Europe outside of what to do about the credit markets, which will dry up as the Democrats "punish" business. The U.S. as an extension of Europe is now a memory; perhaps that is best for all. What is CERTAINLY not true is that the Eurocratic political moralists will have an increased influence; to the contrary, they will be left to fight global warming in places like Belgium and Germany! So much for relevance.
The Bail-Out Bill (Sept 30, 2008) Here comes the bail-out bill, for a second time! 700 Billion or "we all die"! Such is the garbage flying from the roofs of Fox Business News, to take an example (since it it the best out there). I lost big on AIG and WB. I am frugal but I take chances because I'm a capitalist and can, sometimes, afford it. Of course I'm disappointed but I knew the rules. What scares me is changing the rules; what scares me is the prospect of killing the goose that laid the golden egg, while the jokers in DC lay an egg, a bad one at that, of their own. I never thought I'd agree with Ron Paul on anything, but on this one he's got the right idea, as do some others. Here are a few points I would raise about this bill.
1. Part of the rationale for this bill is to save the people who got in over their heads because they misjudged or were deceived. Assuming this is true,should we favor the too stupid to judge right or the too naive to judge right? If we want to bail them out, then let the STATES do it. Not only are so called conservative selling out free market principles, they are selling out states rights (and responsibilities)
2. Why should folks in Kansas, where prices have been moderate, have to bail out status seeking New Englanders and Californians who bought outside their means? Again, cry me an ocean of tears but cry for the people in those small towns of under 9,000, for example, who have are being asked foot the bill. Again, same old liberal/left nonsense: same paternalism: "We're doing it for your own good; you don't understand, poor fellow. So let's take your money, lest you don't have money.
3. A lot of these problems with credit swaps, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, etc. has been lack of transparency. Now the same bone-heads like Dodd are presiding over the largest banking bill ever. Let's have far more accounting transparency.
4. If there is going to be a bailout, let's not try in one fell swoop. These are magnitudes of currency these dopes are playing with that have effects that no one understands. "Let's recreate creation and see if things don't blow up; we gotta do something." If it were a matter of simple scientific interest that would be better than panic spending with money we don't have in order to save money we spent and never had in the first place.5. Here's one no one talks about: the future. Suppose another crisis in an unrelated area. Natural disasters, disease etc. What then? Raise taxes? On what?!
6. Here's one the Democrats will love: the week after Obama gets elected he will HAVE to fulfill his ridiculous promise to bring an end to the war on terror. It will suffice to send in a couple of international cops, presumably, to go after Bin Laden. Yes, Bin Laden, an irrelevant symbolic entity indicative only of Obama's naivete. So the war on terror will be dismissed for "sound" economic reasons. Wonderful?
Illinois Review as Exemplary of What is Wrong with the Illinois Republican Party
Putin's Military(Sept 1st, 2008) A couple of comments are in order with respect to Putin's invasion of his neighbor, Georgia. His imperialist agenda is now self evident. I want to make clear that I am talking about Putin, not the Russian people, or particular individuals such as Gary Kasparov who is one of the most heroic Russians since Solzhenitsyn. It is not easy for me to criticize Russia. It is easy to criticize Putin.There is irony in Russia's plight under "Thug Putin." Russia is a cultural marvel when looked at historically. In literature, they have produced the greatest fiction writers since Sophocles; in art and mathematics, and many other "hard" academic areas they are better than good; they have been an inspiration. Among my favorites during my youth, among Russian-American, were Andrew Ushenko and Otto Struve. There is a depth to the "Russian Soul" and a persistence of spirit against obstacles that would crush a lesser people; but, now, back to "Putin's Conquest."
I will not, presently, comment on the geopolitical circumstances of the invasion. The Georgians let their eye off the ball, so to speak, and Putin under optimal circumstances, which included an ongoing Olympic games, made his move accordingly. China was, probably, miffed by the whole thing, as one might infer from their lack of support for Putin's misadventure. But the impression Putin wanted to make has been suppressed for some very obvious reasons. His military stinks!!
Contrast how Putin's armies dealt with their neighbors as compared to how the U.S. military dealt with its most bitter, head-chopping-off radical Islamic goons. The U.S. employed smart bombs. Russia, dumb bombs. The U.S. compensated innocents, even when the evidence was, rather, dubious. Putin would consider this a sign of weakness. He would be right. The U.S. military gave people a chance to evacuate; Putin's military did just the opposite. The U.S. military had embedded press; Putin, being the thug he is, had no press embedded. Putin got a lovely press, by comparison, because he excluded them. This shows the incredible naivete of a stubbornly pro-Soviet (to this day) press. And make no mistake: Putin is an old line Soviet style dictator. Where were the photos of broken children held over the heads of angry fathers; where were the accounts of civilian victims; where were the interviews with Russian soldiers? Then there's the ethnic angle. The U.S. military attacks terrorists in order to protect people who, by a majority, think it's ok to kill AMERICANS! Putin's army attacks neighbors in order to "protect" the political interests of those with whom he claims ethnic allegiance. The world would vibrate with anger if the U.S. did anything like this!
Putin wants to make Russia a powerful influential country. He has no smart bombs; his tanks are junk; his artillery can, rarely, hit the broad side of a barn; his only industry is oil. The world is coming to despise him. His criteria of success resemble that of the other despots of the world, past and present. He is, now, one of them and he hides behind love of Russia. Russia, a country that would thrive without Putin. There is talent in Russia being lost because owing to the confidence that big oil brings. But I have a word for the Putins of this world and his like in barbarous countries, and that is this: the U.S. Congress is going after the energy problem. Within two years the fate of Putin will be put in a new focus by U.S. technology and its inventiveness, which in the past has strongly benefited by good Russians fleeing people like Putin.
Russia is in trouble. I stand by Russia in opposing the dictator, who will inspire only tragedy.
Defending Sarah Palin(August 30, 2008) The reaction to Sarah Palin's nomination has been predictable, unlike the originating cause. The Democrats are, for the most part, either Nonsense! They are running scared and hoping she's a "ditsy chick" (or worse) who will easily be brought out into deep waters and sunk by Joe Biden. Dream on my Democrat friends. People will vote for Minnie Mouse over Sylvester! I used to fear Biden. I did so until it was noticed that he couldn't get votes outside his predictable state, or for that matter contributions etc. What Obama doesn't realize is that Joe Biden is not a very popular or likeable fellow. He is in for a suprise if he thinks he can deal with Palin as "the little lady." But his guys are bright fellows. They will attack; go for the throat, so to speak. Here are a couple of ways Repubs can thwart some of the current critisicms.When dealing with the left wing press, she ought to say "First, they came after Hillary; now they are coming after me; who knows, maybe next they will come after you." Then there is one other criticism: that her primary experience is mayor of a town of 9,000. Well, look at Detroit! What a mess! And, if the mayor of Detroit were to run the left wing press would taught his vast experience. But here is, the best way to deal with this criticism. Go to the back of one of those Rand McNally road-map books. Look at the town listings. Notice how MANY towns are around 9000 (or under) in population. Here is what she ought to say:
"I was mayor of ONE town of 9000, but this is representative of a very large part of the U.S. Multiply this number by the number of small towns having this population or less and you will get a better idea of the compass of political experience; you will see that my experience is of the sort that has seldom, of late, had representation at Presidential levels.People from towns like this have seldom had a voice from among their own, despite how many such towns as these their are. I will not only pursue the advantages of city people, I will not forget the small towners and the core values of their people."It is to the credit of John McCain, and his people, that he made the correct selection, ideologically, while selecting a competent candidate that has it within her means to define herself, before the mud the Dems are trying to throw finds something on which to stick. Obama has been running for this office for months and no one is positive he is what your mom would call an American, let alone have a grasp of the ordinary American. His text is "plight" his own neighborhood is one of blight, so where was the beef for the people of the congressional District 1? Palin has delivered to her constituency in Alaska which is more than can be said about Obama. He never delivered as
Antoine Members , who is running for Bobby Rush's seat has noted. There are a number of reasons the Democrats have to be concerned about, but probably haven't had the time yet to calm down enough to notice.All the work the Dem. have put into registration. A significant number of these people (2-3%) are going to want real change, and Obama is starting to look a little stale by comparison to Palin. Demographics is another problem. Know some nice Hispanic families who have at lastbecome legal? I do. And let me tell you something: Many of these Hispanic and Latino women with husbands and families want their kids to be Americans; they weren't born here and they are looking for models that meet the standards of personal ethics they possess, even their home governments ever did. They want to be in front of an America they see as international and many would like their daughters to be a lot like Palin. She's an excellent role model for young Hispanic women tired of being matronized by hypocrites. So the mud the Dems are throwing just might end up in unintended places with respect to demographics. And no one likes mud thrown in their faces.
Yes, I support Ms. Palin and, especially John McCain. She is talented, but we do not yet know the full measure of her talent. Unless they find a picture of her in a swim suit, the Repubs are safe. If they do, I'd like to see it. Ms. Palin may stand at the threshold of a career that adds much awaited for pages in the great book that is America's.
The War Soon to Be (July 11, 2008) Yitzhak Benhorin has reported
(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3559502,00.html)
that John Bolton US, former ambassador to the UN, has said that if Obama is elected Israel will strike Iran. I think there is a good chance war will come sooner. Those who think along Bolton's lines suggest that apprehension with respect to Obama's foreign policy will provide some incentive. But this assumes that Israel can have no affect on the election itself. The unasked question is whether Israel can affect U.S. policy by either candidate by attacking unexpectedly.
Obama is moving to the center. By attacking Iran, Israel can force Obama to make a clear commitment, something that cannot be induced in the case of John McCain when it comes to the particulars of policy implementation. If Israel awaits the outcome of the election, they can be vetoed by Obama on the crucial issues of withdrawal from Gaza etc insasmuch as this operation will be pursued in tandem with preemptive attacks on Israel's closer enemies. This explains the pre-Iran-attack jokeying with Syria for example.Israel will be unable to limit its attacks on nuclear targets. The missle defense systems and perhaps other large military assets may also be targeted in anticipation of a U.S. reaction against pursuing a larger war than would be involved in surgical strikes. This will be no surgical strike. The psychology in Israel is desparate. This will be a war of survival. Such wars encourage a strategy of "total annihilation." Iran should rethink its options. Implicit fears that Obama is a "Manchurian Candidate" of sorts will compel a pre-election attack. Bush's negatives are alread too low to be relevant in this decision making process. Bush will back the move and, perhaps, even encourage it. This war from the standpoint of Israel is going to be "all or none." This is going to be big stuff and if I'm right it is closer than Bolton thinks. My thoughts go out to my Iranian friends and others in the region who fail to understand that Lebanon was a "pat-a-cake" war.
The Asymmetrical War between McCain and Obama: Some Advice for McCain (July 5, 2008) There is an asymmetry between two messages with respect to their merits as instruments of persuasioin. The two messages are: first, that the U.S., given its diverse population, is the most tolerant and prosperous society in the world;and second, that there is much wrong with America that needs fixing. The first message is McCain's (in "mystic miniature"); the latter is Obama's (in all its cosmic generality). Now for the asymmetry.
