Armed Liberal

...the weird turn pro. --Hunter Thompson

The estimable Joe Katzman has actually gotten paid for this summary of his great 4th Generation Warfare posts.

A tip of the hat...

Unlike everyone else who blogs, I’m obsessive about my referrer logs. I tend not to look a the counters too much (when gambling, I seldom count the pot either), but I’m always interested in where people came from, and make it a point to go look at websites that send me traffic. There are a few odd ones…someone keeps going to the Shonen Knife fan website, then here…you know who you are!…and the search hits are always funny. “buy vicodan online” is a big one, along with “Enron + smoking crack”.

So I’ve gotten a few hits from http://courseofthought.blogspot.com, and I go over there today. jenni b is a tough chick alright, and somehow I get this great strong sense of personality from her bio, which I enjoyed immensely. Part of it:

i studied engineering (electrical and mechanical) at the university of colorado. took a job as a civil engineer with the state, designing highways. after a couple years the boredom was to much to handle so i moved to san francisco to see what the leather crowd was up to out there. i starved as an artist so gave that up. i drove trucks otr but got home sick. i designed handicap mobility equipment but was put out of business by the irs. i spent a few years as a thief but knew my luck would eventually run out and i don't like jail. now i run an auto parts store but not for much longer.

Forgive me if this sounds sappy, but there are voices out there folks, a great chorus of different voices, and when you listen to the song we’re all singing…well, to me, the song sounds sort of like America.

Blogging may be somewhat lighter than usual over the next week, as we're moving next Tuesday (a sure sign that the housing market has peaked...we are buying a house...wonder what Brad DeLong thinks?) and then off to Chicago for the weekend to visit Tenacious G's family. Sadly, I'll miss the LA Blogger Bash, and my chance to meet the Olsens...but soon!!

This came in as a comment from Michael Greene on the post below concerning Eric Raymond's articles on the bleak future of Islamic/Western relations, and seemed interesting enough to move up from comment to the blog. As usual, my comments are interspersed.

If war is 'built into' the Islamic faith, why have they fought such comparably fewer wars than the West has? Millions and millions have died in European wars, what was the last major war the Islamic world participated in, Iran-Iraq?

I think the whole idea of Europe and America trying to pretend that the Islamic people are more war-like is joke given the past 100 years of modern history.

Furthermore, Eric Raymond has apparently done absolutely no research on Islamic history. The entire history of early Islam and the later spread of the relgion has many instances of war, but virtually every one of them is seen as a final step necessary only after negotiation has failed. Furthermore, a fundamental aspect of Islamic war is that you must treat your enemy with respect and dignity once the battle is over.

To go even further into this poorly constructed argument between this site and Eric Raymond's, Huntington does not say at all that Islamic society is more war-like than Western, rather that the two are destined to war over a clash in ideas and values.

While I agree with you that diplomacy might mean different things to different cultures, there is absolutely no evidence that one society is inherently more warlike than any other. In fact, on the basis of the evidence it would seem that Europe and the United States are the most war-like, but certainly that could not be the case, could it? Furthermore, the things being asked for by the respectable (non-fanatic) Muslims are all very reasonable things. Mostly they are asking for a fair solution in Israel/Palestine, and for greater democracy and freedom in their lands which leads to more economic prosperity (or vice-versa). My own travels have revealed a world whose people (if not governments) are rapidly coming together. It would be a huge mistake to listen to an Eric Raymond type who sees fundamental differences in humanity itself that make one group "more warlike" even though the evidence is clearly against that view. Such divisions are precisely what is not needed to engage the moderate majority of people in the world who want economic prosperity first and foremost.

1) not clear which society is more warlike; I’ll say it is more a matter of trends than absolutes. I think it is clear the we are militarily the strongest power on earth, and in an earlier post, I worried that if the conflict between the West and the Islamic world got serious enough, there might not be an Islamic world any more.

2) Your point about ‘respectable’ Muslims would be taken a lot more seriously if I saw any evidence of them in the Muslim media I read here; similarly I think we might have very different ideas of what constitutes a ‘fair solution’ in Israel/Palestine. I’d love references and reading suggestions.

