5/14/2003
David Brooks writes for The Atlantic that the sexist pig is proudly back in all his glory. From the overt misogyny of rap, to the crude toilet inspired humor of The Man Show and its ilk is a universe “free from the taint of polite opinion.”
The causes of this low-culture revival can be traced to the usual suspects.
Theories offered include a revolt by the Angry White Man to forced-feminization:
These men have not a hint of any quality that might make them attractive to progressive and mature women. Their world has been vacuumed free of empathy, sensitivity, and sophistication. It is as if millions of American men—many of them well educated—took a look at the lifestyle prescribed by modern feminism and decided, No thanks, we'd rather be pigs.
A knowing, post-modern ironic response to a P.C. cultural climate:
The men are making fun of themselves as much as they are degrading women. Besides, it's not reality. It's just a normal urge to flout convention, to have some bawdy fun. It doesn't mean anything.
What’s interesting to note is the relative lack of response from the cultural forces aligned against this dynamic. Feminism is mostly silent on the matter, unable (or afraid) to mount a counter-attack.
Feminists seem to know they are being toyed with. They don't want to appear to be earnest plodders in the face of hip, playful gestures, and they don't want to grant that anyone is more postmodern than they are.
And purveyors of high-culture are likewise disarmed. Other than the occasional scolding by public interest groups, and the much-ballyhooed ban on lad-mags by Wal-Mart, few have been able or willing to effectively counter this growing movement.
The causes of this low-culture revival can be traced to the usual suspects.
Theories offered include a revolt by the Angry White Man to forced-feminization:
These men have not a hint of any quality that might make them attractive to progressive and mature women. Their world has been vacuumed free of empathy, sensitivity, and sophistication. It is as if millions of American men—many of them well educated—took a look at the lifestyle prescribed by modern feminism and decided, No thanks, we'd rather be pigs.
A knowing, post-modern ironic response to a P.C. cultural climate:
The men are making fun of themselves as much as they are degrading women. Besides, it's not reality. It's just a normal urge to flout convention, to have some bawdy fun. It doesn't mean anything.
What’s interesting to note is the relative lack of response from the cultural forces aligned against this dynamic. Feminism is mostly silent on the matter, unable (or afraid) to mount a counter-attack.
Feminists seem to know they are being toyed with. They don't want to appear to be earnest plodders in the face of hip, playful gestures, and they don't want to grant that anyone is more postmodern than they are.
And purveyors of high-culture are likewise disarmed. Other than the occasional scolding by public interest groups, and the much-ballyhooed ban on lad-mags by Wal-Mart, few have been able or willing to effectively counter this growing movement.
5/13/2003
Verizon offering Wi-fi hotspots in phone booths in NY.
"Any place that you see Verizon pay phones could in the future be logical places for Verizon HotSpots," said James Otterbeck, senior vice president of emerging markets for Verizon.
It's heartening to see that the promise off Wi-fi is being rolled out in a business model that generates value for the consumer as well as the service provider.
"Any place that you see Verizon pay phones could in the future be logical places for Verizon HotSpots," said James Otterbeck, senior vice president of emerging markets for Verizon.
It's heartening to see that the promise off Wi-fi is being rolled out in a business model that generates value for the consumer as well as the service provider.
The ascendancy of neo-conservativism has lead to a renewed interest in the roots of modern American conservatism. One of the most influential political philosophers of his, and subsequently our, time was Leo Strauss. A brilliant, complex, and at times contradictory proponent of a “new” worldview that actually is ancient. The Boston Globe writes:
Odd as this may sound, we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss, a controversial philosopher who died in 1973. Although generally unknown to the wider population, Strauss has been one of the two or three most important intellectual influences on the conservative worldview now ascendant in George W. Bush's Washington. Eager to get the lowdown on White House thinking, editors at the New York Times and Le Monde have had journalists pore over Strauss's work and trace his disciples' affiliations. The New Yorker has even found a contingent of Straussians doing intelligence work for the Pentagon.
But who was Leo Strauss, and who has the best grasp of his views? The New Republic famously quipped that Straussians are one of the “top ten gangs of the Millennium.” Allan Bloom, Irving Kristol, his son Bill Kristol, and Shadia Drury have all made names for themselves by either espousing or debunking Straussian ideals.
Strauss believed that the pre-modern philosophers (Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle in particular) understood that inequality was a fundamental aspect of human affairs.
For Strauss, the modern liberal project of using the fruits of science and the institutions of the state to spread happiness to all is intrinsically futile, self-defeating, and likely to end in terror and tyranny. The best regime is one in which the leaders govern moderately and prudently, curbing the passions of the mob while allowing a small philosophical elite to pursue the contemplative life of the mind.
And his advocacy of a benign cabal of enlightened elites is perhaps his most controversial idea. His position on this matter, his willful embrace of obscurity, and the cultist following of his acolytes has fostered any number of conspiracy theories.
Janet Heer wonders as well:
But just how ''sinister'' was Leo Strauss himself? The answer depends on how a reader approaches his books. If you read Strauss with a well-disposed spirit, he can be interpreted as a genuine friend of American liberal democracy. He worked to create an elite that was strong, sober, and sufficiently free of illusions about the goodness of man to fight the totalitarian enemies of liberal democracy-be they fascists, communists, or Islamicist fundamentalists.
But if you read Strauss with a skeptical mind, the way he himself read the great philosophers, a more disturbing picture takes shape. Strauss, by this view, emerges as a disguised Machiavelli, a cynical teacher who encouraged his followers to believe that their intellectual superiority entitles them to rule over the bulk of humanity by means of duplicity. The worst thing you can do to Leo Strauss, perhaps, is to read his books with Straussian eyes
Odd as this may sound, we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss, a controversial philosopher who died in 1973. Although generally unknown to the wider population, Strauss has been one of the two or three most important intellectual influences on the conservative worldview now ascendant in George W. Bush's Washington. Eager to get the lowdown on White House thinking, editors at the New York Times and Le Monde have had journalists pore over Strauss's work and trace his disciples' affiliations. The New Yorker has even found a contingent of Straussians doing intelligence work for the Pentagon.
But who was Leo Strauss, and who has the best grasp of his views? The New Republic famously quipped that Straussians are one of the “top ten gangs of the Millennium.” Allan Bloom, Irving Kristol, his son Bill Kristol, and Shadia Drury have all made names for themselves by either espousing or debunking Straussian ideals.
Strauss believed that the pre-modern philosophers (Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle in particular) understood that inequality was a fundamental aspect of human affairs.
For Strauss, the modern liberal project of using the fruits of science and the institutions of the state to spread happiness to all is intrinsically futile, self-defeating, and likely to end in terror and tyranny. The best regime is one in which the leaders govern moderately and prudently, curbing the passions of the mob while allowing a small philosophical elite to pursue the contemplative life of the mind.
And his advocacy of a benign cabal of enlightened elites is perhaps his most controversial idea. His position on this matter, his willful embrace of obscurity, and the cultist following of his acolytes has fostered any number of conspiracy theories.
Janet Heer wonders as well:
But just how ''sinister'' was Leo Strauss himself? The answer depends on how a reader approaches his books. If you read Strauss with a well-disposed spirit, he can be interpreted as a genuine friend of American liberal democracy. He worked to create an elite that was strong, sober, and sufficiently free of illusions about the goodness of man to fight the totalitarian enemies of liberal democracy-be they fascists, communists, or Islamicist fundamentalists.