The first message suggests no further action. The second suggests further action even in the absence of specifics. The first is a weak message; the second is compelling - especially if there REALLY ARE problems! McCain cannot win by selling himself packaged in what is right with the U.S. Obama says - whether he means it is another story - "Yeah, I like the U.S. too, that's why I want to fix it." McCain can win by suggesting that Obama is concealing his intentions behind the general call for "change." The "savior" must be declared a false prophet. His claim to be a unifier must be challenged with: "What do you mean by this; and what are your proposals." The hip-Jesus look must be exposed for what it is and can be easily made to appear to be. Nor do we need a great Caesarian "uniter." Still the asymmetry remains: you cannot create a compelling argument by reasoning from the position of what is right with the United States, when it is precisely what is wrong that is the source of the main political issues. You can, however, argue, effectively, for "change" once even a single problem is acknowledged.
The New Corporate Left Wing (July 5, 2008) Probably one of the most aggrevating things for conservatives is the new capitalist left wing in the U.S. and elsewhere. What are we to make of this? Is it an irrepressible desire for one's self-destruction? The idea that killing America can be done by others for just reasons while "we" can still make a profit? Is it the youthfulness of the new financial regime? Is it the desire to be a "hip, cool, yuppy guy (or gal)"? You know "progressive, and in touch"? What explains this folly, assuming it is not a pretense? To diagnose the malady we need to look "backwards."
Edward Bellamy in Looking Backwards uses a metaphor of water seekers and merchants in illustrating the internal contradictions of capitalism, and in particular the economic origins of imperialism. This metaphor depended on the idea that capitalists must constantly seek new markets, or face widespread unemployment and other economic ills. He felt that this was inevitable. It has been many years since I read this interesting and very influential work - there were, even, Edward Bellamy clubs - but I think this is the gist of his most persuasive argument. I will not elaborate on the content. For that, the reader must read Bellamy himself.
In applying his metaphor Bellamy was assuming that the product, water, remained the same throughout the search for new markets. Indeed, the product, water, is a natural resource and his failure to make clear the difference between natural resources and other "products" illustrates the lack of subtlety among capitalism's harshest early critics. Joseph Alois Schumpeter in his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy made the distinction not only explicit but gave a detailed treatment of the place of natural resources in a larger economy. But that is not what I want to talk about here. What I am more concerned to point out is that Schumpter offers the basis for any good explanation for why our large coporations are anti-capitalist in their mouthings, despite their, frequent, monopolistic practices - evidenced in particular by the restraints on trade that have been documented in the case of Microsoft, e.g. So how does Schumpeter enter?Schumpeter - in contrast to the Marxists and Bellamy in particular - maintained that capitalism is perpetuated and expanded by innovation in technology. It is not, contra Bellamy, the case that product lines remain static and forces independent of the research and development dynamic are in constant uniform play. What Schumpter observed was that capitalism, independently of the accepted principles and con. Thanks to Schumpeter we now understand that the market is constantly renewing itself through innovation and research. Now I'm, virtually, certain that the folks at Google, Microsoft, and other "biggies" would agree with this. But why are they left wing, and what can we learn about why from Schumpeter? I think the answer is clear. There is one huge difference between recent capitalism and less earlier capitalism.
The pace of new product development is phenomenal. Whereas in the past products like airplanes and cars revolutionized business, these products, mainly, facilitated existing markets. But today we have a different set of circumstances. Today we have a single product, the computer, that has "spin offs" that are changing the world in their ownb right. This is very big stuff! Moving at the speed of light (well, not quite); and this explains the emergence of the hip-cool "chic" entrepeneur who worries about green house gases, rather than the gases emanating from his naive mouth.
Here is the reason in epitome why the new capitalist hates capitalism: his experience at competition is, compared to his predecessors, nonexistent. Billy Gates never had to compete; Steve Jobs and those guys had a little competition, but it soon cooled and together they "divided the pie." Google has a great product and this is why it succeeds. But its competition is pretty much a joke. In other words, in *general terms* the "new corporate left" is naive. They've never had to scratch to survive. Will this change? Oh, YES! It is beginning to change now. But for the U.S. the coming new Democrat regime is going to provide it's own spin. The now retiring moguls, like Gates, can sit back and sip mint tea and sing their own praises. But the new corporate left is gonna get left. Will they see their mistakes in supporting nutty left wing causes? No. Will the U.S. crash and burn, for a couple of decades? Yes. Are we all happy? As Zhivago said when he arrived home after a long absence only to find the KGB standing in his living room: "Yes...much more just." Keep the hot gases coming. The economic historians of a free Netherlands may one day rewrite out epitaph.
There is an interesting subtext hidden within the script of the "new corporate left." These guys actually fear competitive capitalism. When they attack capitalism they are reacting to a threat they, merely, suspect may come to haunt them: competition. I would caution the reader that in this posting I'm comparing the Rockefellers and the Henry Fords with the Gates' and his sort, not the smaller clams with shrimp.
Wind-fall profits tax on Congressmen(June 21, 2008) I propose a wind-fall profits tax on all members of Congress who have increased their income over the amount of any preceding successive years prior to election by a factor greater than double the increase in the cost of living!
I further propose that since if we can't replace our dependence on oil with solar cells (now there's a joke!) that we grant drilling privileges to U.S. firms anywhere outside the visual horizon of Cape Cod, and any comparable distance from shore at any offshore location.
Ron Paul's Questioning of Nadeem Al-Jaberi (June, 2008) June 8, 2008
In a June interview of Iraqi Parliament member Nadeem Al-Jaberi Ron Paul extracted some honest opinions. But it was not Al-Jaberi's honesty and accommodation of Rep. Paul that proved most illuminating, but rather Mr. Paul's carefully constructed line of questioning. It was illuminating because it reveals a weakness and a danger in Paul's approach, including what I perceive to be a careless disregard for U.S. and global interests. But, before elaborating on this, I want to make a general point about Mr. Paul's position on Iraq.
Mr. Paul's position, as far as I have been able to discern, is stated in very general terms, usually playing to an isolationist impulse with the implicit idea in mind that U.S. initiatives have been less a response to threatening circumstances (or worse) than a manifestation of jingoist adventurism. Paul's political methodology is a "play" on emotions, one resembling the tactic protectionists often use in the area of foreign trade. The appeal to emotion takes advantage of a desire for immediate gratification in foreign affairs typically held by people who "have other things to do" than study foreign policy. Freud once held that civilization was based on the sublimation of our primitive instincts. What Paul appeals to is our resistance to sublimating our simplistic political desires in favor of a well thought out, circumspect, foreign policy.
Paul's strength is this: At some point, his views would (counterfactually) make sense: that is, there is a point where U.S. interests are no longer served by being in Iraq, a point where the investment in "blood and treasure" no longer brings with it worthwhile returns. Through deliberate obfuscation and a resistance to addressing precisely sensitive issues, Paul feeds on this fundamental truth. Don't get me wrong. There is a place for Ron Paul in the Republican Party. His views add a refreshing and vital element to an otherwise commonplace display of rhetorical choreography. So I am not a Paul hater; in fact, I like the man. Nor is it his foreign policy that disturbs me, although I disagree with much of it. What disturbs me about Paul are his tactics. This brings us back to Nadeem Al-Jaberi. I believe Al-Jaberi is a Shiite Representative whose interests are divided between Iran and Iraq. Paul knew this, allowing him to carefully craft his questions. But where did Paul evoke my skepticism and ire? Answer: in particular, his leading questions on the matter of the, recently, proposed new U.S. embassy.
What Paul did was call attention to the size of the embassy, capable of housing 3000 personnel and very large by comparison to other embassies. Paul's GREATEST emphasis was on how this would be viewed by Iraqis. Again, an appeal to the primacy of emotion. His concern was that the size of this embassy would engender further dislike of the U.S. and that THIS was a concern of great interest. Now what I think Paul knew was that even though there were good reasons for such an embassy, he knew,also, that the U.S. could not GIVE those reasons publicly, making his moralistic prescriptions not only palatable but desirable to the fearful (again, an appeal to emotion). I am now going to give the U.S. government's reasoning here which Paul, surely, understands.
Paul knew when he asked his questions that he would have a more than sympathetic ear. The man being questioned was a Shiite with a bias favoring Iran. He knew this, just as he knew, that the U.S. has two motives in an embassy of this size. First, the U.S. knows that they will, soon, be asked to leave by the Iraqi government. But the U.S. also knows it has the financial leverage to be granted a large embassy. One benefit of the war, seldom talked about, is the vastly improved intelligence it has provided. Before the war we had to rely on remote sensing and hearsay. This was a central problem with intelligence leading up the war. Now we have an incredible intelligence network in the region and are, now, more or less independent of our allies, such as Israel, in the acquisition of this intelligence. The intelligence alone justifies every casualty the U.S. has suffered in this war. In WWII in a little village called Hamm, the U.S. lost 5000 soldiers in a very short time, I think no more than a couple of days). There were about 8000 lost at Iwo Jima. This war has given us the intelligence to prevent, preempt, or win future conflicts which are, almost, certainly inevitable over the next few decades. So, when Paul bashes the size of the embassy he is bashing one of the great benefits that may accrue to this war, and planted a seed that guys like Obama will naively cultivate. This is madness if not a deliberate effort to weaken the U.S. position and he should desist!
There is a second reason for the size of this embassy. Remember those folks, literally, hanging from the bottom of helicopters as the U.S. withdrew from Saigon? Those images are more enduring than, practicall, any single conflict of that war, except maybe the Thet Offensive. In the event that the Dems are elected and we withdraw precipitously there must be room to accommodate more than a couple hundred people who have helped the Coalition over the last few years. It is IRAQIS who are served by the size of this embassy. Mr. Paul knows all this. He's a smart guy. Again, it is not his isolationist views that are of most concern; it is his deliberately making this an issue KNOWING that pro-American interests could not publicy respond. Mr. Paul is not serving the best interests of the U.S. and his not doing so is deliberate. Why he does this I don't know; but, even skeptics of this war ought to repudiate Mr. Paul's tactics. They are simply awful and work against the well being of every man, woman and child in the U.S. not to mention Iraq.
Rev. Wright, Barack Obama, and "Loyalty" April 15, 2008
Here I am, again, writing about Barack Obama! If fault is to be had I intend to share it with others. The issue of his relationship to Rev. Wright has been made to persist by members of his own party and his own church, and there are further controversial comments at issue as the Pennsylvania primary bears down upon us.
Voters in the U.S. have been stunned by the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright. Barack Obama's supporters have looked for guidance from their candidate, only to discover that he refuses to distance himself from Mr. Wright, even comparing loyalty to Mr. Wright with his loyalty to African Americans. One can only assume, since Mr. Obama has not made his meaning clear, that he does not mean loyalty to his race but, rather, loyalty to people of African decent. All of which raises, also, the question of whether this is a matter of loyalty to person and people or tacit approval of Mr. Wright's incendiary rhetoric. If the latter, then Mr. Obama is more than "coolly arrogant" as Karl Rove once suggested. If the former, then Mr. Obama's claim to be someone who can unite America is either a self deception or a potentially malignant political ploy. But there is a more important question: How did Barack Obama get into this mess? He is not an evil man; indeed even his harshest critics can, at bottom, claim only youthful opportunism and a profound ignorance of a concept of diversity that extends beyond the South Side (of Chicago), despite his internationalist pretentions. This is evidenced by his loose comments on poor people from rural areas, whom he described as clinging to guns and religion owing to excessive emotion and bigoted ideas. It is as much Mr. Obama's surprise as the content of his remarks when taken literally in standard English that conceals a larger problem. The problem is symptomatic of a larger one, one which must be discussed at the invitation of Mr. Obama, himself, when he suggested a racial dialogue.