3) You suggest that your travels show you people who are rapidly coming together; mine have shown me that we see things that tell us that is the case superficially (we all like Coke, and love Britney) but that at the deeper levels of culture and politics, there is a lot of room for conflict. The ‘Lexus and the Olive Tree’ suggests (in part) that we’re all coming together into one global set of brand-conscious consumers; I’m not completely sure I agree.

Look, as in most arguments, there are certainly cases to make on both sides. But I have a hard time (as I've said over and over again) with the 'moral equivalence' position, that delegitimizes all of U.S. history because we took the land from the Indians (and so on). Comparing civil life, political freedom, personal freedom, and a whole bunch of things that I value highly, this is a much better place to be than there, and while I’d never force anyone to adopt our lifestyle at the point of a gun (can we say that about them?), I’m firmly on this team, and I think that thinking folks of all stripes should be as well.

Mike Kielsky has a good post about the ICC (International Criminal Court) in Uncommon Sense, his blog. Like me, he's against it. He puts it well:

Personally, I couldn't care less whether we'd have to go invade the Netherlands, Nepal, or New Zealand. If one of OURS is being prosecuted by a politicized court composed of members primarily from nations with anti-U.S. views, then so be it.

I say this with straight face, because I can quickly dismiss the legitimacy of a war crimes complaint issued by a brutal dictatorship, but this court cannot. As organized, it will be skillfully manipulated by those governments opposed to true freedom and justice within and without their own borders, just as the U.N. finds itself so manipulated.

I once described myself to someone as having the politics of "Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Harry Truman having been run through a Cuisinart". One of the core things our government should do is protect our citizens abroad from threat and violence.

I think Instapundit also put it well: "Kill an American, and you're toast." I have zero problems with that policy.

Jeff Cooper (the law professor) responds to my comment about removing settlements with a reasonable post:

Given the continuing suicide bombings, this isn’t an appropriate time for large-scale removal of settlements, as any such action would likely be seen as proof that terrorism works. And the settlements present a practical political problem for Sharon, whose governing coalition depends in part on those who support the settlements. At some point, though, it’s going to have to be made clear—both as a carrot to the Palestinians and as a message of reality to the Israeli far right—that the majority of the settlements ultimately will have to be dismantled.

But in part, I negotiate for a living, and one principle I've found to work well in contentious negotiations (like the ones we're going through right now on the house we will buy on Tuesday) is to periodically show the other side a little daylight. Show them that they can in fact get something if they cooperate.

Now I remain unconvinced, as I've said earlier, that there is anyone to negotiate with on the Palestinian side. But if I'm wrong, and there is, the question is how to show them some daylight without giving up anything material. And it looks to me like the Israelis have done exactly that.

Kevin Reybould, of Lean Left comments (and blogs):

[quoting me]", I’m firmly on this team, and I think that thinking folks of all stripes should be as well."

The problem a lot of us have is that this statement is very often used (and I am not saying you do this) as an excuse to demonize the "other team" (Raymond's notion that the West is somehow less violent than the Islamic world is a joke, and bad logic. It ignores every other factor that shapes a society and the decisions it makes in favor of the one factor that differentiates the given society from ours) and to paper over or ignore our side's contribution to the problems.

Many of the things that people broadly criticize the Islamic world for are things that we help create. We are the largest supporter of Egypt, we are the largest customer of Saudi Arabia, we are the nation that overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran. Those actions have the consequence of suppressing democratic forces in the Arab world. In a very real sense, the West has chosen to back those who would make the Qu'ran a book of war.

That is what is so infuriating about pieces like Raymond's, and the whole notion that the Arab world is just inherently violent. Not only is it bigotry, it is exceedingly dangerous bigotry. By ignoring our own actions, and steps we can take to correct the consequences of those actions, we merely run in place. Killing terrorists is not enough - we must try and make a world where terrorists can gain no foothold. We cannot do that by hiding behind comforting illusions.

There are two places where I’ll expand, though: Yes, the “other team” is more violent than we are…in the sense that our violence is contained, managed as tightly as an encompassing legal system and bureaucracy can make it. We can turn it on and off like a switch. The violence in the Islamist (and possibly the Islamic) world is ingrained in the daily lives of people who, as a celebration of a wedding, try and fire a live mortar, and who routinely celebrate by firing guns into the air.

