6/05/2003
Martha Stewert has an open letter to America and a new website defending herself re: the insider trading allegations. The rhetorical questions raised by her attorney sum up my thoughts on the matter pefectly.
Why then has the government, after nearly a year and a half, chosen to file these charges? Is it for publicity purposes because Martha Stewart is a celebrity? Is it because she is a woman who has successfully competed in a man's business world by virtue of her talent, hard work and demanding standards? Is it because the government would like to be able to define securities fraud as whatever it wants it to be? Or is it because the Department of Justice is attempting to divert the public's attention from its failure to charge the politically connected managers of Enron and WorldCom who may have fleeced the public out of billions of dollars?
Why then has the government, after nearly a year and a half, chosen to file these charges? Is it for publicity purposes because Martha Stewart is a celebrity? Is it because she is a woman who has successfully competed in a man's business world by virtue of her talent, hard work and demanding standards? Is it because the government would like to be able to define securities fraud as whatever it wants it to be? Or is it because the Department of Justice is attempting to divert the public's attention from its failure to charge the politically connected managers of Enron and WorldCom who may have fleeced the public out of billions of dollars?
6/04/2003
This isn't "justice" (that would only happen if the charges were thrown out) but it's pretty damn close. Drug hysteria still infuses our current political/social climate but there are patches of common sense.
6/03/2003
Slate jumps in to discuss Moneyball. I liked our discussion. (And was struck by how many Bond's haters there are out there)
6/02/2003
For us Tivo fans the news that they will begin selling customer data is totally unsurprising and at the same time amazingly dissappointing.
5/31/2003
5/30/2003
A while back we had a (*ahem* heated) discussion about "Porky's Revenge" And it seems that this month's issue of O is jumping in on the conversation. David Skinner has the scoop.
I hate to say it, but I am more than a little unsettled by the notion that the U.S. is considering covert ops in Iran. Granted, this war on terror had to be fought on many simultaneous fronts, but let's finish what we start.
Clifford Geertz writes in the current New York Review of Books about the West’s varied efforts to hastily grasp Islam and the quality of the works created to that end. From Bernard Lewis’ What Went Wrong, to Karen Armstrong’s Islam: A Short History the quality and rhetorical tactics of the offerings has varied a great deal.
Sept. 11th and all that has occurred since has created an unprecedented level of interest and urgency regarding Islam. The “Other” that we are now juxtaposed against is something even more foreign than usual.
The familiar, almost intimate enemy we precipitously lost with the dissolution of the Soviet Union is being replaced in our minds by something far less well defined, much further removed from the political history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe and America. Communism, with its roots in the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, at least had a Western pedigree.
The West in general and America in particular has long held a fascination with “otherness”. But while the appeal (and conversely repulsion) is often entangled with the other’s exoticness, it must be categorized and given familiar reference points. Islam is no different. Geertz sees four broad approaches to categorizing Islam:
There is, first, the "civilization" approach, which opposes "the West" as a whole to "Islam" as a whole and compares their fates. Second, there are the attempts to pick apart the various streams of contemporary Muslim thought and practice and place them within a culturally familiar grid of ideological contrasts—to sort "good" Islam (and "Islamists") from "bad," "real" from "false," "authentic" from "hijacked," "tolerant" from "terrorist" in terms of recognized categories of political expression. Third, there are conciliative, or reconciliative, efforts seeking out "many are the roads but God is One" convergences between Islamic teachings and those of the other major religious traditions so as to lay a positive course for their co-evolution. And finally, there are place-, or people-, or nation-focused studies that conceive of "Islam" less as a cohesive mega-entity persisting through time, than as a collection of particular, in many ways disparate, "family-resemblance" traditions coming into more and more immediate and difficult contact with one another as the vast and entangling forces of all-over modernity advance.
Sept. 11th and all that has occurred since has created an unprecedented level of interest and urgency regarding Islam. The “Other” that we are now juxtaposed against is something even more foreign than usual.
The familiar, almost intimate enemy we precipitously lost with the dissolution of the Soviet Union is being replaced in our minds by something far less well defined, much further removed from the political history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe and America. Communism, with its roots in the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, at least had a Western pedigree.