But if you read Strauss with a skeptical mind, the way he himself read the great philosophers, a more disturbing picture takes shape. Strauss, by this view, emerges as a disguised Machiavelli, a cynical teacher who encouraged his followers to believe that their intellectual superiority entitles them to rule over the bulk of humanity by means of duplicity. The worst thing you can do to Leo Strauss, perhaps, is to read his books with Straussian eyes
5/12/2003
It's amazing to watch an urban legend being born. (and people are shocked that this journalistic climate creates a Jayson Blair?)
In an era marked by fear of crime, fear of terrorism, and fear of the tactics used to fight these fears, we are presented with another civil liberties conundrum; law enforcement’s use of GPS.
The Washington Supreme Court is about to rule whether it’s legal for the police to use a satellite global positioning tool placed on a suspect’s car without a warrant.
There is little disagreement about the facts of the case. William Bradley Jackson killed his 9 year old daughter, buried her in a shallow grave, and later went back to further conceal her. Before he returned to the grave the police placed a GPS device on his car and monitored his movements. He led them to his victim’s body.
Many law enforcement departments maintain that no warrant is needed since the car was driving “in plain sight”. It would be analogous to following the suspect in an unmarked police car.
The state Court of Appeals in Spokane agreed no warrant was needed.
The court's opinion last year said, "A law officer could legally follow Mr. Jackson's vehicles on public thoroughfares .... The GPS devices made Mr. Jackson's vehicles visible or identifiable as though the officers had merely cleaned his license plates, or unobtrusively marked his vehicles and made them plain to see."
Some are troubled by the potential for abuse.
"Do we really want the ability to track everybody all the time, without any suspicion, or without probable cause?" asked Doug Klunder, a Seattle attorney who wrote an amicus brief, or friend of the court, in the case on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
The Washington Supreme Court is about to rule whether it’s legal for the police to use a satellite global positioning tool placed on a suspect’s car without a warrant.
There is little disagreement about the facts of the case. William Bradley Jackson killed his 9 year old daughter, buried her in a shallow grave, and later went back to further conceal her. Before he returned to the grave the police placed a GPS device on his car and monitored his movements. He led them to his victim’s body.
Many law enforcement departments maintain that no warrant is needed since the car was driving “in plain sight”. It would be analogous to following the suspect in an unmarked police car.
The state Court of Appeals in Spokane agreed no warrant was needed.
The court's opinion last year said, "A law officer could legally follow Mr. Jackson's vehicles on public thoroughfares .... The GPS devices made Mr. Jackson's vehicles visible or identifiable as though the officers had merely cleaned his license plates, or unobtrusively marked his vehicles and made them plain to see."
Some are troubled by the potential for abuse.
"Do we really want the ability to track everybody all the time, without any suspicion, or without probable cause?" asked Doug Klunder, a Seattle attorney who wrote an amicus brief, or friend of the court, in the case on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
5/11/2003
The Bush administration values allegiance and on that score is clearly willing to put its money where its mouth is. San Francisco Chronicle writer David Armstrong details how they are using economic carrots and sticks to payback debts for the Iraqi war. He writes that friend and foe now know the score:
They know it in France, a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war, where the Pentagon pulled U.S. aircraft out of next month's Paris Air Show and Secretary of State Colin Powell hinted at trade sanctions.
They know it in Singapore, a wartime ally, which signed a free trade agreement in a White House ceremony Tuesday, and in Chile, an Iraq war foe, whose free trade agreement has been pointedly delayed. And they know it in Australia, which dispatched commandos to Iraq and has seen its proposed free trade agreement with Washington put on the fast track and its prime minister feted at President Bush's Texas ranch.
Fareed Zakaria described an America as seen in the eyes of much of the world. In short, the U.S. is considered an “Arrogant Empire” by many. A nation that bullies other nations until they bend to its will. Some will surely see these new economic policies as an extension of this notion; a country intent on wielding its power in all its forms. Others, however, see economic engagement as an ultimately optimistic condition. Foreign affairs conducted through economic policy certainly is more desired than active hostilities. And the exchange of goods and services between two parties has long been considered one of the hallmarks of a developing and healthy familiarity.
One of the nations slated for greater economic engagement is Morocco, a moderate Muslim nation. It has been argued that reaching out to the middle is the surest way to win the Muslim street. Perhaps these new trade agreements are harbingers of a welcome return to more staid forms of diplomacy.
They know it in France, a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war, where the Pentagon pulled U.S. aircraft out of next month's Paris Air Show and Secretary of State Colin Powell hinted at trade sanctions.
They know it in Singapore, a wartime ally, which signed a free trade agreement in a White House ceremony Tuesday, and in Chile, an Iraq war foe, whose free trade agreement has been pointedly delayed. And they know it in Australia, which dispatched commandos to Iraq and has seen its proposed free trade agreement with Washington put on the fast track and its prime minister feted at President Bush's Texas ranch.
Fareed Zakaria described an America as seen in the eyes of much of the world. In short, the U.S. is considered an “Arrogant Empire” by many. A nation that bullies other nations until they bend to its will. Some will surely see these new economic policies as an extension of this notion; a country intent on wielding its power in all its forms. Others, however, see economic engagement as an ultimately optimistic condition. Foreign affairs conducted through economic policy certainly is more desired than active hostilities. And the exchange of goods and services between two parties has long been considered one of the hallmarks of a developing and healthy familiarity.
One of the nations slated for greater economic engagement is Morocco, a moderate Muslim nation. It has been argued that reaching out to the middle is the surest way to win the Muslim street. Perhaps these new trade agreements are harbingers of a welcome return to more staid forms of diplomacy.
5/09/2003
A review of The End of Elsewhere. It sounds great, and if the entire book is as interesting as the excerpts it should be a fascinating read.
"Strolling through the Karen village, feeling voyeuristic as I glimpsed scenes of family intimacy, part of me hoped to experience something I didn't possess. My mobility was a form of decadence, and in travelling the world, something in me was seeking its antithesis. I'd come halfway around the globe to sit in a bamboo hut, searching for groundedness, tradition and community -- all the things I'd abandoned for the endless novelty of travel. And by fooling myself into thinking I'd bought something real, I'd become a chump, a despoiler. In a word, a tourist: somebody who travels abroad to purchase a simulated anecdote to an existential lack and then tries to deny the transaction has taken place."
"Strolling through the Karen village, feeling voyeuristic as I glimpsed scenes of family intimacy, part of me hoped to experience something I didn't possess. My mobility was a form of decadence, and in travelling the world, something in me was seeking its antithesis. I'd come halfway around the globe to sit in a bamboo hut, searching for groundedness, tradition and community -- all the things I'd abandoned for the endless novelty of travel. And by fooling myself into thinking I'd bought something real, I'd become a chump, a despoiler. In a word, a tourist: somebody who travels abroad to purchase a simulated anecdote to an existential lack and then tries to deny the transaction has taken place."
5/08/2003
5/07/2003
Well worn territory here on Ted the Dog but I love to see this meme spread. Again, globalization is good for the world. LeGrain comments that America's cultural dominance is over blown and, frankly a bit simplistic of a way to veiw the world. But increasing diversity is good in the long haul: The really profound cultural changes have little to do with Coca-Cola. Western ideas about liberalism and science are taking root almost everywhere, while Europe and North America are becoming multicultural societies through immigration, mainly from developing countries. Technology is reshaping culture: Just think of the Internet. Individual choice is fragmenting the imposed uniformity of national cultures. New hybrid cultures are emerging, and regional ones re-emerging. National identity is not disappearing, but the bonds of nationality are loosening.
If America seems to have a somewhat larger impact on global culture, most likely it's because no nation so reflects the globe. This nation leads, but only because it absorbs so much from abroad.