In a nutshell the problem has been brought on by the relative insularity of African American society, notwithstanding its enormous cultural influence extending far beyond the social borders of what has been called "Black Metropolis." It is no coincidence that Mr. Obama found Chicago a good place to begin a political career. Chicago is the most overt manifestation of this. What is the etiology of this phenomenon? It's inception, historically, is probably during those years following WW1, the twenties, with the emergence within the city of a more prosperous entrepreneurial class within the city. Shut off, by and large from the larger community (and make no mistake this was owing to white racism), forward looking African Americans made an attempt at creating a city within a city. This was taking place concurrently with an emerging competitiveness between two sorts of black churches. Those that were more reserved - today some would say more "white" and those which had deeper ties to African tradition and a sense of autonomy. This sought after "autonomy" is very much related to the concept of "authenticity" which became subject of considerable interest many years later when African Americans engaged the conscious need for historical and cultural identity. But the point is this: the move towards autonomy and the search for authenticity became linked.
To see that these two notions are linked consider the number of organizations, good and bad, within the black community with the word "nation": "Black Nationalism," "Black-P-Stone Nation" (a Chicago street gang), and the "Nation of Islam." These terms expressed not so much a desire to reject the "outside world," the white world, as to affirm a two fold synthesis of autonomy and authenticity. This was a good thing in concept. But something happened, and Jeremiah Wright is a manifestation of how good ideas run out of control. The growing political influence of a black electorate, and the increasing sense of self worth brought on by success when given an opportunity had a contradictory effect. On the one hand, whereas the African American community was making its political reality manifest, it was also increasingly the case that a contest developed for an authentic statement of autonomy. These were contradictory impulses, fed in large measure by white indifference and fear - although whites were not alone in this. In competition, a competition, which as we have seen goes back to at least the twenties, there developed an increasingly incendiary rhetoric; never challenged, never questions, but offering benefits for status seekers within the black community. Rev. Wright epitomizes the extreme of this movement. Mr. Obama is accustomed to calm acceptance of the theater of church attendance. It was just part of the show. Why would anyone be upset? "Put it in context" was the refrain. But the more you put it in context the worse it sounded, as if putting a photo of an bomb exploding "in context" would make it a picture of something besides a bomb exploding. Anyway, "context" itself bombed, so to speak, and now every future political opponent will be able to add context "to please." What a mess.
Even Rev. Wright is, probably, perplexed. His rants have been received with enthusiasm. His is one of the largest, most representative, largely, African American churches in the U.S. if not the world, and Chicago is a race obsessed town. If Mr. Obama gets his dialogue, he is going to have to hear things he doesn't like. It will not suffice to create a list of words like "elitist" or "Hussein" or "boy" that are forbidden; that is not the way to bring people together. Before Mr. Obama gets the nation together, he's gonna have to get his act together, and nutty African American pastors are going to have to listen from time to time to the preachings of others, even if it means putting it all in "context."
Even though I oppose Mr. Obama's election, he has done the U.S. a favor. His success, and it is substantial, has shown the parishioner's of Mr. Wright's church that the 14th Amendment was not a liar's promise.
The Prophet Obama in the Land of Secularism Feb 22, 2008
Obama as Prophet of the Liberal Theology
Obamamania is not just a hip thing for the young demonstrating the lessons taught by their left wing high school teachers. There is much more to it that goes deep into the evolving psyche of the liberal movement which, having lost its way in the ideas department, now focuses on a moral message that arises from its own disenchantment with the secularization of its culture.
Political pundits like Bill O'Riley have frequently asked "Why are the secular progressives always attacking or engaging in America hating rhetoric" They are mystified. Why?! This is, merely, part of a process in the evolution of a political ideology, one linked to a culture that found that it could not sustain itself by contempt for its opponents, alone.
The left lost its religion. I am not going to judge them on this. It may be a misunderstanding of the relation of religion and science, or it may just be consequential upon their search for easy answers to profound questions; or, at least, an attempt at deferring them until there is a crisis. But, clearly, there is a relationship between secularization and the politically inspired religious impulse. This impulse has now become a quasi-religious movement, for which Obama serves as the Messiah. The felt need is to fill the vacancy left by an abandonment of traditional religion, something evident, even, among the phony religionists of the Anglican "faith" and certain segments of a more or less "reduced" Catholicism, whose social relevance now subsists, for the most part, as a desperate search for relevance in a secular world. Indeed, Catholicism is now a matter of cultural, rather than religious, identification. Protestantism quietly fades from the scene as the "toys" of technology do what Muslims fear it will do to their devotees, probably with some justification. Enter Obama!
Obama is the face of the new theology of secular humanism with a political hipster's message. He's a savvy left wing version of the late Billy James Hargis, a newer version of the circus tent messiah. Now that there is a messiah, there are risks that he will not ascend to the heavens, but that will be blamed, should it happen, on the devils called "neo-cons." So here is my point: Obama is the new "savior" for the liberal-left, one with a moral agenda, one long lacking an actual face. Here we have a hero with a cause but without achievement; loved not for what he has accomplished but for his outstretched arms, reaching out to the masses, enjoining them to follow wherever "change" may lead. To criticize him will be blasphemy; to utter an unObamic thought will prove dangerous in the public domain.
Indeed, there is something dangerous in Obamamania. As Eric Fromm pointed out in his epic work Escape from Freedom, people actually fear freedom. Obama is the prophet whose messianic appeal resides in the mere pronouncement of a theology of freedom, a man whose words cleanse the conscience of a guilty white bourgeoisie but which lead nowhere but down for America. His flock will recite the catechism of the old left. But should he ever actually come up with an idea, good or bad, it will hardly be noticed; such is the religion of the left in an America that has lost its soul.
A Conservative Supports John McCain Feb 14, 2008
Supporting John McCain as a conservative can be argued for on the basis of the following:
- He has now made a commitment to conservatives that he cannot break without tarnishing his ideological credentials as a conservative. One form this commitment has taken is the promised appointment of judges philosophically aligned with Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. This is the most important single issue of the campaign, unless it would be the war in Iraq.
- Not only was he right about supporting the "surge," he took an enormous political gamble by fighting for the idea when others with more "reputable" conservative reputations refused to define their positions. In other words, in one fell swoop, McCain showed integrity, correctness of judgment, and the ability to think militarily outside the context of politics.
- We have all had some disagreements, as conservatives, with McCain; but he does what he does unashamedly and without malice. He has been tempted by the opposition at times when he was most under attack by us conservatives and yet he demonstrated loyalty that cannot be denied!
- In supporting the "surge," McCain also demonstrated an ability to think "outside the box," and while he has admitted to an imperfect understanding of the details of economic theory he has a compelling sense of reality. If a good plan comes up, like the "surge," with respect to the economy we can trust this man to act with intelligence and the courage of his convictions. We know this, sometimes to our own aggravation.
- John McCain is loyal. He is loyal to his party, the people around him and his country. This last, for us conservatives, may seem most important and, perhaps, it is; but there is another loyalty, one to the principles that have invigorated America since its inception: the belief in the value of life for the sake of life, a belief in the sanctity of nature and God's greatest gift the gift of a free-will and the right to life in the exercise of this virtue.
- We must not overlook his personal integrity. He is scandal free; he is honest. He is not tethered to his own ambition, and from this flows a natural sense of fairness.
- Finally (and this is personal), John McCain stood up for the professional fighters who take a beating from their own industry and fight their hearts out for pennies. I think this is one source of his affection for the Hispanic community, a community where this sport is not just for losers but an honored profession. That he would stand up for these kids and over their "masters" is, for me, an unforgettable reality about John McCain, whom I am delighted and moved to support.
Musharraf and U.S. Policy Jan. 12, 2008
The United States often acts too slowly; but, sometimes, with even greater consequences, moves too quickly. The murder of Bhutoo set back U.S. policy. In fact, it has required a shift in policy. After, virtually, announcing to the world its abandonment of Musharraf it, now, faces an embarrassing situation: support him on the pretense that the U.S. in not looking to dump or have him dumped, or allow the situation in Afghanistan to fester. What can be done wrong that hasn't already been done, already? I'll leave that to the quick-minded U.S. policy makers and the slow minded policy implementers. But I will make a suggestion.
First, get off Musharraf's back. He's got problems the U.S. has failed to grasp. Probably because they approach strategy game-theoretically, and clutch to their hearts a set of priorities that are both narrow and out of date. Second, instead of threatening one of the best leaders in the region a military option is available that should be exercised. Iraq is going reasonably well. Much better than administration critics anticipated. The same tactic in Afghanistan will have different results in the case of Pakistan.
By surging at border areas of Afghanistan, pressure will be placed on Pakistan as much as the Taliban. Musharraf's weakness is the potential for discord in the military. The military is feeling pressure from the Islamacists. The military of Pakistan would not have to be coaxed into actions against the "maniacs." They have suffered, significantly in pride; this, for a military man is strongly felt. Musharraf by holding back the military keeps the radicals at bay, more or less. They, certainly, hated Bhutto. What is Musharaff's response to the possibility of a U.N. inquiry - and why should anyone fear this impotent "outfit"? What he does is reject the entire idea! Musharaff did not kill Bhutto, but he knows who did, and you can take that to the bank. But by holding back the military he separates himself from that faction of the military that supports him and cozies up to the faction that has in the past opposed him. Result: net gain for Musharaff; net loss for the Pakistani military. Surging U.S. troops will remind Musharaff, whom I have already said is one of the best leaders in the region, on which side of the toast the butter is spread.
By surging troops, Musharaff will have to show his hand. This will signal a message of one sort or another to three constituencies: the Taliban supporters in the military; the non-Taliban supporters in the military, and the Bhutto people. Nawaz Sharif will be a growing influence; an opportunist, yes! But all politicians are opportunists. The U.S. has its links to elements within the Pakistani military; that can be assumed without argument. The military is, actually, in this country part of the technocracy. It is respected. It DESERVES respect! They are professionals and have shown incredible restraint at the higher levels. Pakistanis do not want radical Islamic government. Sharif should take heed of the catastrophic history of Europe in the thirties. Political alliances in a country where assassination is a reality at any level can be dangerous. This he should know.
Musharaff has my support. He deserves U.S. support. He has not been treated well. But just as the U.S. understands his predicament (and hence the rationale that a surge in Afghanistan would provide); he understands the bombastic U.S. politicians (excluding Giuliani and McCain) who use him as a washboard for the dirty laundry of a failing U.S. policy in Pakistan. Pakistan has its own character. No one who knows Pakistanis can help but envy the character of this nation at its heart. I confess to this influence, but without a solid foundation in three (or more) dimensions, this country could fall out of U.S. influence. All would lose; all but the Taliban and the radicals who who would topple the government by insurrectional means.
Bhutto and Friends Dec 30, 2007
I am not as great a fan of Bhutto's as the press. Years ago, I had, frequent, occasion to discuss politics with Pakistanis from both E. and W. The consensus was that Bhutto was corrupt. There was little anger and much laughter, particularly when the subject turned to Sukarno. It seems there was more than a little contact between these leaders. What is interesting is the parallel between Benezir and Megawati. One wonders if there was contact here.