The West in general and America in particular has long held a fascination with “otherness”. But while the appeal (and conversely repulsion) is often entangled with the other’s exoticness, it must be categorized and given familiar reference points. Islam is no different. Geertz sees four broad approaches to categorizing Islam:
There is, first, the "civilization" approach, which opposes "the West" as a whole to "Islam" as a whole and compares their fates. Second, there are the attempts to pick apart the various streams of contemporary Muslim thought and practice and place them within a culturally familiar grid of ideological contrasts—to sort "good" Islam (and "Islamists") from "bad," "real" from "false," "authentic" from "hijacked," "tolerant" from "terrorist" in terms of recognized categories of political expression. Third, there are conciliative, or reconciliative, efforts seeking out "many are the roads but God is One" convergences between Islamic teachings and those of the other major religious traditions so as to lay a positive course for their co-evolution. And finally, there are place-, or people-, or nation-focused studies that conceive of "Islam" less as a cohesive mega-entity persisting through time, than as a collection of particular, in many ways disparate, "family-resemblance" traditions coming into more and more immediate and difficult contact with one another as the vast and entangling forces of all-over modernity advance.
AOL luvs Microsoft. Maybe peace in our time is possible. Interconnected business interests always to me seems the best road to peace.
5/29/2003
5/28/2003
As always, Joi Ito at the forefront of emergent democracy trends, points us to this wonderful essay from James Moore about the Second Superpower.
Michelle Dielio reports on blogging in Iran and the impact it's having on Iranian culture and society.
5/25/2003
The San Francisco Chronicle has a review of Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History.The book tells the amazing story of the Congressman who waged a personal crusade to covertly support Afghanistan in their war against the Soviets.
Charlie Wilson, a maverick Texas democrat, once called “the biggest party animal in Congress” by the NY Times was an unlikely source for one of the biggest and most consequential foreign policy efforts in U.S. history.
Wilson was, in short, a screwup's screwup, a clown prince of wasted political talent, which just happened to be a role that provided excellent political cover. No one would imagine the backroom scheming of such a flamboyant blunderer could actually amount to anything, and yet Wilson was able to funnel billions of dollars to Afghanistan. He did this, amazingly, by constantly giving the CIA more money than it wanted and forcing the agency to find a way to use it.
The CIA set out to ensure a Vietnam for the Soviets, and Afghanistan was perfect. They gave the Afghani forces millions of dollars in arms and supplies, trained them in urban guerrilla-style warfare, and covertly let them know they had the most powerful ally on the planet. Losing the brutal and disheartening war in Afghanistan contributed a public and lethal blow to the floundering Soviet empire. The blowback from the arms and training given to the forces in Afghanistan has dire consequences that still resonate around the globe. the story itself, however, is truly amazing.
Charlie Wilson, a maverick Texas democrat, once called “the biggest party animal in Congress” by the NY Times was an unlikely source for one of the biggest and most consequential foreign policy efforts in U.S. history.
Wilson was, in short, a screwup's screwup, a clown prince of wasted political talent, which just happened to be a role that provided excellent political cover. No one would imagine the backroom scheming of such a flamboyant blunderer could actually amount to anything, and yet Wilson was able to funnel billions of dollars to Afghanistan. He did this, amazingly, by constantly giving the CIA more money than it wanted and forcing the agency to find a way to use it.
The CIA set out to ensure a Vietnam for the Soviets, and Afghanistan was perfect. They gave the Afghani forces millions of dollars in arms and supplies, trained them in urban guerrilla-style warfare, and covertly let them know they had the most powerful ally on the planet. Losing the brutal and disheartening war in Afghanistan contributed a public and lethal blow to the floundering Soviet empire. The blowback from the arms and training given to the forces in Afghanistan has dire consequences that still resonate around the globe. the story itself, however, is truly amazing.
The Weekly Standard chimes in on Leo Strauss. I am still reeling from the amazing insights that came from all of you from our discussion of Strauss a few weeks back.
5/23/2003
Someone tried to explain Quantum Entanglement to me and I just wanted to cry. I have no idea what any of this is about. If you can explain it without making my personal universe collapse get's a special Ted prize.
Jayson Blair reportedly found the NY Times' very public mea culpa to be risible. Apparently he’s not the only one who feels that their self-flagellation was overwrought. Richard Posner has written a defense of plagiarism. Reiterating the claim that truly original ideas are few and far between he feels that the replication of ideas is one of the healthier dynamics of culture.
"West Side Story" is a thinly veiled copy (with music added) of "Romeo and Juliet," which in turn plagiarized Arthur Brooke's "The Tragicall Historye of Romeo and Juliet," published in 1562, which in turn copied from several earlier Romeo and Juliets, all of which were copies of Ovid's story of Pyramus and Thisbe.
He also makes the distinction between copying text verbatim from the copying of ideas. He worries that the newish concept of individualism fosters a world that jealously guards its ideas. “Individualism and a cult of originality go hand in hand”
"West Side Story" is a thinly veiled copy (with music added) of "Romeo and Juliet," which in turn plagiarized Arthur Brooke's "The Tragicall Historye of Romeo and Juliet," published in 1562, which in turn copied from several earlier Romeo and Juliets, all of which were copies of Ovid's story of Pyramus and Thisbe.