If America seems to have a somewhat larger impact on global culture, most likely it's because no nation so reflects the globe. This nation leads, but only because it absorbs so much from abroad.
Krugman nails the Bush photo op.
the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.
Given that history, George Bush's "Top Gun" act aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln — c'mon, guys, it wasn't about honoring the troops, it was about showing the president in a flight suit — was as scary as it was funny.
the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.
Given that history, George Bush's "Top Gun" act aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln — c'mon, guys, it wasn't about honoring the troops, it was about showing the president in a flight suit — was as scary as it was funny.
5/06/2003
If nothing else, we know that Santorum is swimming against the tide of history. Bit by bit we'll leave fools like him behind.
If Montana can't elect a Libertarian Gov, the I don't know who can. A battle for the right to drink and drive.
Rey Sanchez gets his hair cut during a game. Not the worst sports crime perhaps, but it clearly doesn't bode well for the Mets.
5/03/2003
Bill Keller of the New York Times reports that the second nuclear age is upon us. The first nuclear age was a balance of superpowers, the Soviets and America locked in a belligerent, but ultimately self-protective dance. Whereas in the recent past budding nuclear powers did so surreptitiously today’s developing nuclear nations are using their new found power to proudly and publicly assert themselves. Represented by India and Pakistan’s fluctuating levels of nuclear antagonism towards each other, North Korea’s posturing towards the U.S., or the ever present threat of a nation or group hostile towards a nuclear state, this new paradigm is fraught with risk.
Each new country that gets nuclear weapons multiplies the potential for a war involving a nuclear state. And numbers are not the worst of it. The original nuclear era was primarily a boxers' clinch of two great industrial powers, each claiming to represent an ideology of global appeal. The second is about insecure nations, most of them led by autocrats, most of them relatively poor, residing in rough neighborhoods, unaligned with and resentful of Western power.
The arsenals of the first nuclear age were governed by elaborate rules and sophisticated technology designed to prevent firing in haste. Some of the newcomers are thought to have far less rigorous command and control, raising fears that the lines of authority could be abandoned in the heat of battle. The newer nuclear states, after all, are dealing with enemies close at hand -- minutes away by missile -- in conflicts that could unfold quickly.
There are different approaches to dealing with the new nuclear reality.
The world of people who worry about nuclear weapons for a living is divided into two hostile camps…. The traditional arms controllers are advocates of treaties, export controls, international agencies and sanctions -- an elaborate regime intended to avert the spread and use of nuclear weapons…The arms controllers say that what is needed now is to shore up those multilateral disciplines, fortify their enforcement and restore the sense of taboo surrounding these weapons…Opposing the arms controllers is a new and ascendant camp, which asserts that the old constraints have broken down…the menu of options includes surgical intervention, blockades, economic sanctions and the purely political muscle of public exposure and brutal candor…To the counterproliferators, the main problem is not nuclear weapons; it is bad regimes armed with nuclear weapons.
Having just won a war will/should the counterproliferators continue their policies as the world spins closer towards nuclear chaos? Or should the world revert back towards a more conventional, multi-lateralist approach to weapons control? As the article discusses, the so-called Star Wars programs advocated by the counterproliferators may actually be intended to be used as an enabler of a more pro-active, pre-emptive strategy. To that end, if an anti-missile defense system is feasible, should we install one in order to confront these changing realities? Is there perhaps a third way?
Each new country that gets nuclear weapons multiplies the potential for a war involving a nuclear state. And numbers are not the worst of it. The original nuclear era was primarily a boxers' clinch of two great industrial powers, each claiming to represent an ideology of global appeal. The second is about insecure nations, most of them led by autocrats, most of them relatively poor, residing in rough neighborhoods, unaligned with and resentful of Western power.
The arsenals of the first nuclear age were governed by elaborate rules and sophisticated technology designed to prevent firing in haste. Some of the newcomers are thought to have far less rigorous command and control, raising fears that the lines of authority could be abandoned in the heat of battle. The newer nuclear states, after all, are dealing with enemies close at hand -- minutes away by missile -- in conflicts that could unfold quickly.
There are different approaches to dealing with the new nuclear reality.
The world of people who worry about nuclear weapons for a living is divided into two hostile camps…. The traditional arms controllers are advocates of treaties, export controls, international agencies and sanctions -- an elaborate regime intended to avert the spread and use of nuclear weapons…The arms controllers say that what is needed now is to shore up those multilateral disciplines, fortify their enforcement and restore the sense of taboo surrounding these weapons…Opposing the arms controllers is a new and ascendant camp, which asserts that the old constraints have broken down…the menu of options includes surgical intervention, blockades, economic sanctions and the purely political muscle of public exposure and brutal candor…To the counterproliferators, the main problem is not nuclear weapons; it is bad regimes armed with nuclear weapons.
Having just won a war will/should the counterproliferators continue their policies as the world spins closer towards nuclear chaos? Or should the world revert back towards a more conventional, multi-lateralist approach to weapons control? As the article discusses, the so-called Star Wars programs advocated by the counterproliferators may actually be intended to be used as an enabler of a more pro-active, pre-emptive strategy. To that end, if an anti-missile defense system is feasible, should we install one in order to confront these changing realities? Is there perhaps a third way?
5/02/2003
But the Sars outbreak was not just any old pretext for financial panic. Sars shared another characteristic with the previous panics about terrorism, the “war between civilisations” and the dot-com crash. All these phenomena were linked clearly to globalisation. They seemed to be caused by the way that capitalism was drawing the world together, often against the wishes of the peoples and countries involved. And globalisation was the means of disseminating these evils, as well as their cause.
From a Times piece about capatalism, "humanity's most benign creation".
From a Times piece about capatalism, "humanity's most benign creation".
5/01/2003
Iowa State men's basketball coach Larry Eustachy makes $1 million per year, making him the state's highest paid employee. He has the program pointed in the right direction but the past 12 months have been trying for the team. After a 64-59 loss to the Missouri Tigers Coach Eustachy went to a party at the apartment of Missouri player Josh Kroenke. Apparently he had a good time.
Shortly afterwards pictures were released showing coach Eustachy drinking beers, hugging and kissing comely co-eds, and generally enjoying himself a bit too much on the heels of a loss. The expected controversy erupted, the school's athletic director said that he has embarrassed the university and began the process of ousting Eustachy. In tearful press conference sitting next to his wife, he announced he wouldn't resign and that he is an alcoholic and is seeking treatment.
Some pundits believe this is an attempt to jettison coach Eustachy and his high salary by an AD who inherited the coach. Others believe the school clearly has a responsibility to set a better example for the kids in their charge. What do you think? Harmless night of getting his groove on? Or shameful display of public buffoonery? And how much does his “disability” mitigate the circumstances?
Shortly afterwards pictures were released showing coach Eustachy drinking beers, hugging and kissing comely co-eds, and generally enjoying himself a bit too much on the heels of a loss. The expected controversy erupted, the school's athletic director said that he has embarrassed the university and began the process of ousting Eustachy. In tearful press conference sitting next to his wife, he announced he wouldn't resign and that he is an alcoholic and is seeking treatment.
Some pundits believe this is an attempt to jettison coach Eustachy and his high salary by an AD who inherited the coach. Others believe the school clearly has a responsibility to set a better example for the kids in their charge. What do you think? Harmless night of getting his groove on? Or shameful display of public buffoonery? And how much does his “disability” mitigate the circumstances?
4/30/2003
Kaus takes to task those who try to parse Dean's aging empire comment too finely. And more at Slate William Saletan takes on John Kerry for the same. What Dean said was honest, few people who seriously discuss such matters hold a different view, and it's a valid consideration in many regards. Good for those who call Kerry on this one.