Musharref most likely did not kill Bhutto. Who did isn't clear. Musharref had little to gain by doing it now. Conceivably her political foes within the Pakistani government might have at a later time; but those who oppose Musharref within his own government have won a victory here. The islamacists are present in certain areas of the Pakistani military. They can begin to position themselves as long as Musharref is, temporarily, weakened. The demonstrations haven't grown significantly; this will prompt a crack down. Musharref was being pushed aside by the U.S. This was, I think, an attempt to coordinate policy not with factions within Pakistan, but with the Europeans, for a change. Now some backtracking is in order. In all likelihood Musharref will retain power for at least five years. Musharref by Western standards has been a, reasonably, good leader.
Placing her nineteen year old son, Bilawal Zardari, in charge of the party is an attempt to legitimize the "family's" control, given the legal history of Ms. Bhutto as well as her father. This move, however, is unfortunate. It raises certain questions. Is it worth risking this young man's life in order to sustain family dominance within the party? If the party can only be driven by a "cult of personality" this bodes ill for the future of democracy. Putting him in the cross hairs of potential assassins is unconscionable.
By blaming Musharref, Bhutto's party exposes itself to the charge that without actually knowing WHO committed this crime it is prepared to attack the most vulnerable of its enemies, rather than quite possibly the actual perpetrators. This suggests a lack of honesty. This lack of restraint may render any power sharing impossible with the new teenage "king'. We'll have to wait and see.
Should we lament her death? Yes. Bhutto was, I think, experiencing something of a rebirth. The islamacists stand to benefit. Musharref will pause and then strike hard in the tribal regions. I do not understand the animosity directed from all sides against Musharref. He has survived because he knows Pakistan very well. He has the trust of the military. The military is not out of control; the country is on the verge of falling out of control. The United States should back those forces in Pakistan that promote stability. This means Musharref and the military.
Remarks on McGinn's Review of Honderich Dec 1, 2007
In a review of a work by Ted Honderich, Colin McGinn has some caustic remarks. I admit to being puzzled by these, seemingly, unwarranted vituperations. There is something here that doesn't quite meet the eye. In what follows are some comments on the review. (Philosophical Review, Vo. 116, No. 3, 2007) at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/McGinnReview.htmlHaving briefly reviewed the review and the essay, but without reading the book, I think a couple of things can be said simply on the basis of overall impression. I would like to say that, while I have xpressed a degree of cynicism respecting what philosophers, these days, are doing, I have enjoyed works by both philosophers, and both are representative of philosophy that insists on a disciplined mind. However, this review is troubling.
I would like to share with this list (and anyone else who cares) part of a discussion I had with a very well known, now retired, philosopher whom, I think, most around here would recognize. I read his book on philosophy of mind back in around 1967 and it moved me closer to Sellars and, in the process, made philosophy more interesting than what I was deriving from the indeterminacy of translation or modal realism. Anyway, about three years or so ago I visited this philosopher and expressed my admiration for another philosopher for whom he expressed a noticeable displeasure. I knew that this philosopher was someone with whom he would have certain philosophical "problems." But I was disturbed because I had had a high regard for this other philosopher and, even, on occasion had gotten in some rather deep trouble by emulating him in my youthful way as an undergrad. I queried this fellow on his attitude and I shall never forget his answer.
What he said was basically this: "I never, especially, liked X. You see he was, always, looking for disciples as much as answers to problems and I thought that was wrong.?"I replied, "Well, other philosophers were not adverse to having disciples; Wittgenstein certainly did not eschew that prospect, nor did Hegel etc."Then HE replied: "Yes, but you see there are two ways of advancing oneself or one's opinions and he made use of the worst of the two." "And what way was that?" I asked. "A person" he said "can build himself up by doing some first rate work, or work that contributes towards first rate work; but there is another way; one can build up oneself by TEARING DOWN someone else! And that is what this fellow did." That left a profound impression on me even at this later stage of life's "game."
I think, and I regret having to say this, McGinn may have been making use of this second "way." There is another possibility: that McGinn is, simply,"out to get" Honderich for some other reason: political, personal, etc.That would be a different category of "offense."
I want to conclude by saying something, briefly, about the philosophy; here critical of Honderich who seems to be on the receiving end for some reason of several unwarranted attacks. My points here are philosophical but not intended to be "deep." Thus, I fully expect that Prof. Honderich would have little trouble responding. Honderich remarks,
"It is the ordinary introductory stuff of the contemporary philosophy of mind, which is centrally a response to the general question of the nature of consciousness, despite often enough drifting off it"Later,"one principal reason for the failure of dualism, although not the only one, is that it cannot deal with the fact of causal interaction between consciousness and physical events, say arm movements."One problem WITH (not in) the philosophy of mind is that, now, all roads appear to begin and end with the mind-body problem in one form or another (externalism, internalism, physicalism, dualism) whereas in the past while they might have begun there they didn't end there; one example is neutral monism which incorporated more than the mind-body issue (for example the status of the "mental act" in the sense of Meinong, Husserl, etc). The nature of consciousness is important in the philosophy of mind, but so are the questions surrounding intentionality (Honderich rejects the notion I believe), free will, personal identity, the nature of introspection, the unity of consciousness (NOT the "nature" of consciousness)etc. Now if you are a physicalist or are sympathetic to this position all you have to "worry" about IS the mind-body problem, on one line taken by the "dialectic." But, more important than this arguable point, is how in the above quotes he makes arm movements central to the failure of dualism, but castes the issue in terms of consciousness when, in fact, unless you *carefully* qualify your meaning, action theory along roughly dualistic lines has NEVER been a problem relating consciousness and action. It has been a matter of the relation of person and action, or mental event and action, the Will and action, but "consciousness" while always around has never been the center of gravity in action theory. What Honderich, I think, and McGinn encourage us to do is move away from the Jamesian notion of an "idea" and by replacing it with "consciousness" make dualism more obscure than McGinn makes Honderich, himself. Nor does Honderich (perhaps in his book) give a reason for thinking that dualism in action theory failed.
I am, also, struck by the certainty and dogmatically held views of both philosophers, sometimes reminiscent of Austin's excesses (he, too, is a very good philosopher, very original!). In addition, I note a paucity of actual argument. A lot of "construction" and engineering? of the "isms" but not much real argument. But then, again, in my own neo-Cartesian way I'm just old fashioned.
Giuliani's Hidden Resources Dec 1, 2007
Rudi Giuliani has a hidden audience. They don't even know they are hidden. Who are they? They are the, rougly, 20 per cent of the first time youth voters who have grown up disliking the Clintons and who cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama, notwithstanding their desire to be seen as racially tolerant and judges of good character; and whatever negative things you may have to say about Obama, he is an individual of personal integrity and affability.
The first time voters in this category will be moved from voting in the Democrat primary out of disillusionment. Hillary appears arrogant in her campaign. Rhetorically speaking, she is a Ted Kennedy, loud mouth type, one that harks back to the oratorical style of William Jennings Brian or Robert G. Ingersoll, but without the experience of her audience. Giuliani is perceived in opposite terms. But he will come under threat from the competition. This will slowly push the trigger of cross over voting in states where that is allowed.
Working against this prospect is the rapidity with which this election will be consummated, nevertheless, there will be a trend that could tip the balance. Giuliani in fact has greater appeal to the younger voter. Hillary is a blast of bad air from the past, a past many of them comprehend only impressionistically, thus exacerbating Clinton's problem. The man to watch is Evan Bayh! Perfect centrist: Harold Ford, (one terrific Democrat politician) with a white face. The older more conservative Democrat would jump at the chance. Bayh left the race early. He's positioning himself for VP. If he gets it and Hillary wins, which I doubt (I still think she will not get the nomination), he's the next President. If another candidate wins, it will be a liberal in search of centrist.
But Giuliani has youth appeal; the Democratic primary is boring; the options weak. The young voter wants to feel the power of his or her vote. Voting for Hillary will not suffice. They will cross over in large numbers. Giuliani wins if that happens.
Mulford Q. Sibley on Pacifism Oct 15, 2007
In 1962 I was 14 years old, interested in books and called Descartes "Dezcartez," the eminent "Spanish" philosopher. One day on a trip to Wisconsin (or was it Minnesota?) I was strolling the beach of a resort area when I bumped into a smart looking kid about two years my senior. As we spoke, I was taken by his articulation, knowledge, and pleasant demeanor; but, above all, I was struck by his civility with respect to our disagreements. After correcting my pronunciation of "Descartes," I mentioned that strictly speaking "communists" were just a variety of "socialists." This disturbed him, a trifle, and he announced that he would be right back because he wanted to ask his father, who knew about such things. At the time, I was involved with the Socialist Labor Party and was a sort of syndicalist. My friend disappeared for more than a while. Eventually, he returned.
He said that I was right but that the story was mired in historical facts that obscured the ideological point. He invited me to meet his father. As it turned out, his father was one Mulford Q. Sibley, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota. The next day, I went to his cottage. I don't believe he fished, like everyone else; instead, he had a typewriter sitting outside his cabin and a bunch of papers. He was thin, wore shorts (something "men" didn't do in my blue-collar working class neighborhood) and had what a young person might describe as an "intelligent looking head." He was affable and not in the least condescending in his dealings with young people. I liked him immediately. We spoke on topics I can't recall; but his command of the subject matter of political theory was by my standards, then and now, positively remarkable. I later met his daughter, and I have to confess to feeling a little bit in love with her. In any case, we parted company, but his presence lingered: I wanted to grow up to be a person "just like that guy?!" He was the first academic in my life.