He also makes the distinction between copying text verbatim from the copying of ideas. He worries that the newish concept of individualism fosters a world that jealously guards its ideas. “Individualism and a cult of originality go hand in hand”
5/22/2003
Lebron James will spend next season toiling for the woeful Cleveland Cavaliers, but he can take solace in that he’ll be a very wealthy young man. Before he signed a contract with the Cav’s he signed a $90 millionsneaker endorsement deal with Nike.
The deal came on the heels of a vicious bidding war between Reebok, Adidas and Nike. Why was Nike willing to pay so much on a player whose greatest accomplishment is beating up on other preps? Because they are desperate. Seth Stevenson at Slate explains that the aging of Jordan, coupled with the loss of a strategically vital and lucrative Foot Locker distribution deal, has placed Nike in the unusual position of playing catch-up. It’s worked for Nike before, in 1984 they signed a rookie Michael Jordan for $2.5 million in a deal that Fortune lambasted.
The high-end, urban basketball sneaker market is one of the most lucrative for the shoe companies. With margins as high as 50%, it’s the sweet spot for the big three. The marketing of these shoes is definitely street (a tough lesson for the crystal-clean Kobe Bryant who let his shoe contract lapse in the hopes of jumping ship to Nike.)
As always the troubling undercurrent to the shoe wars is its impact on Black America. A great deal of money and effort is invested to get inner-city kids to fork over big dollars to buy these shoes. As Stevenson explains:
Marquee shoes are aimed at black, inner-city kids who are willing to spend huge amounts of money every time the new, hot shoe hits shelves. An Adidas exec once told me that "the day after payday" is the biggest sales day in this category (the way he said it, you could tell that exploitation was not really an issue for him).
So as “edgy” unproven prodigies and dangerous felons are once again coveted and projected as role models for black kids it makes this sports fan pine for the likes of Hakeem Olajuwon. Olajuwon’s deal was with the decidedly unhip Spalding and he mandated that the shoes not be sold for more than $35.
The deal came on the heels of a vicious bidding war between Reebok, Adidas and Nike. Why was Nike willing to pay so much on a player whose greatest accomplishment is beating up on other preps? Because they are desperate. Seth Stevenson at Slate explains that the aging of Jordan, coupled with the loss of a strategically vital and lucrative Foot Locker distribution deal, has placed Nike in the unusual position of playing catch-up. It’s worked for Nike before, in 1984 they signed a rookie Michael Jordan for $2.5 million in a deal that Fortune lambasted.
The high-end, urban basketball sneaker market is one of the most lucrative for the shoe companies. With margins as high as 50%, it’s the sweet spot for the big three. The marketing of these shoes is definitely street (a tough lesson for the crystal-clean Kobe Bryant who let his shoe contract lapse in the hopes of jumping ship to Nike.)
As always the troubling undercurrent to the shoe wars is its impact on Black America. A great deal of money and effort is invested to get inner-city kids to fork over big dollars to buy these shoes. As Stevenson explains:
Marquee shoes are aimed at black, inner-city kids who are willing to spend huge amounts of money every time the new, hot shoe hits shelves. An Adidas exec once told me that "the day after payday" is the biggest sales day in this category (the way he said it, you could tell that exploitation was not really an issue for him).
So as “edgy” unproven prodigies and dangerous felons are once again coveted and projected as role models for black kids it makes this sports fan pine for the likes of Hakeem Olajuwon. Olajuwon’s deal was with the decidedly unhip Spalding and he mandated that the shoes not be sold for more than $35.
More and more people are becoming fearful about the direction in which the modern, secular nation state is going. At the core of that concern about modernism is an ethical crisis. The message that the modern world carries is that we have no absolute standard on which to make moral judgments. The bin Ladens of the world and the Kaczynskis of the world are reacting against that. Much of the terrorism in the world today, I think, represents a revolt against modernism.
So says Alston Chase, the author of Harvard and the Unabomber, in an interview with The Atlantic. He claims that modernism and its breeding grounds have fostered a sense of alienation and fearfulness that is bordering on catastrophic. Chase claims that political ideology is trumping communalism in a variety of ways. Coupled with the creative-destruction of modernism, this era is creating a number of dangerous reactionaries. The disease of modernism isn’t a new idea, but it may change how we profile those at risk. From the opulent background of bin Laden, to the Harvard pedigree of Kaczynski, to the recent bombings at Yale (which interestingly occurred near enough to Kaczynskis’ birthday to generate interest), modernism may trouble most those at its core.