4/29/2003
Mommy, what's a "Neo-con"?
Bob Lieber takes on the neo-con/Jewish conspiracy theorists right off the bat.
A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense intellectuals, led by the "mastermind," Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (according to Michael Lind, writing in the New Statesman), has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over on an ignorant, inexperienced, and "easily manipulated" president (Eric Alterman in The Nation), his "elderly figurehead" Defense Secretary (as Lind put it), and the "dutiful servant of power" who is our secretary of state (Edward Said, London Review of Books).
Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, "a product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist movement of the '30s and '40s" (Lind), with its own "fanatic" and "totalitarian morality" (William Pfaff, International Herald Tribune) has fomented war with Iraq -- not in the interest of the United States, but in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J. Buchanan and Alterman).
And concludes that the left’s hyperbole and malicious “critiques” of the President have disabled their ability to critically assess important matters regarding the administration.
Ultimately, the neocon-conspiracy theory misinterprets as a policy coup a reasoned shift in grand strategy that the Bush administration has adopted in responding to an ominous form of external threat. Whether that strategy and its component parts prove to be as robust and effective as containment of hostile Middle Eastern states linked to terrorism remains to be seen. But to characterize it in conspiratorial terms is not only a failure to weigh policy choices on their merits, but represents a detour into the fever swamps of political demagoguery.
Joe Hagan of the NY Observer outlines the workings of the “Axis of Circumcision” focusing on its New York roots.
(A great map of the players and places within the movement here.)
One of the great difficulties in nailing down the notion of a neo-con is that it’s a grouping of ideas more so than demographics, and as in all fledging movements its early successes harvest as much confusion as clarity.
"The neocons so overwhelmingly won," said Mr. (Mark) Gerson, (president of the investor-relations company the Gerson Lehrman Group and editor of The Neoconservative Reader.) "The neocons more or less stayed true to their beliefs. Ideas rule the world, not marginal tax rates. And not politics."
The harping isn’t only on this side of the Atlantic, even in Europe they watch and wonder if the words of Lord Jopling, a former British cabinet minister will ring true, “neo-conservatives...now have a stranglehold on the Pentagon and seem, as well, to have a compliant armlock on the president himself.”
Has Trotskyism overrun the White House? Is there a swarthy, sinister cabal of puppet masters dictating foreign affairs? Does this strengthen or weaken the ideas of the Reagan Revolution? Or are we at the cusp of a new political reality? In the words of neo-con fairy God Father Rupert Murdoch, "I report, you decide".
Bob Lieber takes on the neo-con/Jewish conspiracy theorists right off the bat.
A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense intellectuals, led by the "mastermind," Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (according to Michael Lind, writing in the New Statesman), has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over on an ignorant, inexperienced, and "easily manipulated" president (Eric Alterman in The Nation), his "elderly figurehead" Defense Secretary (as Lind put it), and the "dutiful servant of power" who is our secretary of state (Edward Said, London Review of Books).
Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, "a product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist movement of the '30s and '40s" (Lind), with its own "fanatic" and "totalitarian morality" (William Pfaff, International Herald Tribune) has fomented war with Iraq -- not in the interest of the United States, but in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J. Buchanan and Alterman).
And concludes that the left’s hyperbole and malicious “critiques” of the President have disabled their ability to critically assess important matters regarding the administration.
Ultimately, the neocon-conspiracy theory misinterprets as a policy coup a reasoned shift in grand strategy that the Bush administration has adopted in responding to an ominous form of external threat. Whether that strategy and its component parts prove to be as robust and effective as containment of hostile Middle Eastern states linked to terrorism remains to be seen. But to characterize it in conspiratorial terms is not only a failure to weigh policy choices on their merits, but represents a detour into the fever swamps of political demagoguery.
Joe Hagan of the NY Observer outlines the workings of the “Axis of Circumcision” focusing on its New York roots.
(A great map of the players and places within the movement here.)
One of the great difficulties in nailing down the notion of a neo-con is that it’s a grouping of ideas more so than demographics, and as in all fledging movements its early successes harvest as much confusion as clarity.
"The neocons so overwhelmingly won," said Mr. (Mark) Gerson, (president of the investor-relations company the Gerson Lehrman Group and editor of The Neoconservative Reader.) "The neocons more or less stayed true to their beliefs. Ideas rule the world, not marginal tax rates. And not politics."
The harping isn’t only on this side of the Atlantic, even in Europe they watch and wonder if the words of Lord Jopling, a former British cabinet minister will ring true, “neo-conservatives...now have a stranglehold on the Pentagon and seem, as well, to have a compliant armlock on the president himself.”
Has Trotskyism overrun the White House? Is there a swarthy, sinister cabal of puppet masters dictating foreign affairs? Does this strengthen or weaken the ideas of the Reagan Revolution? Or are we at the cusp of a new political reality? In the words of neo-con fairy God Father Rupert Murdoch, "I report, you decide".
After toppling Lott bloggers are moving on to deciding the 2004 Prez election. This according to Kurtz
smells like conspiracy theory! eery similarities between the stories published by the papers that "broke" the bin Laden/Iraq connection. The Toronto Star's story.... and the Telegraph's....
4/28/2003
Ignorant and proud. He proclaims poetry is "dead" because he doesn't read it. Egomaniacal and pointless. It's nice to have other news than the war for once but Newsweek is stretching with this one.
4/27/2003
Hey Art fans! A couple of interesting read about the lessening standards of art, art-criticism, and art appreciation. Sarah Miller offers a defense of snobs, well actually elitism. More interesting is this piece from Harpers that looks back fondly on Stanley Kubrick’s last movie Eyes Wide Shut.
Not a single critic, not even those few who claimed to like Eyes Wide Shut, made any attempt to understand the film on its own artistic terms. Instead, the critics denounced the film for not living up to the claims its publicists had made for it, reduced it to a question of its director's personality, measured it by how much information it conveyed about the familiar world around us. And I realized that something that had been stirring around in the depths of the culture had risen to the surface.
After years of vindictive, leveling memoirs of artistic figures; after countless novels, plays, films, paintings, and installations constructed to address one social issue or another; after dozens of books have been published proclaiming the importance of the "great books" and "humanist ideas" to such a point of inflation that the effect was to bury the specificity of great books and of original ideas--after the storm of all this self-indulgence had passed, a new cultural reality had taken shape. Our official arbiters of culture have lost the gift of being able to comprehend a work of art that does not reflect their immediate experience; they have become afraid of genuine art. Art-phobia is now the dominant sensibility of the official culture, and art-phobia annihilated Stanley Kubrick's autumnal work.
Not a single critic, not even those few who claimed to like Eyes Wide Shut, made any attempt to understand the film on its own artistic terms. Instead, the critics denounced the film for not living up to the claims its publicists had made for it, reduced it to a question of its director's personality, measured it by how much information it conveyed about the familiar world around us. And I realized that something that had been stirring around in the depths of the culture had risen to the surface.
After years of vindictive, leveling memoirs of artistic figures; after countless novels, plays, films, paintings, and installations constructed to address one social issue or another; after dozens of books have been published proclaiming the importance of the "great books" and "humanist ideas" to such a point of inflation that the effect was to bury the specificity of great books and of original ideas--after the storm of all this self-indulgence had passed, a new cultural reality had taken shape. Our official arbiters of culture have lost the gift of being able to comprehend a work of art that does not reflect their immediate experience; they have become afraid of genuine art. Art-phobia is now the dominant sensibility of the official culture, and art-phobia annihilated Stanley Kubrick's autumnal work.