As it would turn out, he was busy writing a book that would wait until 1970 to get published: _Political Ideas and Ideologies: A History of Political Thought_. I read the book, cover to cover, marveling over his mastery of Hegel. There were points of disagreement, but the book is and was a fine work. It as been over 45 years since our encounter. But just five days or so ago I came upon an essay by Prof. Sibley. Were he alive what follows is what I would say.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4826/Sibley.html
Sibley remarks:
To the war resister and pacifist, the central offense that can be committed by one person against another -- whether in a personal capacity or as a member of any political movement -- is to do violence.Immediately afterwards he links the individual case of physical confrontation and political violence: "refrain from political or individual violence." This move is unjustified in the absence of further discussion. It is not difficult to see that the justification for going to war and the justification for using violence, say, in personal self defense may require entirely different sorts of reason. For example self defense while in the process of a political execution may not be warranted even if the execution is an injustice: on Sibley's general account it would appear as though even this form of self defense is to be condemned. Since the prohibition against violence is absolute or near absolute ("the pacifist repudiates violence under all circumstances") there is a matter of whether it is possible to assign any degree of prohibition without giving a reason for *being* a pacifist. If the reason is 'X' then if there are degrees to which 'X' applies in different cases then, perhaps, a case can be made for degrees of prohibition. But if none are forthcoming then in the political case the alternatives that can put on the table, during negotiating peace, e.g. are limited to the point of rendering pacifism impotent in bringing about the end of a, given, conflict. But Sibley will go on to examine some reasons for being a pacifist. Suppose we forego discussing the complex theological questions and look, instead, at what Sibley calls the ?philosophical pacifists.? He remarksTypically, a philosophical or humanist pacifist will simply say that acts of violence are morally wrong because they show disrespect for human beings who are to be valued as ends in themselves and never only as means to other ends. Treating human beings merely as instruments is a fundamental attack on the integrity of human personality and hence to be repudiated.The operant expression, particularly in relation to what preceded it is "they show disrespect for human beings who are valued as ends in themselves and never only as means to other ends." The last part, beginning with 'who', is straight out of Kant, that is, Kant's "kingdom of ends." Sibley, then, "tags" the philosophical pacifist with at least an implicit Kantianism. Some utilitarian pacifists may take a somewhat different view. I say this, in part, owing to the following:
It is because violent acts are intrinsically wrong morally, the humanist pacifist might go on, that they have bad consequences. They are not wrong because they have bad consequences; they have bad consequences because they are morally wrong.In other words, the 'badness' of an action is intrinsic, and what follows from it, if it is evil, is evil not because of something outside of the act itself, but because an act (not all acts or consequences, for that matter) is, itself, evil. Such thinking is shared by those whom he distinguishes as religious pacifists in the sense that these pacifists, for the most part, subscribe to moral absolutism revealed by some scriptural pronouncement or to a form of essentialism, closely, connected to "natural rights." Here the issue would be "natural wrongs," even though "wrong" in this context is not the denial of "right" in "natural rights." But how do we know what these natural wrongs are (such as the use of violence) if not by reason or scripture? Sibley maintains:The philosophical pacifist would presumably have to rely on moral intuition and reasoning.But now we are engaged in a battle of "intuitions." The usual pitfall here is said to be that one man?s intuition is the contradiction of another man's intuition, with nothing but 'force' to resolve the dispute once it goes beyond ideas.Sibley goes on to discuss the "utilitarian" pacifist, but this is not the "utilitarianism" of the philosophers; such as Mill in On Liberty. The strength of this position, according to Prof. Sibley is that
Pacifism is much more realistic politically; for it understands the relation between means and ends and sees that tyranny cannot be eliminated by methods which are the hallmark of tyranny.Suppose this is true. I don?t follow Prof. Sibley's reason for thinking so; but, suppose it is true. Now what? Will pacifism assure us that ?tyranny [can] be eliminated by methods which are [not] the hallmark tyranny? Some historical examples would be useful, but they are either nonexistent, or trivial; or so it appears. What then are we to do about guys like Hitler; that is what Sibley seems to think illustrates the chief criticism.A unilateral disarmament policy, the pacifist maintains, would probably lead to competitive disarmament,I see no reason to believe this, none! But let's change the example. You are a twelve year old kid. You are on the playground. The "tough guy" bonks you on the head with his fist and takes your money. The teacher doesn't believe in corporal punishment and sends the kid home for a week. He meets you on the playground. He beats your head in; you go back to the teacher. The teacher tells you that over time there will be "competitive disarmament"? and that the offender will realize this "probably." He continues to beat your brains out; you decide pacifism is "huey." You are judged a moral leper by the kind people at counseling. The offender is counseled to "disarm." You are counseled to treat the concussion and, perhaps, not complain so much. You learn to box. You are then told by Prof. Sibley et al.Pacifists believe that preparation for war tends to destroy a nationAnd, similarly, learning to protect your self by way of force is just violence and will lead to more violence. You conclude that you are pacifism is for a well protected moral "elite." You beat up the bully; he cries and leaves you alone.For now, we are concerned that at least Sibley provides a way of distinguishing violent sports from "acts of violence." But, then, one cannot object to boxing, say, on the basis of the idea that violence is to be abhorred, regardless of the form it takes, and that *this* is nearly absolute. More relevant, but more complex, is the use of violence to prevent violence, as opposed to punishment or self-defense or retribution.
I will have more to say on this issue at a later date, when I take up in connection with it the matter of passive resistance. But I thought I'd write this much now, introducing Sibley. I owe him in large measure the life I have decided to live, and as I press upon the boundaries of late middle age I am content in the knowledge that despite my present strong disagreement with his socialist views, he was a remarkably lovable man of enormous stature and influence on young minds. I shall never forget him.
Advice for Obama Oct 3, 2007
It is clear that Barack Obama has no chance of winning the Democrat nomination in the upcoming elections. What should he do? Under the honest impression that he has a chance, he continues to raise money, which will help him establish the respectability, at least, of a losing position. There is one thing he could do to enhance his prospects for the VP nod.
Obama has it within his power to block Hillary Clinton's nomination. But he can only do this by sacrificing his own candidacy. Hillary will not select him.
What Obama ought to do is: drop out of the race for the presidency. This would create an opening for a REAL challenge to Hillary. Perhaps from Biden or Gore. Biden or Gore would prefer Obama as VP. This would retrieve the disaffected black voters, following the Hillary confrontation. The danger, politically, is that dropping out would mute the clash with Hillary, pushing black voters back towards her camp, rather than Biden or Gore, for example. In addition, the longer Obama is in the race, the less dependable will be the African American vote from the point of view of the Dems.
If Obama does not exit the race, the VP nod, on the assumption (which I do not, at this point accept) of Hillary's nomination will be someone like Evan Bayh; someone who can grab the center. Bayh dropped out early. He knows the situation, and understands his improved prospects for the VP slot.
Israel's Syrian Incursion Sept 10, 2007
It is now September 16. The Israeli incursion into Syria although executed with maximal secrecy has now been placed in public purview. Given the security that continues to be maintained as of this date no adequate account can be given. I want to consider a couple of radical theories.
The Israelis and the U.S. are not reluctant to intimate that the strike was directed against some sort of nuclear facility. Questions abound. Isn't this exactly what the U.S. and others have needed to justify an attack on Iran? If so, why, relative, the silence? Two possibilities. First, it is just a matter of time before all the intelligence is used. Almost certainly, there is physical evidence from the ground; second, this was an effort to afford Syria the opportunity to distance itself from previous covert agreements with Iran and Korea. Israelis are skeptical of Syria's professed desire to pursue peace. The strike "cleaned the slate." The words now being written are: "You lied. Now give us a serious answer: Do you want peace?!" This is being kept quiet because of the potential effects of embarrassing the Syrians out of any possible near term agreement.There may be a message, as well to Iran and Russia.
The message to Russia pertains to U.S. intent and a featured gesture indicating that Russia's military hardware is just about as much a bunch of junk as it always has been. Secondly, Iran can now see how easy "it would all be." That is, they now have a good show of what a small, smart, aggressive, western power (and that IS what Israel is), can do at higher levels of combat than door to door arrests in Gaza or politically designed wars in Lebanon. Silence on the part of the entire west is predicated on the idea that how things crystalize willset the stage for future performances.
Nor is it, altogether, inconceivable that Israel is hitting installations which are supportive of militias in Iraq. This is unlikely, particularly, given sudden statements about the possibility of war with Iran by a French government which opposes the U.S. involvement in Iraq (at least publically). This recent action, in case this unlikely scenerio obtains, would create an obligation of U.S. support in the event of an attack on Iran. You take care of Syria and we'll take care of Iran; and, now, the intriguing military question: Is the battlefield being drawn for a two front war against Iran and Syria? Militarily AND politically this would be excellent strategy. If both countries were hit and hit, very, hard the consequences could ramify throughout domestic western economies, for the better. Iran would have to sell a lot of oil to get back into the picture and the Syrians would be off their hook and the hook of Korea, whatever that amounts to in practical terms. The Chinese with respect to nuclear proliferation have "done their job." The U.S. must now do its job. The Chinese and U.S. interests are far more in common than some pundits think. China's "aggressive" intent is shrouded in the anonymity of its leadership; Putin displays his impotence by sporting his machismo in small ways: flying his ragedy planes towards Nato installations and flexing his muscles in gym mirrors. What a contrast! China will sit this out; Russia will as a prelude to the western attack on Iran, should it come, pump up its image and image alone. If oil from Iraq flows freely; Iran becomes detoxified, and Syria discovers a leader who, actually, cares about its people, as I believe the Chinese leadership does and *must*. We are in for worse times and, then, better times. The real winners will be those bright young people in Iran who long for a "connect" with the real world, a world in which they will excel, if given a chance.
Petraeus vs. Maliki August 28, 2007
What are we going to do with Nouri Kamel Mohammed Hassan al-Maliki? This problem could be on the way to resolution if Gen. David H. Petraeus in his mid September report moves things in the right direction. His friend, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provided the strategy! That strategy should be a response to Ahmadinejad's statement that:
Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."There has been a lot of good evidence of misuse of U.S. supplied weapons. There is evidence of corruption tied in with the Shia militias which Maliki has failed to make an effor to suppress. What Petraeus should say is this:
We have good evidence that Iran is poised for a political take over of Iraq. If needs be he will introduce force to this end with the blessings of his sycophant, Maliki. The U.S. has credible evidence that Maliki is in collusion with Ahmadinejad. I make the following suggestion: Mr. Maliki must be declared an enemy combatant. He must leave or be subject to precision bombing or arrest. If we withdraw the political "solution" will never come to anyone's satisfaction except Ahmadinejad's faltering government. We must withdraw 60,000 U.S. troops to attack positions in the event of Iranian incursions. Once Maliki is declared a combatant "on the merits" we can address the larger problem more easily than we can be bled over a long period of time of our will and soldiers. The Iranian connection must be forced to culmination.This would allow Clinton type leftists to take a rational path and only marginally effect their support. It would allow supporters of U.S. and World interests in deposing both Maliki and Ahmadinejad. The thinking, today, is that this would complicate negotiations over Iran's attempt at achieving thermonuclear capabilities. Petraeus must concentrate as much on Iran as Iraq, IF he wishes to preserve a U.S. involvement in order to protect the interests of global stability.
On A Separate Meaning of 'Courage' August 3, 2007
What is the measure of man's courage? A Greek philosopher, perhaps it was Plato, said something about courage as fearlessness in the face of a noble death. If this definition were made to hold, it would go along way towards showing that a peaceful society is less courageous than a warlike society. Indeed, this is the presumption, if not the working hypothesis, of many tyrants and terrorists. However, within an open society there is another kind of courage that seldom goes acknowledged, perhaps owing to its rarity.
We frequently hear of "heroic" exploits in wars and in the struggle against nature. Such courage may, however, be more in keeping with other virtues, other right ones, which carry courage along with them. There is another sort of courage, one which I recently discovered, one which carries sorrow, and not pride. This is the courage to look one's friend, friend in the true sense, in the eye and tell him that you believe he is very wrong about some opinion hold close to the hearts. It would have been so easy to "pretend" or create a desired level of ambiguity. One does the courageous thing, sometimes, while feeling the sting of those one offends. You may risk friendship, understanding and past affection; all for exercising the freedom of disappointing those with whom you disagree but wish you didn't. Disappointing one's friends, deliberately, in the context of an exchange of ideas can be costly. It has cost me dearly; but there is a virtue to it that I would like to call "courage." But is it? I would like to think so. A free society is one where this sort of courage becomes a virtue, accepted by all sides of any dispute.
Conservative vs. Liberal: Defining the Difference April 12, 2007
There is a common practice in defining these notions. It is in large measure actuated by liberal historians and political pundits who have a greater interest in activism than ideas. This is unfortunate. The activists take a simplistic view of ideas and the ideologues on the left tend to systematically deceive, often without intending to do so. How is this done?