Chase says of the Unabomber; He was like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, who said,” I didn't kill an individual, I killed an idea." Perhaps modernism’s perils have been misconstrued.
So says Alston Chase, the author of Harvard and the Unabomber, in an interview with The Atlantic. He claims that modernism and its breeding grounds have fostered a sense of alienation and fearfulness that is bordering on catastrophic. Chase claims that political ideology is trumping communalism in a variety of ways. Coupled with the creative-destruction of modernism, this era is creating a number of dangerous reactionaries. The disease of modernism isn’t a new idea, but it may change how we profile those at risk. From the opulent background of bin Laden, to the Harvard pedigree of Kaczynski, to the recent bombings at Yale (which interestingly occurred near enough to Kaczynskis’ birthday to generate interest), modernism may trouble most those at its core.
Chase says of the Unabomber; He was like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, who said,” I didn't kill an individual, I killed an idea." Perhaps modernism’s perils have been misconstrued.
5/21/2003
The DOJ has finanly released reports of how the PATRIOT act is being applied. What they seem to be missing is the notion that it isn't benovolant leaders we are collectively worried about abusing these new-found powers, it's the ones lacking a moral compass. In the words of CATIC spokesman Mike Van Winkle, "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people." (So protesting in the streets is considered "terrorism" to the leadership in California.)
5/20/2003
Michael Lewis has written before about money and its impact on the lives of those whose high-stake dealings revolve around its mercurial core. As much of a splash as his expose Liars Poker made on Wall Street, his new offering might be making more in the hyper-competitive world of professional baseball. Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game profiles Billy Beane, the Oakland A’s young and infinitely talented general manger. He’s proven amazingly adept at making the deals that keep the small market (and small money) A’s in the running.
What’s ruffling baseball’s feathers is Beane seems all too willing to let the world know he’s in essence hoodwinked other, lesser, GMs via the book. (In Beane’s defense Lewis has claimed that he had to twist Beane’s arm to get access and the story is less Beane’s effort to brag and more a case of a true talent revealed).
Cocky young gun or self-assured leader, one thing is clear, he is turning conventional baseball wisdom on its head. He uses a legion of (previously) obscure stats to identify talent. OBP (On Base Percentage) and OPS (OBP plus slugging percentage) are now working their way up the baseball stat ladder, thanks largely to Beane’s success using them.
(I hate talking points but let’s throw some in to help kick-start a sports story) Is Beane an obnoxious self-promoter who will one day face the brutal correction of averages or has he truly created a new system? Will there be payback for him exposing the dirty not-so secret that some of sport’s highest management are flaming idiots? Does he offer a glimpse of hope for those who see the Yankees as an evil-empire, a revolution in the making?
What’s ruffling baseball’s feathers is Beane seems all too willing to let the world know he’s in essence hoodwinked other, lesser, GMs via the book. (In Beane’s defense Lewis has claimed that he had to twist Beane’s arm to get access and the story is less Beane’s effort to brag and more a case of a true talent revealed).
Cocky young gun or self-assured leader, one thing is clear, he is turning conventional baseball wisdom on its head. He uses a legion of (previously) obscure stats to identify talent. OBP (On Base Percentage) and OPS (OBP plus slugging percentage) are now working their way up the baseball stat ladder, thanks largely to Beane’s success using them.
(I hate talking points but let’s throw some in to help kick-start a sports story) Is Beane an obnoxious self-promoter who will one day face the brutal correction of averages or has he truly created a new system? Will there be payback for him exposing the dirty not-so secret that some of sport’s highest management are flaming idiots? Does he offer a glimpse of hope for those who see the Yankees as an evil-empire, a revolution in the making?
Metallica related torture is relative. The Iraqis are apparently being tortured by being forced to listen to them, and I'm being tortured because I can't. Anyone want to help a poor blogger out with tickets to the Filmo' shows?
5/19/2003
I am truly trying not to be alarmist here, but they are going to monitor how we walk now? Well, on the brite side at least it develops bi-partisanship.
5/17/2003
As always, the smartest readers on the net point me in some new directions. In this case, our discussion of Strauss (elitest pig? or benevolant leadership?) has fleshed out some more resources. For those who want to dig deeper, or for those who want popular relevance, or even those who want to go meta, we have a link for you.
5/16/2003
Political chaos is connected with the decay of language…one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.
--George Orwell
--George Orwell
5/14/2003
Scott Rosenberg forwards a booklet from Edward Tufte further detailing his deconstruction and dismantling of PowerPoint culture. More on Scott's blog.
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)