4/26/2003
Clearly Fareed Zakaria insights are driving much of the discussion regarding Post-War Iraq. I think this is a good thing. Here David Plotz weighs in with the rules for rebuilding.
And Jonah Goldberg advocats a Swiss model.
Switzerland is peaceful now, but it was formed by warring tribes of Germans, Italians, French, and Romansch, and divided along religious lines in a strategically vital region of Europe not unlike Iraq's place in the Middle East. It seems to me the Swiss model is almost precisely what the Iraqis need. Militarily, Switzerland is a threat to no one but invaders; its neutrality and armed pacifism are a matter of national pride, as is its desire to be a force for good in the region and the world. It's rich, stable, improbably happy — and, yeah, just a little boring in the eyes of the rest of the world. In a sense, History has ended in the Swiss Alps, and that's the way everyone likes it. Who would be crying in their beer if we could say the same thing about Iraq?
And Jonah Goldberg advocats a Swiss model.
Switzerland is peaceful now, but it was formed by warring tribes of Germans, Italians, French, and Romansch, and divided along religious lines in a strategically vital region of Europe not unlike Iraq's place in the Middle East. It seems to me the Swiss model is almost precisely what the Iraqis need. Militarily, Switzerland is a threat to no one but invaders; its neutrality and armed pacifism are a matter of national pride, as is its desire to be a force for good in the region and the world. It's rich, stable, improbably happy — and, yeah, just a little boring in the eyes of the rest of the world. In a sense, History has ended in the Swiss Alps, and that's the way everyone likes it. Who would be crying in their beer if we could say the same thing about Iraq?
4/25/2003
4/24/2003
4/23/2003
In the tawdry, base, and often shameless contest to prostitute the Laci Peterson case for personal gain you have to hand it California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Nothing like a murdered woman to give your early campaign for a gov. a little boost. Disgusting.
Oh hell, Andrew Sullivan is going off on conservatives. Rightfully so. Being a conservative and not being willing to fight for consensual adults doing what they chose in the privacy of their homes without governmental intervention is so ludicrous it's almost laughable. This is what Sullivan is fighting for, the core principles of an ideology. What Santorum and his ilk are fighting for are political expediency fueled by moral cowardice.
4/22/2003
Howard Dean is clearly the democratic wild card in the upcoming election. He's used the net to help him raise $2.6MM, blew down the house in Calif., and seems to have a message that resonates with many voters.
Pabst Blue Ribbon, the hipster/poseur drink of the day. (note to self, how hip can anything be if the WoPo is discussing it?) And speaking of insanely, annoying, affects, this my last Peta post every.
4/21/2003
Fareed Zakaria over at Salon (suck it up and get the day pass!) discussing The Future of Freedom. The next Sec. of State on how the elites may actually serve a vital role, institutions that need to flourish in a democracy, and what it's like to be an "intellectual pinup".
One lesson of the Balkans was that if you begin the power contest before you build the institutions, everything goes awry because people who are voted into office suddenly lose interest in the rule of law, clean administration and limitations on governmental authority. It's much easier to construct a fair system when you don't know whether you're going to be the ruler or the ruled, because you will have an incentive to create a fair and balanced system....
American democracy has always been safeguarded by strong institutions that protect liberty and it's also been enriched and ennobled by a whole set of informal institutions that Tocqueville called intermediate institutions -- everything from political parties to rotary clubs to choral societies to bowling leagues. If those intermediate associations wither away, if the sense of the civic culture of America decays and is replaced by a kind of polarized populism in which each side is simply trying to use the political system as an arena where you simply have to capture the government however you can, then American democracy is impoverished and loses some of its vibrancy. It doesn't mean American democracy will become Nigerian democracy. It means it won't live up to its promise.
One lesson of the Balkans was that if you begin the power contest before you build the institutions, everything goes awry because people who are voted into office suddenly lose interest in the rule of law, clean administration and limitations on governmental authority. It's much easier to construct a fair system when you don't know whether you're going to be the ruler or the ruled, because you will have an incentive to create a fair and balanced system....
American democracy has always been safeguarded by strong institutions that protect liberty and it's also been enriched and ennobled by a whole set of informal institutions that Tocqueville called intermediate institutions -- everything from political parties to rotary clubs to choral societies to bowling leagues. If those intermediate associations wither away, if the sense of the civic culture of America decays and is replaced by a kind of polarized populism in which each side is simply trying to use the political system as an arena where you simply have to capture the government however you can, then American democracy is impoverished and loses some of its vibrancy. It doesn't mean American democracy will become Nigerian democracy. It means it won't live up to its promise.
Looks like China took a page out of the Iraqi playbook (hide-and-seek from the international inspectors)
4/18/2003
While reading this Salon piece on Ashcrotification of America, and listening to all these congressional aides cry that they aren't getting the access their bosses so desperately desire, I am struck by an obvious irony. They shouldn't have voted for it in the first place. A drunken baboon could see that the Patriot Act was a bad piece of legislation, yet these cowards (with one exception) jumped all over each other in an effort to support this woebegotten piece of legislation. Just because you are Congressmen doesn't mean you should be screwed any less by you horrific law than the rest of us.
Good news on the Freedom Front (thanks instapundit):
Washington - House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. said Thursday that he would fight any effort now to make permanent many of the expanded police powers enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of the USA Patriot Act.
"That will be done over my dead body," said Sensenbrenner in an interview.
The Menomonee Falls Republican also said it was "way premature" for Congress to consider a new package of anti-terrorism proposals being drafted by the Justice Department - a so-called "Patriot Act Two."
Before that happens, he said, the "burden of proof" is on the Justice Department to prove the merits of what he called "Patriot Act One."
Washington - House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. said Thursday that he would fight any effort now to make permanent many of the expanded police powers enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of the USA Patriot Act.
"That will be done over my dead body," said Sensenbrenner in an interview.
The Menomonee Falls Republican also said it was "way premature" for Congress to consider a new package of anti-terrorism proposals being drafted by the Justice Department - a so-called "Patriot Act Two."
Before that happens, he said, the "burden of proof" is on the Justice Department to prove the merits of what he called "Patriot Act One."
4/17/2003
A Moscow-based organization was training Iraqi intelligence agents as recently as last September -- at the same time Russia was resisting the Bush administration's push for a tough stand against Saddam Hussein's regime
This according to documents found in Baghdad by San Francisco Chronicle reporter Robert Collier . The training of Iraqi secret police in spying and counterintelligence techniques is in clear violation of U.N. regulations.
When contacted by the Chronicle, the US State Dept. declined comment and the Russians denied the reports. As the story grew Russia later admitted to training Iraqi spies.
A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Boris Labusov, acknowledged that Iraqi secret police agents had been trained by his agency but said the training was for nonmilitary purposes, such as fighting crime and terrorism.
Yet documents discovered in Baghdad by The Chronicle last week suggest that the spying techniques the Iraqi agents learned in Russia may have been used against foreign diplomats and civilians, raising doubt about the accuracy of Labusov's characterization.
A U.S. intelligence source said, "The sole purpose of the Iraqi security services was to protect the Baath regime from its enemies inside and outside Iraq," he said. "That was their only reason for existence."
Russia and Iraq have a long and mostly economic partnership However offering aid via training to the Iraqi secret police in the days leading up to the United States battle with Iraq is unsettling more than a few American officials. An already testy relationship between Russia and the US is now about to face another challenge. Watchers are worried that remnants of the KGB may be reasserting themselves within Russia.
4/16/2003
Glenn Reynolds on the two fronts of the war. Abroad we are doing well, domestically, not so good. With little public and/or judicial oversight civil liberties remain at risk.
How can we trust them to police America when they’re so poor at policing themselves?