When defining 'conservative' they look to the conservative activists and, then, arrive at a conception of the idea of conservativism based on observing the activists. So Rush Limbaugh and Phillis Schafly provide the raw basis for their definitions. There is an obvious fallacy here. How does one judge that these are in fact conservatives? What they will not accept in most instances is defining 'socialism' in terms of the behavior of activists. If they did Stalin, Lenin, and Mao would provide the material for defining 'socialism' and we would have a much different idea than we have when we read Marx, Engels, Owen, or the French "Utopians," as to the meaning of 'socialism'. How many leftists would be content defining 'socialism' based on the type of behavior we encounter in Hugo Chavez, an old line Fidelista dictator? My plea is for consistency: if you are going to define 'socialism' in terms of the thinking of thinkers, rather than the actions of activists in the case of 'socialist', say, then do the same with 'conservative'. Otherwise, you will end up describing the wrong people as conservatives or liberal; that is, wrong in the sense of the proper understanding of these competing ideologies. The same could be said of 'liberalism' but here there are many added complications, so I pass by the term. Still my general complaint holds. But there is more at issue here.
Within each ideology there is an activist/idealist divide. I shall take 'idealist' to mean one who pursues unattainable goals insofar as they provide direction; I take 'activist' to refer to those who would implement ideas that are achievable in reality. Ending world hunger; eliminating crime; achieving world peace; ending racism are objectives for the idealists in either camp. Passing truth in packaging legislation; ending a certain war; illegalizing abortion are examples of objectives of activists. There is middle ground. For example climate control. I think this is mere political "whip" rooted, almost, entirely in activism. Here, there is no ideology; but acting on an unattainable ideal (perfect weather) serves immediate goals, in particular destroying successful western nations while "pumping up" one's ethical credentials without commitment to a political idea, that is, a theoretical conception. Eventually, I will get down to particulars on the meaning of 'liberal' and 'conservative' in the sense of principles, rather than immediate political objectives.
Abduction of Brits by Iran March 29, 2007
What are Ali Khamenei and Mahmud Ahmadinejad thinking? Here is what they are thinking:
"The limits of British and American tolerance are not to be judged in absolute terms, that is, dollars and cents and prospects for military success. They are determined by the limits their respective electorates will place on their actions. They are bound like prisoners, but only up to that point where the press associations of their respective countries play the role of "useful idiots." The western press is in alliance with the opposition parties or candidates, and as long as this circumstance prevails we can continue to show Chavez what real power is, as a personal joke, and, at the same time, actually, do what we wish. The future of the fifteen captives resides with the press and western trepidation.So what is to be done? Although I do not support an attack on Iran under the present circumstances, those circumstances are in flux. Here is what Britain and the U.S. must do. They must first decide if, ultimately, there is to be military confrontation with Iran, initiated by themselves or Iran. Israel figures in this equation, for Israel can take the initiative and, thereby, put in play the U.S. alliance. Their reluctance to do so is tactical, merely. They are, in a sense, playing by the same rules as Iran; that is, they are watching the press and gauging the consequences of war vis a vis the U.S. electorate. Support is not a foregone conclusion. For Israel the determination to survive is what determines tactics. Theirs is a struggle for national survival not global politics. If the determination has been made that military confrontation is inevitable, then as a prelude a very hard line ought to be taken by Britain. Within a month a naval blockade of incoming fuel supplies should be expected. If there is resistance will almost certainly come;it will be by the Iranian airforce and navy.
On the given assumption of certain conflict, sinking the Iranian navy would be the best first move. It would not directly impact Iranian sovereignty, as the concept is understood by those whose emphasis is on "occupiers." The move would have this advantage while strategically disposing of what stands between the two aircraft carrier battle groups and the Iranian airforce. This would configure the eventual battlefield circumstances, should the need arise. The Iranians will make diplomatic moves but they should be ignored inasmuch as Arabs will soon forget the "unfortunate" recent history of Iran, after the conflict subsides. But what are America's monied interests thinking. Here is what they are thinking:
Up til now we have cringed on prospects of war. Every time someone pops a paper bag in the elevator the market goes down three percent! Maybe, just maybe, Iran is the key to our problems both here and in Iraq. Maybe we could swallow a ten percent reduction in equities etc modulo 18 months! Maybe, just maybe, we are so afraid of the "dentist" we should go to the "dentist"! Sinking Iran's navy will cause an immediate disruption of oil supplies. This will disturb the Chinese, whose protection is just what Iran sought in their latest "deal" with China. But, soon, Iran will have to rapidly increase protection, not only destabilizing OPEC but, at the same time, increasing the world's oil supply. Consumers, including China, will be very happy.
Elections are coming in France. There will be a change. Immediately after that change, a new diplomatic situation will emerge. France may, along with Europe, arrive at a similar conclusion. Maybe actions motivated by fear are in the long run counterproductive. Israel can be used, simply, as a regional military reserve, guaranteeing victory under adverse circumstances of unpredicted interventions from "thug" nations.
Fontloading the U.S. Primaries. March 27, 2007
Much has been written about frontloading U.S. primary elections. It is said that this will favor the monied candidates and discourage voter participation. But little of a less general nature has been said. There is something the politicos are missing in this regard. There is another effect. One which in this particular election season, premature as it is, should give pause. In fact, what I said below about Hillary and Obama a month or so ago has rendered out of date in some ways, but not others. Let me explain.
The public doesn't like Hillary Clinton. Her higher name recognition has given her the advantage over some possible opponents in a general election, such as Fred Thompson; but the fact remains that she is distrusted and believed by Party insiders to be a formula for defeat. Many aren't saying so because she has lots of bucks and can spread those bucks around, and, so, some believe they can escape the coming storm should she lose which, I think, she will. But there is one other point that bears mentioning and that is this: by the time this primary process aeems close to a conclusion the public is going to be sour on all the candidates. Rudy is my candidate, but, unless he is cautious he, too, is in for some rocky "rain." After the frontloaded "super Tuesday" there will still be time for one more big event, unlike before.
That big event could be a third party entering the race, supported by a press which will sacrifice even a Democrat for readers and viewers. In short, look out for some one or some party to enter the field, just at that time when the people are pooped out by Hillary and Rudy (neither are in good stead with their respective party ideologues). This could happen, and will, if it happens at all, in the space of a short time. Unlike Perot there will not be time to "defrock" the new "prophet." Big trouble for both parties, perhaps. The good thing is that the country will not suffer from a third party option, or, at least, the threat of a third party option. It's like the unions; they screw the workers and consumers, but because there are times when they are important forces they are valuable assets to workers. The option is important even if it is not exercised. But the frontloading brought on by the party faithfuls invites a changing of the larger picture. The last laugh comes just before nobody is laughing. I'm laughing, already!
A Neo-conservative View of Immigration March 13, 2007
How is a conservative to view illegal immigration to the U.S.? This depends on what he takes 'conservative' to mean. In my case, there are two essential concepts to this general idea: first, there is the idea of decentralization in government and in the economy; and, second, there is the idea that freedom is more important than equality all other things being equal. So how is a conservative to view this issue?
The fact of widespread crime committed by illegals is easily documented. To deny it is to fly in the face of the facts; but such facts do not in and of themeselve suggest a new policy. Such facts are an indictment of the present arrangement. It is interesting to note that much gang activity among, e.g., hispanics is not imported. In fact, it is being exported to S. America in large measure as the outcome of conditions within the illegal community in the U.S. The U.S. is not to blame, rather the neglect accrues to a failure to support law enforcement out of fear in these communities of deportation (and retaliation) should cooperation be forthcoming. When a crime is committed on the street, windows close and, suddenly, that street is vacant. People withdraw to the anonymity of their shared apartments. What I am saying may not sound very conservative in the usual sense, but in fact the message to be derived is conservtive. Freedom requires order and order must prevail. The civil authorities must take control. Failure to enforce immigration laws encourages the very crime the politicians (and others) deplore. Whatever immigration policy is adopted it must be enforced. Lack of enforcement is worse than bad policy. America is at risk owing to bad enforcement of ill conceived policies.
The best course is: tighten the borders, taking extreme measures; arm the border patrol to the teeth; erect an impenetrable wall. But more is required: take steps to legalize the vast majority of illegals; allow a generous work program; encourage participation in the political process. This last proposal may evoke consternation on the part of my fellow conservatives, but there is a greater point.
These illegals are in the vast majority sympathetic to conservative ideals. Over a couple of generations they will provide the backbone of U.S. culture and its global presence. I have few doubts in this regard. But the illegal community needs to learn two lessons from their European predecessors. First, they need to learn to take the initiative in business and public affairs; they need to acquire a sense of community transcending their national origins. Second, they need to aspire to the kind of intellectual ambition which, while fading, still exists in some communities (largely Jewish and Asian). So two things: taking the initiative and intellectual discipline. These two things have been eschewed or ignored in the illegal community, excepting where there is social activism inspired by ambitious legal politicians. And here I do not mean to exclude those I've supported at the executive level in the past. We conservatives have long opposed "judicial activism," where liberal Justices legislate from the bench, given that their political perceptions are not shared by the electorate. But there is another form of activism: executive "legislative activism"; and, here, I mean the refusal to enforce the immigration laws because the executive does not abide by the will of the electorate. This administration has indulged in an ""activism" in this regard which is no less deplorable than its judicial counterpart. It is this as much as illegal immigration itself which has incensed so many conservatives, particularly those who value law and order.
The "good intentions" of the left wing of the Democrat Party want to take the bows; the Pelosi/Clinton/Kennedy cabal position themselves as overseers of the rights of the oppressed. They speak of diversity but they mean "follow me"! They preach diversity but, lest you bring with you the "evil" ways of your ancestors, you must allow them to "show you the way." And look what has happened to the African American community: dependency, crime, a seemingly hopeless search for authenticity while trying to please those who profess to serve their interests, particularly during election year. We on the right assume the worst in us all; we go this way in dire recognition of the universally human shortcomings that have driven us all to America; we offer no apologies; we demand nothing but this: don't allow others to use your presence to obstruct the path of those who stand beside you, so that the dream of those like you who land on our shores may find their own way, in their own way, by the light of that which sends us your children and their future. So we on the right offer a rough stone; it is your job to cut that stone, but it shall be our disgrace if we blunt the tools of your life's ambitions, for by doing so we block entry to the future to which we all aspire.
What conservatives must realize is that the illegal community holds moral views in keeping with the traditions; illegals value what "we" have valued, and, given the chance, their courage will overcome the duplicity of the white liberals who patronize them. But to be "illegal" engenders avoidance of the law. My fellow conservatives will and must realize that over time with the help of these new allies we can, together, achieve two things; we can revitalize American art and culture - illegals are in large measure creative and high-spirited - second, we can forge new alliances as it becomes clear that for the U.S. there is little future in the "Old World." We need to move on; we need to let our new friends know that we conservatives are with them, and that we share far more than even they suspect. Welcome to our shores...a new day will dawn with the certainty of the rising sun.
Should Israel Bomb Iran? Jan 8 2007
Some believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in a race to get the bomb in order to destroy Israel. That is the public posture to destablize policy formation within the Sunni world. There is evidence that this is working inasmuch as the government of Egypt, for example, will not indulge even the mildest of UN sanctions. Russia has its own reasons (notice the quiet of Chechyna) and its oil interests elsewhere. Problems with Iran, among other things - important things I shall not discuss - but, also, related to Belarus militate against Russian involvement, where a new dictatorship is beginning to unfold. But the issue on the table is this: Would a thermonuclear attack on Iran's productions facilities have the desired effect?