The answer, of course, is that we can trust them only so far as we can see what they’re doing. And at the moment, that’s not very far at all.
How can we trust them to police America when they’re so poor at policing themselves?
The answer, of course, is that we can trust them only so far as we can see what they’re doing. And at the moment, that’s not very far at all.
Ah the serenity of The Masters.
At no point did the protest turn violent, though officers escorted Heywood Jablome away after he held up a sign directly in front of Burk that read "Make me dinner" before shouting "Oprah rules."
Heywood Jablome?!?! Obviously this is one reporter who doesn't watch the Simpsons.
At no point did the protest turn violent, though officers escorted Heywood Jablome away after he held up a sign directly in front of Burk that read "Make me dinner" before shouting "Oprah rules."
Heywood Jablome?!?! Obviously this is one reporter who doesn't watch the Simpsons.
It's time to start the Colin Powell job watch. First he says that the military coup in Chile in 1973 was a mistake. "It is not a part of American history that we're proud of," Powell said. Then the State Dept. makes an announcement that the Sec. of State's views were not the Department's. As Rice and Rumsfeld's roles grow in post-war Iraq, it will be interesting to see if there is room for him going forward.
Who will be the next Sec. of State? How about Fareed Zakaria?
Who will be the next Sec. of State? How about Fareed Zakaria?
One of the media's favorite topic is always itself. During wartime extra scrutiny is directed towards reporting. The NY Times has published a piece decrying the "Fox Effect". In short, the ideological bent of Fox News has been a ratings bonanza for the network, and other networks are modifying their reporting as well.
Ronald Bailey at Reason asks if 3.3 million viewers can be wrong? He also offers a workable model that may make polemic reporting seem less dire.
Fox's formula had already proved there were huge ratings in opinionated news with an America-first flair. But with 46 of the top 50 cable shows last week alone, Fox has brought prominence to a new sort of TV journalism that casts aside traditional notions of objectivity, holds contempt for dissent and eschews the skepticism of government at mainstream journalism's core.
Ronald Bailey at Reason asks if 3.3 million viewers can be wrong? He also offers a workable model that may make polemic reporting seem less dire.
Another model of a partisan, but nevertheless free and vibrant press, is Britain, where readers know the political leanings of all the major papers and make their purchases accordingly. Leftists peruse the Guardian while right-of-center people scan the Daily Telegraph. Both groups go home happy.
Clinton blasts US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Bush administration got a nice fopo win by getting N.Korea to engage in multilateral negotiations.
Have you ever wondered what the best minds think about the philisophical implications of the movie The Matrix? Wonder no more. Of note, John Patridge compares The Matrix to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
4/15/2003
After leading the Kansas Jayhawks to two consecutive Final Four appearances, Roy Williams tearfully announced he will be leaving to coach his alma matter North Carolina. Once again we are left asking, "What about the children"?
The options left to the current or future players is to continue playing at Kansas for whatever coach eventually gets the job, or tranferring to another program and having to sit out a season in an NCAA mandated penalty. Understandably many players are bitter.
(Kansas) guard Keith Langford, who seemed more angry than sad. Asked whether he planned to return to KU next season, Langford said : "They're looking for a new basketball coach. As for my future, I don't know. My future is uncertain".
Another top prep recruit was torn between Carolina and Kansas and ultimately chose the Jayhawks because of the bond he developed with Williams.
Some argue that the kids have little to complain about. They are getting a free ride to a major university, and the opportunities that are afforded with it. However, when we celebrate programs that "win" with abysmal graduation rates (like current national champs Syracuse and their 0% graduation rate for black players and 17% overall graduation rate), when we punish kids for using their achievement as an avenue for networking, all the while allowing universities and coaches to sign lucrative endorsement deals, it's clear the burden and the bounty aren't being shared equally.
Once again the call comes up for alternatives to a system that keeps kids from transfering after their coach leaves. Perhaps the last word comes from Williams himself:
The options left to the current or future players is to continue playing at Kansas for whatever coach eventually gets the job, or tranferring to another program and having to sit out a season in an NCAA mandated penalty. Understandably many players are bitter.
(Kansas) guard Keith Langford, who seemed more angry than sad. Asked whether he planned to return to KU next season, Langford said : "They're looking for a new basketball coach. As for my future, I don't know. My future is uncertain".
Another top prep recruit was torn between Carolina and Kansas and ultimately chose the Jayhawks because of the bond he developed with Williams.
Some argue that the kids have little to complain about. They are getting a free ride to a major university, and the opportunities that are afforded with it. However, when we celebrate programs that "win" with abysmal graduation rates (like current national champs Syracuse and their 0% graduation rate for black players and 17% overall graduation rate), when we punish kids for using their achievement as an avenue for networking, all the while allowing universities and coaches to sign lucrative endorsement deals, it's clear the burden and the bounty aren't being shared equally.
Once again the call comes up for alternatives to a system that keeps kids from transfering after their coach leaves. Perhaps the last word comes from Williams himself:
Leaving Kansas after 15 seasons and four Final Fours was, Williams said, "the right thing to do." But "sometimes the right thing is not necessarily what you want to do, but it's the right thing to do."
4/14/2003
Perhaps Cinderella said it most succinctly, "Don't know what you got til it's gone". It's important to count one's blessings, to be thankful for the greatness that is a part of our lives, rather than waiting to spread a patina of nostalgia once it's gone.
In the San Francisco Chronicle, Leonard Koppett outlines the accomplishments of Barry Bonds, and asks (once again) the question, "Is he the greatest baseball player of all time?"
His stats are mind-boggling. A rare combination of power and speed, he is soon to become the first man to have 500 homers and stolen bases. Koppett compares Bond's career stats with 16 major milestones and finds that he has reached 12 of the lists:
He has the single season home run record and recently completed what some consider to be the best single offensive season ever. (And followed it up with a batting title and a season in many ways more impressive) In his younger days he was a defensive bulwark in left field and still uses verve and experience to make base runners hesitant.
The major "knock" on his career? Like Ted Williams, he's had a tumultuous relationship with fans and the media.
At 38, and the reigning NL batting champ, he appears to have a few years left in him. But if his career ended today he would be one of the greatest players ever. My question is simple, if Bonds isn't the greatest baseball player in the history of the game, who is?
In the San Francisco Chronicle, Leonard Koppett outlines the accomplishments of Barry Bonds, and asks (once again) the question, "Is he the greatest baseball player of all time?"
His stats are mind-boggling. A rare combination of power and speed, he is soon to become the first man to have 500 homers and stolen bases. Koppett compares Bond's career stats with 16 major milestones and finds that he has reached 12 of the lists:
-- 600 home runs: Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Bonds.
-- 1,900 runs batted in: Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Gehrig, Foxx.
-- 1,200 extra-base hits: Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Musial, Bonds.
-- 400 stolen bases: Cobb, Bonds.
-- .500 slugging ave.: Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Foxx, Cobb, Hornsby, Mantle, Bonds.
-- .400 on-base percentage: Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Musial, Foxx, Cobb, Hornsby, Mantle, Bonds.
-- 2,000 runs scored: Cobb, Aaron, Ruth, Mays.
-- 2,000 bases on balls: Ruth, Williams.
-- 60 multiple-homer games: Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Bonds.
-- 30-30 homer-steal seasons: Mays, Bonds.
-- 10 consecutive 30-homer years: Foxx, Aaron, Musial, Bonds.
-- 10 times 100 runs batted in: Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron, Mays, Musial, Bonds.
-- Two times .500 on-base percentage: Ruth, Williams, Bonds.
-- Two times .800 slugging average: Ruth, Bonds.