As a number of my readers know, I am somewhat hawkish on these matters. I support the U.S. actions in Iraq, but admit that the nature of the conflict has been transformed. U.S. interests are in fact limited; engaging religious fanatics, gangs, political thugs and downright criminals is not the task of the U.S. military and ought not be. But am I less hawkish on the coming problem with Iran because the insurgency has clipped my hawkish wings? No. In the first place. a signficant military engagement with Iran, which is almost certain with a couple of years, would involve troops in numbers that will be available only from bases in Iraq. To the extent that there is a potential conflict between Iran and its neighbors, the U.S. must remain in Iraq with some degree of strength. But is the current regime in Iran interested so much in destroying Israel as it appears? Why would there be a race to destroy Israel; why not a more methodical and carefully orchestrated planning, and execution, of a better thought out, more secret, strategy? Or a stealth strategy complicit with terrorist elements? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very clever man, more so than those who pull his strings.
If Israel strikes Iran, the regime would enjoy an enormously increased popularity, one already fed by popular support in Iran for developing the bomb. The ambitions of the mullahs and the will of the people will find a common nutritive source. In addition, the dissidents would suffer enormous setbacks and the stage would be set for an enduring political influence in regions of the Gulf which have heretofore been skeptical of Iranian intentions. The current regime is in a race not to obliterate Israel, but to save its own skin against the inevitable. If Israel holds back this regime will crumble within a decade. There is, however, the powerful argument that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. But this is to neglect a required understanding of how fluid the situation is in this region, as Islam continues the first important stage of its own self destruction. Iran as a nuclear power is far less threatening than a Pakistan under the control of Islamic radicals. If Pervez Musharraf were assassinated, a nuclear Iran under the control of moderates would be less threatening, globally, than a nuclear Pakistan. But will Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (and company) win the race to build the bomb before they are toppled; or, meet some other fate? This race is largely internal.
The fact of the matter is that Iran has the distinct potential of becoming a beacon of civilized behavior in the region. The West must assess prospects for the future and the content of the Iranian national character. Despite my hawkishnes and, notwithstanding my support of Israel, an attack within a year (or so) on Iran, while not entirely futile, would be a mistake. The need for sanctions is clear; the need to constrict the Iranian economy to force the mullahs out is clear; the desirability of a non-anti-western Iran is clear. Israel has the capability of converting Iran into a blob of molten glass. To take half measures at a huge cost would be counterproductive. The Israelis know this. To say the very least, the actual use of nuclear weapons would most certainly effect U.S. and Israeli relations, contrary to the interests of both. This must be weighed against the prospects of a new holocaust, one the Jew hating ghouls can claim as their own. Further, many Israeli commentators are right: the changing demographics of the U.S. make it expedient to begin looking for another course, modulo twenty years, besides responding to U.S. demands out of economic compulsion, as the "strings attached" may become larger than the ropes that hung around Saddam's neck. Israel must not attempt to recoup its military respectability by way of a nuclear attack on Tehran, sending the following message: "Ok, big mouths. We invented this damn bomb and have some added surprises. Now you are close to having it, and we must assume your expressed intentions are authentic. Ok big mouth Islamofascists, you wanted confrontation? You now have it in spades!" ("KaBoom!") Israel might do this. I hope not. There is an enormous potential in Iran, over time, for being a different sort of country. If there is killing, it must not be for the sake of killing; but how long can the mullahs expect the West and Israel to pay a "death tax," themselves, for maintaining "business as usual"? There may come a time, such as an event of blockading the Gulf, when military action will be escalated. Nato will either be dissolved or come into the picture. The elections in France are crucial. The Russians, despite UNSC membership, are marginalizing themselves, unwittingly, in attempting to achieve short term goals. The Israelis are intent on surviving. They are entitled to this. In a peaceful world, radical Islam feels cannot compete. Moderate Muslims must cease their tacit support and cowardly complacency; as well as overcome their "more Muslim than thou" posturing out of fear. Will they?
If not, Islam will continue its decline in the minds of young people around the world. Look what has happened to Christianity in a single century. Bled of a theistic metaphysics of morals, secular-humanist Ethics is Christianity without Christ: pale, pointless and philosophically vacuous. A similar vacuity now threatens Islam, but on the side of the fundamentalists - their "scholars" argue for more killing. Their deity, they maintain, calls for more killing. When will the noise reach a calmer level of theological discussion? I suppose it is better that we hope for noise and not the long silence after the big noise and the fog of thermonuclear dust. The U.S. and Israel have one strategic fact working against closer ties that they presently enjoy: many U.S. conservatives view Israel as a larger representative of socialist policies and a liberal-humanist agenda. Indeed, there are now rabbis that profess secularism. One widely held, and seldom discussed, point of view among U.S. conservatives is that in the past Israel, as a larger representative of Jewry, has fed this agenda within the U.S. at a time when from within its Ivory towers conservative Christian fundamentalists were greeted with the same distain as hating Jews are today. Now, Israel's policy makers must cross the U.S. liberal/conservative divide, nontransparently. Concurrently, there is a division among U.S. policy analysts: there are those who would sink Israel in order to look good at the U.N. and their classrooms; and, then, there are those who feel that Israel is a test of U.S. resolve to do what is right, by protecting a nation of people which has experienced hardship, misunderstanding, and the irrational hatred of its neighbors.
On Vladimir Putin - "Thugocrat" The question of the day is: "Why does Vladimir Putin WANT us to know he is a thug?!" Why does Vladimir ("The Macho Man") Putin want the West to see him as one of the gang of four, including Bashar Assad, Kim Jong-il, and Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías? You know, those guys defending the world against the "war criminal Bush"? What does he have to gain? When high ranking diplomats at the U.N. posed for the cameras, laughing, while Hugo ("The Mucho Macho Man") Chavez made "fart jokes" about the leader of the largest contributor to the colony of vipers, why weren't the vipers smart enough not to publically display their ignorance? In the latter case it was because they ARE ignorant, but Putin is no fool. What's up?
It almost a certainty that if not at the order of Putin, then with the blessings of Putin, that Alexander Litvinenko was "offed." But why use polonium? After all, no one really believes that a bunch of dissidents got hold of an element so refined that only someone with ties to a world power could have access to it. So why not a bullet in the head? Or why not a "drive around the block"? Why the high profile hit? Why does Vladimir Putin want the world to know he is a thug? What could be more timely than a "hit" that demonstrates that he can be as "tough" as Assad, a real "pro" when it comes to "high class" murder. "Look, I can do it! And what's more, I don't have to run and hide." What could be more timely than when he, then, almost at the same time, rushes to sell a missle defense system to Ahmadinezhad's "cult" nation of Iran? We know that given the mechanisms that allow for "plausible deniability" Litvinenko might have been "evaporated" into the night. We know this can be, and has been done; and done well by Russian intelligence "interests." So what's up?
Putin desires the unpredictability of a thug, if not the predictability of a messianic dictator. Putin desires the predictability of a "leg breaker" who just happens to be your "friend." He's one "hip" street wise-guy. He knows the ropes. He helped weave them, and now he wants to use them a bit for something of a climb and, then, strangle his opposition with that rope when its time to retire, which he, in fact, will never do. And here come the American Democrats! They want to talk. They want to make love not war!
Putin knows what he is doing. His kind has been doing this sort of thing out of the Kremlin for generations. He's climbed to the top. He will not kill millions, just a few that happen to get in the way. He loves the image, which is WHY Vladimir Putin WANTS us to know he is just another thug. Russia is a nation of genius: artistic, scientific, and mathematical. It is a nation of distinctive character and personal warmth. But Putin has, just as has Chavez, anchored his people and its future to the past - a past easy to understand, a past the good people of Russia must set behind them, if what they do best is going to flourish in the sunflower fields wherein are layed to rest the dearest souls of this colorful nation. I wish them well, and hope for the best.
Some Reflections on Comments by Michael Young in Lebanon's Daily Star (November 16 2006)
In an interesting editorial in the Daily Star (Lebanon), href="http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=76911">"Kiss goodbye to a liberal Middle East", Michael Young expresses one important perspective on set-backs to Bush's Middle East foreign policy. Young identifies a position he calls the "realist" position, remarking:The words of representatives of the new "realism," Young contends, suggest "much contempt and a fundamental justification for tying America's wagon to Arab dictators." One central problem, he adds, is that it was this very "realism" that spawned the attacks of 9/11. Young is a good writer, preferring such euphemisms as "perilously eschatological" in describing radicals, rather than "fanatically messianic." But we can set this aside and attribute it to, what we shall benignly describe as, a difference in "perspective." The second problem faced by the "realists" is that the leaders of "Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are fast being marginalized by the region's non-Arab peripheral states..." It is worth pre-empting a misunderstanding of Young's claim: this second problem is not the creation of the "realists" but is a reality "realists" are incapable of seeing. This is essentially Young's position. It is not that I take strong exception to some of the things that Young has said, but there are crucial omissions.It was better for the US to deal with states primarily on the basis of interests as opposed to values, even if values were never abandoned in Washington's public rhetoric.Rumsfeld's departure must be seen in larger measure than heretofore acknowledged of his error in judgment in promoting a mobile, downsized, U.S. military, one that depends less on "boots on the ground" and more on "high tech." This error in judgment was further revealed by the infirm response of the Israeli military leadership to Hizbollah's own "mobility" in the use of comparatively low tech hardware. So two threads are joined in a complex knot of issues: the strategy of war and the objectives of war. Unless both threads are followed closely the knot cannot be untied. Let's trace one thread Young doesn't follow, a thread from which is suspended the weight of his remaining commentary.
Let's look at the first problem facing the "realists" according to Young: that 9/11 was the result of U.S. "realist" policy. Of course, this is to blame the U.S. and while this is a position Young, perhaps, feels he must take in order to guarantee credibility with his Muslim readers, it is little more than a veiled threat: "Change your policy back to the dead ended one you have pursued or face another terrorist attack." It is either this or surrender Israel and convert to Islam (not necessarily in that order). Young leaves the U.S. with no "real" option. But here is how a repeat of 9/11 will not be received with a repeat of the sort of retaliation that was witnessed against the Taliban. Vietnam has this much in common with the war in Iraq: It is delusional to believe that an ideological war can be won following military engagement. This anti-"realist" position was the position of a well intentioned George Bush and Don Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld's departure signals not so much an internal political requirement of cooperation with the new Congressional majority but signals rather a change in perspective: there will be no more Iraq's, no more Vietnams. So what will there be. One strong possibility is what Schwartzkopf once called "a war of total annihilation." What does this mean, "really"?
What it means is that there will be more measured consideration in the employment of million dollar bombs in targeting rusty trucks and vacant buildings. The "realists" are going to bring back the "dumb" bombs and these, not million dollar bombs, will constitute the tactical difference. The "realism", to mix metaphors, is - contrary to what Young is implying - "on the other foot." A suggestion as to what this might mean in the new "realist" world will be made explicit by the coming storm, as I believe it will be, when Israel takes on Iran, following the wished for failure (among the Islamacists) of worthless, if not hopeless, negotiations. Israel has in the recent past purchased over 100 of the largest bombs in the U.S. arsenal; enhancement by the Israeli military establishment will render these devices on par in destructive capacity to thermonuclear devices far more destructive than the one the N. Korean dictator used to "earn" Iran's respect. The consequences could be, from a humanitarian standpoint, horrific. The U.S. military will reach a final determination of its options, following the conflict. Should Israel require assistance, it will be received; in part, as a consequence of a certain callous growth over the wounds of international contempt inflicted by America's "friends," who by now have little influence during a crisis. So the threat is NOT another 9/11 for the "realists," but a return to "boots on the ground" and B52s for the Islamic "idealists." Now let's consider the other "problem" for the "realists."