-- 3,000 hits: Cobb, Aaron, Mays, Musial.
-- 3 MVPs: Musial, DiMaggio, Foxx, Mantle, Bonds (who has 5).
He has the single season home run record and recently completed what some consider to be the best single offensive season ever. (And followed it up with a batting title and a season in many ways more impressive) In his younger days he was a defensive bulwark in left field and still uses verve and experience to make base runners hesitant.
The major "knock" on his career? Like Ted Williams, he's had a tumultuous relationship with fans and the media.
At 38, and the reigning NL batting champ, he appears to have a few years left in him. But if his career ended today he would be one of the greatest players ever. My question is simple, if Bonds isn't the greatest baseball player in the history of the game, who is?
David Reed compares TIA to ESP.
The DoD, by the way, supported a bunch of ESP research that tended to confirm the potential of ESP in predicting behaviors of our cold war enemies.
Now this idea of extracting reliable and meaningful information from massive data collection arises. A scientist might ask, what would falsify the underlying hypothesis? Is there a null hypothesis at all?
In fact, the privacy and liberty folks, by expressing concern in the form of risks to "privacy" tend to reinforce the belief that there is any real investigatory information that can be extracted by inference from a very noisy and randomly selected pile of information.
The problem with statistical inference is that it is not neutral with respect to hypotheses you are testing, nor with respect to control of the sampling process.
The DoD, by the way, supported a bunch of ESP research that tended to confirm the potential of ESP in predicting behaviors of our cold war enemies.
Now this idea of extracting reliable and meaningful information from massive data collection arises. A scientist might ask, what would falsify the underlying hypothesis? Is there a null hypothesis at all?
In fact, the privacy and liberty folks, by expressing concern in the form of risks to "privacy" tend to reinforce the belief that there is any real investigatory information that can be extracted by inference from a very noisy and randomly selected pile of information.
The problem with statistical inference is that it is not neutral with respect to hypotheses you are testing, nor with respect to control of the sampling process.
4/11/2003
Whatever one's stance is/was on the war, it's clear that Saddam served no one's interests but his own. Most of the Iragi's are clearly glad he is gone. Now the stories begin to trickle out. The things they couldn't (wouldn't?) tell us before.
4/10/2003
How did the U.S. military get so good? Fred Kaplan opines:
Three major changes have taken hold within the military since then—a new war-fighting doctrine, advanced digital technology, and a less parochial culture
Three major changes have taken hold within the military since then—a new war-fighting doctrine, advanced digital technology, and a less parochial culture
Josh with the word that the American flag briefly placed over the head of Saddam's statue was the flag that flew over the Pentagon the morning of Sept. 11th.
There is something disquieting about celebrities on the Hill, but ex-Cowboy or not, I'm a new fan of Mark Stepnoski.
Perhaps this war is (was?) about the spread of existentialism as much as democracy. That's the claim of this review of Existential America by George Cotkin. An optimism fueled by introspection.
American existentialists, Cotkin wrote, shared some of the traditional anxiety and dread of European existentialism, but they did not "contentedly wallow in such despair." Instead, they often emphasized "the upside of existential freedom: the freeing from the shackles of tradition, the possibility of a more authentic existence, and the headiness that comes with the freedom to create and be creative."
In short, they bypassed what Cotkin describes very nicely in his conclusion as "the dead-end turn of existentialism" - nihilism. Summing up, Cotkin offers a kind of salute to what we might call 21st-century existentialism, American style: "To write, to act, to create, and to rebel after a century of totalitarianism and mass destruction, and in the face of new challenges, is to engage in existential transcendence, to erect a sculpture of human possibility, albeit out of the ashes of despair."
4/09/2003
A new piece from Foreign Policy mag about the true cause of the Clash of Civilizations. An interesting study of the impact of democracy and it builds nicely on the Occidentalism essay that also focused on the role of sex in cultural conflict.
I felt a little like Sally Fields watching the scenes of the liberated Iraqi's rejoicing. "You like US, you REALLY like us!" This was a victory for the World.
Some Republican congressman are working to remove the sunset clause of the US Patriot Act. Granted, they are only discussing this now, however that's precisely why it's important for us to discuss it now as well. The passed it the first time without any debate, little dissent, and certainly no viable opposition. We spread democracy abroad and need to fight for it at home.
4/08/2003
First Johnny Apple jumps on board, and now a new poll shows that the majority of Bay Area residents support the war. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf seems to be the only one left believing Saddam is winning.
Super essay from over a year and a half ago from William Saletan about Negativism and how it differs from skepticism and might be applied to today's challenges.
Likewise, before we bomb a country for harboring a fugitive, we really ought to hand over enough evidence to warrant an indictment. In this case, we've withheld evidence on the grounds that it would expose our intelligence sources and methods. Idealism says such compromises are unacceptable. Skeptical realism says no principle is absolute, and therefore any compromise in pursuit of our interests is acceptable. Negativism says that while no principle is absolute, one relative standard must limit all of our compromises: Negating the enemy makes no sense unless your goals and methods remain better than his
Likewise, before we bomb a country for harboring a fugitive, we really ought to hand over enough evidence to warrant an indictment. In this case, we've withheld evidence on the grounds that it would expose our intelligence sources and methods. Idealism says such compromises are unacceptable. Skeptical realism says no principle is absolute, and therefore any compromise in pursuit of our interests is acceptable. Negativism says that while no principle is absolute, one relative standard must limit all of our compromises: Negating the enemy makes no sense unless your goals and methods remain better than his
volokh conspiracy has a different take on the interviews of Iraqi's in America. He believes they were handled well, gathered valuable info. about the lay of the land in Iraq, and may have strengthened some important relationships.
I'm always a little reluctant to send people to Salon, but some things are worth sitting through the day pass ad to read. Check out this story on the Daily Show.
It's amazing. A few days ago everyone was wondering "What went wrong?", now everyone is amazed at how well things are going. Saddam might be dead, Easterbrook comments that Iraq may have been the perfect place for such a war, and Andrew Sullivan says,
Three weeks. Under 100 American casualties, half of which came from accidents. No use of tactical WMD. Extraordinarily targeted bombing; exceptionally light force; oil wells intact; Israel secure; Turks kept at bay. War is terrible, of course. It may flare up again for a while. There's still a chance of last-minute atrocities. And every civilian casualty is a tragedy. But it's beginning to look as if this was an amazing military campaign, something of which the American and British people - and their governments - can be deeply, deeply proud.
Three weeks. Under 100 American casualties, half of which came from accidents. No use of tactical WMD. Extraordinarily targeted bombing; exceptionally light force; oil wells intact; Israel secure; Turks kept at bay. War is terrible, of course. It may flare up again for a while. There's still a chance of last-minute atrocities. And every civilian casualty is a tragedy. But it's beginning to look as if this was an amazing military campaign, something of which the American and British people - and their governments - can be deeply, deeply proud.
4/05/2003
When anyone asked him where he came from, he said, "I am a citizen of the world."
-Diogenes Laertius, Life of Diogenes the Cynic
As the argument over imposing Western ideals upon the Middle East is waged, another related battle has resumed. Nearly a decade ago Martha Nussbaum wrote a seminal essay claiming that a cosmopolitan world-view should be fostered as opposed to one infused with patriotism. The role of a liberal education should strive for “the very old ideal of the cosmopolitan, the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world.”
Lee Harris has written a timely response to Nussbaum's essay. He feels that patriotism can inform and educate a populace while actually propeling it towards the cosmopolitan ideals that Nussbaum advocates.
Additionally, he feels that patriotism is more readily adept at handling the inherent conflicts that exist amongst peoples.
What is the worldview that should be taken in these tumultuous times? Is it one that adheres to the notion that all humanity speaks with one voice and shares one dream? Can we advocate a universal system that fosters the betterment of man and acknowledges the inherent differences created by geography, tradition, and culture?
-Diogenes Laertius, Life of Diogenes the Cynic
As the argument over imposing Western ideals upon the Middle East is waged, another related battle has resumed. Nearly a decade ago Martha Nussbaum wrote a seminal essay claiming that a cosmopolitan world-view should be fostered as opposed to one infused with patriotism. The role of a liberal education should strive for “the very old ideal of the cosmopolitan, the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world.”
Lee Harris has written a timely response to Nussbaum's essay. He feels that patriotism can inform and educate a populace while actually propeling it towards the cosmopolitan ideals that Nussbaum advocates.
"All imperial societies find it in their interest to promote the ideal of cosmopolitan values, by which they mean that of the dominant culture, in contradiction to the clearly inferior local values of those on the outskirts of the world".
Additionally, he feels that patriotism is more readily adept at handling the inherent conflicts that exist amongst peoples.
In fact, the whole attempt to frame the question as a choice between patriotism and cosmopolitanism turns out to be illusory, because it assumes that one may have an undivided allegiance to the community of all human beings on the planet, when in fact this is impossible as long as human beings are capable of dividing themselves into two conflicting camps — and it makes no difference what constitutes the source of the structural antagonism embodied in this conflict. Indeed, a cosmopolitanism that can clash with patriotism, such as Nussbaum envisions, is, for that very reason, no longer a genuine cosmopolitanism. It no longer speaks for those who remain loyal to their own country, and hence becomes a merely sectarian ideology — and hardly the universal and all-encompassing faith that it aspired to be.
What is the worldview that should be taken in these tumultuous times? Is it one that adheres to the notion that all humanity speaks with one voice and shares one dream? Can we advocate a universal system that fosters the betterment of man and acknowledges the inherent differences created by geography, tradition, and culture?
I can die in peace now that I know what Andy Garcia reads during his many moments of quiet reflection.
4/04/2003
Akamai declines to help Al-Jazeera keep their site up. It's more than a little unfair to speculate as to the reasons, however it's worth remembering that Akamai lost their cofounder Daniel C. Lewin in the attacks of 9/11. My totally speculative guess would be that they are disinclined to assist an agency that some consider a mouthpiece for terrorist states.
A symposium on the difference between Judaism and Christianity on whether hate can be virtuous. An interesting read with important moral implications for a nation at war.
Its nice to see that the notion of a hegemonic American culture is being discounted. Globalization isn't about forcing Disney's vision down the throats of the French. It's about shared ideas, values, stories, and interests.
In just a few years, Chinese will surpass English as the Internet's most-used language. According to a BBC poll, the most popular movie star in the world is not Tom Green. Rather, it's Amitabh Bachchan, an Indian actor you've probably never heard of. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, the top grossing movies for 2002 in Japan, Germany, Spain, France and India were produced in Japan, Germany, Spain, France and India, respectively.
Besides the fact that I don't think anyone in the West thought Tom Green was still alive, let alone the world's biggest movie star, it's a good read. Another nail in the coffin of the "McDonald's theory"
In just a few years, Chinese will surpass English as the Internet's most-used language. According to a BBC poll, the most popular movie star in the world is not Tom Green. Rather, it's Amitabh Bachchan, an Indian actor you've probably never heard of. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, the top grossing movies for 2002 in Japan, Germany, Spain, France and India were produced in Japan, Germany, Spain, France and India, respectively.
Besides the fact that I don't think anyone in the West thought Tom Green was still alive, let alone the world's biggest movie star, it's a good read. Another nail in the coffin of the "McDonald's theory"
More reports from the Computer, Freedom, and Privacy conference in NY. CAPPS II apparently will collect more than just basic information about travelers.
(The) travel industry databases contain a wealth of information, including but not limited to whom travelers have shared a room with, what movies they watched, what they ate, and even whether they are grumpy or easy to get along with.
At least this administration is being consistent.
(The) travel industry databases contain a wealth of information, including but not limited to whom travelers have shared a room with, what movies they watched, what they ate, and even whether they are grumpy or easy to get along with.
At least this administration is being consistent.
On some level I am glad Saddam is still alive. The world deserves to opportunity to try him for his crimes. It would be interesting to see if the US/U.N. rift can be in some way repaired by a joint effort to prosecute the man who so gravely impacted the partnership.
4/03/2003
Dave Eggers is essentially the Harry Potter of the hipster set. People obsess over him and his work. Praising him, then chastising him for his numerous sins (selling-out, not selling-out enough, being too smart by half, caring too much, being too glib, too earnest). He is many things to many people but it's clear that his ability to get folks talking, reading, and arguing about literature is a good thing. This isn't an ode to the days before MTV and FoxNews, when people read and wrote and thought in complete sentences, however I am all for anything that gets people to care about literature. Oh, and Ruth Franklin at Slate thinks McSweeny's sucks.
Christine Cupaiuolo links to an interesting article from the Guardian about the evolution of "chick flicks". Even when done well, the chick flick suffers from the same double edge sword that afflicts all formula films; a universality that offers imprisonment in the guise of inclusiveness. According to Molly Haskell the chick flick offers a po-mo glibness towards the past that is ultimately fueled by nostolgic longing. "I'm emancipated but it's OK to long for romance, to get hung up on a guy, to obsess about mothers or children."
Speaking of hysteria based assaults on the liberties we take for granted, another side effect of the USA Patriot Act is that your DVR history is now fair game to the Feds. Seriously, will I get in trouble if John Ashcroft finds out that I have a Tivo season pass for Blind Date?
Andrew Sulivan points us to a NY Times correction that is incredibly illuminating. "A front-page article on Tuesday about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against."
I have to say this makes the LA Times photo flap seem like nothing. Grain of salt people.
I have to say this makes the LA Times photo flap seem like nothing. Grain of salt people.
Coming on the heels of Steven Brill's sometimes insipid, but always frightening, expose of the AG's trampling of American civil liberties after 9/11, we get this little reminder of the human costs of short sighted paranoia. Let's not forget, God knows how many material witnesses are being held without the high tech jobs, high-profile friends, and organized resistance employed on Maher Mofeid Hawash's behalf. America's silence was deafening when Patriot ActI was passed. It will be interesting to see our response going forward. Frankly I am not optimistic that the same people who sat and watched this happen in an impotent, self-protective, haze will be willing and able to mount the sort of vigorous defense of liberty this nation deserves. If that burden proves too heavy for us to bear, there's always Geraldo.
4/02/2003
The Dynamist with a good call:
Reporters on Fox News Channel and MSNBC are displaying an exceedingly annoying habit of referring to Pfc. Jessica Lynch as just "Jessica" in news stories, the better to tug the viewers' paternal/maternal heartstrings. But Jessica Lynch is not the little girl who fell down the well. She is a U.S. soldier serving in harm's way. If you're old enough to be a POW, you're old enough to be referred to as "Private Lynch." Even if you're female.
Reporters on Fox News Channel and MSNBC are displaying an exceedingly annoying habit of referring to Pfc. Jessica Lynch as just "Jessica" in news stories, the better to tug the viewers' paternal/maternal heartstrings. But Jessica Lynch is not the little girl who fell down the well. She is a U.S. soldier serving in harm's way. If you're old enough to be a POW, you're old enough to be referred to as "Private Lynch." Even if you're female.
Those patronizing anti-drug ads connecting recreational drug use with terrorism have been dropped. Its progress at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)