Recall that this amounts to the fact that the Arab states are being "marginalized by the region's non-Arab peripheral states." But in what sense "marginalized"? He mentions Iran, Turkey, and Israel, but, I think, he means Iran, primarily. The fact is: the U.S. is preparing for war with Iran. Iran wants war. Its messianic leadership believes it is are invincible, for certain, shall we say, theological reasons. The U.S. never attempted to subvert Iran's government. Why? Because it would require a commitment to rebuilding or reconstructing Iran, which in view of Iraq is now considered an impossibility. Better to annihilate Iran's military and top level leadership, on this model, and then let the "liberals" push themselves out of the ashes than play another multiple billion dollar game looking for international praise that will never be forthcoming as long as there is support for Israel. So the "realists" are realists because they reason that they must live and react among enemies, not friends. But there is one other factor missing from Young's "equations": a new birth of U.S. European relations which will may follow the inevitable attack on European targets in the foreseeable future. That will be the fat in the fire; that is the fire that will burn brightly across the skies of the Middle East; such is the "illumination" of the "realists."
I wish to make clear that these words of mine are analysis. Wars of annihilation are unwarranted UNLESS the war being engaged amounts to being a war for national survival. For the U.S. it is doubtful that Iran can create such a circumstance. Israel is a different story. Unless there is a civil exchange, unless a "live and let live" attitude prevails upon all sides, the strategy of "realism" will compel death on a large scale, where no damage will be "collateral." The choice belongs not to Bush nor the "realists"; it belongs to the seemingly ever silent "liberals" within the Islamic world who will soon discover that mere reputation gained on the matter of who is "most Islamic" is insufficient to the ends that best serve Muslim people who wish merely to live, work, and determine their own ends as Allah must surely have intended should it be the case that the endowment of freedom is a "gift," a gift containing a mere contradiction when forced upon unwilling recipients.
Finally, it is no exercise in the "art" of understatement to suggest that Young is a mouthpiece for Hizbollah and Iran. He does not put his cards on the table; he holds them close. The faces on those cards, otherwise, would appear familiar. Perhaps he will enjoy a more significant role in the next government of Lebanon. I am not being cynical. His sort of talent would serve this coming regime, well.
Iraq: Following the U.S. Elections, 2006
(Nov. 9, 2006) As it sets the stage to leave Iraq, what does the United States want to take from the Iraq experience? As a political issue within the United States, it is on the back burner (and here I mean with respect to electoral politics, only) for about eight months, months crucial for determining actual policy details. There are some basic assumptions not often discussed. Here are a few.
Nouri al-Maliki is in the hip pocket of the Shia militias. It is doubtful, but possible, that this is by covert agreement. Al-Maliki is fearful and weak; such a man no one can trust. He will be deposed. Factional fighting within Iraq is fed in part by the very materialism against which the Taliban have firmly stood. This is no defense of the Taliban. It is merely to say that the death squads are unprincipled and cannot be defeated with American money or U.S. troops ordered to play the role of sociologists standing in the bulls eye of undisciplined well armed factions. The U.S. realizes the political situation within the eight month, or so, window is impossible. There are three schools of thought, one of which will, likely, prevail.
First, withdraw U.S. forces to Kurdish areas and let the factions "eat each other for lunch." This would allow troop reductions to about 50,000 and secure the borders of Iraq against overt Iranian incursion. The move would have to be quick and dramatic for propoganda purposes. Intelligence resources could be cultivated and the option of a partitioned Iraq would remain viable. What was done in West Germany could be attempted in Kurdish, and selected areas. That is, the contrast with Bagdad would be exemplary and would alter the political climate, encouraging "secular" Iraqis to migrate to civilized areas or move the process forward, elsewhere. This, however, would be a long term option.
This option is complicated by a fluid situation vis a vis Iran. Messianism at the highest levels in that country is irreversible, it would seem, and insofar as the Russians (now governed by "thugs" albeit less violent than the militias and political factions in Iraq) will continue to conceal their global impotence by posturing while taking chump change bribes; thus, the focus on this first option will not be cultivation of "improved" relations with Russia but preparation for war with Iran, should the Israelis hold their breath long enough to induce a Western initiative. The winner here would be Franco-American relations. 50,000 troops in Kurdistan on this option is insurance against more than one dismal likelihood. But there is a second approach, complete withdrawal.
The advantage here is primarily image and money. U.S. money is what is funding the terrorists. Intended to rebuild a nation it has in far too many cases simply provided factions with the means for continuing the murder. This option, however, sacrifices the strongest card in the deck for long term U.S. goals: Sunni Muslims. It is quite possible that properly supported the Sunnis, contrary to many in Israel who believe otherwise, might be made capable of winning a civil war. The Sunnis will almost certainly, soon, leave the government, unless the threat of doing so leads to the demise of al-Maliki, one way or the other. There is a third option.
France has about had it with radical Islam; they have watched the movie "Is Paris Burning" and they know that terrorism works. France is headed in the opposite direction of present U.S. politics, in particular away from "denial" along the lines of U.S. Democrats, most of whom are clueless -- looking to the U.N. for enlightement, an amusing theme for a sequel to "Borat." The U.S. and France (and, perhaps, even Germany) will meet near the center. A strategy on Iraq could be formulated concommitantly with a policy on Iran. This is the way to go. Move the edges (Iraq) by moving the fabric at the center. France and the U.S. now share much intelligence. Indeed, this war for the U.S. may have been worth it for the intelligence alone. The U.S. now has independent resources, and if we have learned one lesson it is the important of intelligence beyond remote sensing devices. I recommend this third option with elements of the first.
This is being written just a day or so following U.S. elections. The world will soon know there is no alternative plan, because the Senate cannot be controlled with a bare majority and the Democrats are strangers to the real world.
On 'Islamofascism'
'fascism' =df 'a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.'
My definition of 'Islamofascism'
A theocratic system committed on an international scale to the maintaining by violent means of adherence to a prescribed form of Islamic law, controlled by a few powerful religious leaders who allow no opposition upon threat of death.Gustav Bergmann on Structural History Chapter 4 The Objectivity of Moral Judgmements (concludedI believe it is important to use this term. The reason is clear: there is no better way of singling out the class of individuals of interest. What are the alternatives? Let's consider a few. We might try 'extremist', but that doesn't single out the relevant class because the relevant class for the purpsose of the current war is tethered to an interpretation of Islamic religious texts. So we might try 'Islamic extremist'. The problem here is that there is an intrinsic ambiguity, one which weakens the 'intensional' content of the expression. The ambiguity is owing to the fact that the term 'Islamic' can be read as either "categorematic" or "syncategorematic." What does this mean? Consider an example from the American logician Willard Quine (_Word and Object_ MIT. 1960): 'poor violinist'. This expression can be used to clearly illustrate the difference between categorematic and syncategorematic. Here are the two readings: first, "a poor man who plays violin" (perhaps well), and, second, "a violinist who plays poorly." The same obtains in the case of the expression 'Islamic extremist': we may read this as "an extremist" - he may be an extremist with respect to ANY issue, but "who happens to be Islamic in unspecified practices." But ambiguity is not the only problem with 'Islamic extremist'. Another problem is that 'extremist' is evaluative; it assumes a judgment as to better or worse; or, good or bad. No extremist is a good extremist, discounting the syncategorematic use of 'good' which is one possible read. "Islamofascist" compels the the syncategorematic reading, with the help of 'o'; similarly a neo-platonist is not a "neo" who take Plato literally. However it will,almost certainly, be claimed that 'fascist' is evaluative.
My short answer to this suggestion is that as a term describing a political system it is not evaluative. In the language of certain philosophers who retain the analytic/synthetic distinction, 'extremist' conveys an ethical negative content, analytically; that is, as part of its meaning; 'fascist' does not. Similarly, 'spinster' often carries a negative connotation, when in fact it is no part of the meaning of the term. But the argument may not end with this, as my imagined interlocutor may hold a further card.
He invites me to entertain the locution 'good fascist' and tells me that 'good' in 'good fascist' can only carry the syncategorematic employment, since, otherwise, a fascist may be a good person. I begin my noting that a 'good fascist' may describe someone who is neither good nor bad, categorically, adding that a 'good extremist' must be culpable in some sense; even the term has the ring of self contradiction, at least stronger to my ear than 'good fascist'. There comes a point where we must rely on what the Chomskyans call 'linguistic intuitions' and this contrast resonates with my linguistic intuitions. But intuition is not a systematic methodology. Still, in this domain there is no good methodology. If we were not introducing a term but, rather, considering an old familiar one, then empirical methods of a statistical nature might come into play. However, consider one final question. Was Rommel a 'good soldier'? Let us suppose Rommel was a fascist. Still, the term 'good' can be read either categorically or syncategorematically; thus being a 'fascist' does not analytically entail being bad, this as a matter of language, not fact. I might have spoken in terms of 'meaning' or 'use' with the same effect of 'analytic' for the purpose of this discussion. But, now, suppose we grant every argument of my imagined interlocutor.
In this case, there remains one other argument: that even though 'fascist' may analytically entail evil we have shifted the negativity of the expression 'islamofascist' to 'fascist' from 'islam'. Indeed, by using this term, 'Islamofascist' one does not use 'Islam' negatively or evaluatively. Therefore, it is less harsh w.r.t. to peaceful Muslims than 'Islamic extremist'; which is semantically bad on all counts. Why use a negative term at all?
Because those who are critical of those who satisfy the definiens of my proposed definition require a term of reference.
What Israel May Be Telling China Under the Table (9/12/2006)
Before the Hizballah intiated hostilities with Israel, Israel had been sending sensitive technologies to China. The leaders of Israel felt reasonably secure that the event would be OKed at the highest levels in the U.S. It was not. After considerable prodding Israel desisted. But this lost Israel leverage. Israelneeds leverage with China both on the UN Security Council and elsewhere. Surrounded by about 240,000,000, most of whom would dance in the streets if every single Israeli were decapitated some compensatory "device" was in demand. Hizballah derailed this. The Chinese, along with the Russians (who are more anti-Semitic than even its detractors would care to admit), sided with Hizballah, in deed if not in word. Now if I were an Israeli policy maker what would I say in view of the growing threat from Iran? Here is what I would say "under the table": "If we bomb Iran we will target not only nuclear facilities but oil production. We are a small country. Oil for us comes second to survival (at most). For you it is insurance against domestic instability. And so, we shall make a present of baptism - ironically enough - into our way of life and, in particular, its uncertainties. You will be without oil. Perhaps your old friends from the former CCCP can give you a "fix" (once? twice?)! On the other hand, this plan will only be implemented if there is continuous obstruction and no accommodation is reached on our future security. In other words, enough with scratching of Iran's back, and enough with your larger agenda. You needn't support us, but don't defend those who would obliterate us! You ARE part of the equation."
To comment write: baynesrb@yahoo.com
HIST-ANALYTIC ARCHIVE Sarfraz (1970) Have you seen this man?