Yes, we have often chosen our commercial interests over the “will of the people”, in places all over the globe. And ultimately what makes me a liberal is that I share the belief in humanity’s ultimate perfectibility. But I don’t think simply “declaring democracy” and withdrawing is going to work.

I’m just not certain that we’re anywhere near there yet, and that simply, as Fly Over Country so eloquently put it:

Some people, and I mean liberal in the current defintion, think they can dream up the way it supposed to be, snap their fingers, and the whole world will be remade over in their image. Fishing allows me to not fall into that mindset. Fishing, like hunting, allows me to plug in on the ground floor of a market economy and begin to piece together the relationship between what I get from the grocery store and the forces it took to get it there. Running cattle offers the same sort of insight, only it is a lot more messy and the potential for getting hurt is exponentially bigger. But, that is for another time.

Howard Owens, in this article (what are these things, anyway? Posts? Articles? Blogs? Let me know...) titled 'Where Are The Patriotic Muslims?'

Personally, I'll guess that they are quietly being soldiers, sailors, airmen, police officers and firefighters.

But damn, it would be nice if the leaders in that community stood up and took a position other than 'Islam is, of course, a religion of peace'.

White House defends Bush handling of stock sale

Look, Bush is a corporate oligarch. He and his country-club blacklisting, inside trading, factory-job exporting buddies have played the US economy like a pinata for the last fifteen years.

But then again, Gore is too. And so are most of our millionare-occupied Senate.

That's why they want to build SkyBoxes in the Capitol building...so the corporate sponsors can watch their teams play.

Posting will be very light in the next few days; today we must box all the books, bedding, and dishes; we're on a mission!!

Spent the last two days watching Tenacious G run through an introductory handgun class for women taught by Lewis Awerbuck. It was a terrific class; I've never trained with him, but now would like to.

So we played for two days and now need to pay by working harder.

Lots of good comments to respond to; I'll start catching up next week (as soon as the DSL is in at the new house). Or when my back gives out, I'll take a break and respond to a few of them.

Had a great 4th, and am glad that I was wrong (in predicting a major terrorist action on the anniversary of the Battle of Hattas).

From this article:

In 1992, I was recruited to the Hamas shock troops in the camp by a friend in the movement. Our task was to defend the organization against infiltration by undesirable elements and to wage war on corruption, negative social trends like theft, prostitution and drugs and, of course, on traitors.

As members of a cell, we attacked suspected collaborators with Israel, some of whom were put to death. In order to get the truth out of suspected collaborators when we interrogated them, we used to break their legs and arms with iron bars and chains and to stab them with knives. It was not cruelty for its own sake, but the way an underground organization has to operate in occupied territory.
...

Fatah is a good, positive organization, but mistaken in its ideology and deeds. I have brothers who support Fatah, and despite the great arguments between us, I love and respect them. Still you must understand that Fatah, in its concessions to Israel, its recognition of the state of Israel and its joining in the peace process, is totally unacceptable to me. You also realize that it was Fatah as the Palestinian Authority that arrested me for seven months.
...

As for the peace process, I personally am against it. It entails recognition of Israel, and that runs counter to Islam and Hamas. Even if [the Israelis] were to withdraw to the 1967 lines, give us Jerusalem and the right of return, we should not recognize Israel. All of Palestine, from the sea to the river, must constitute the Islamic Palestinian State.

I am not a murderer. A murderer is someone with a psychological problem; armed actions have a goal. Even if civilians are killed, it's not because we like it or are bloodthirsty. It is a fact of life in a people's struggle against a foreign occupier. A suicide bombing is the highest level of jihad and highlights the depth of our faith. The bombers are holy fighters who carry out one of the more important articles of Islam.

I always saw Israelis as murderers and as an occupying enemy who had inflicted pain on us, and who were still hurting us, and who must be expelled from our land by whatever means.

Because I believe profoundly that we not only need to defend ourselves against them in the short term (which is best done by attacking them on their territory, rather than waiting for them to attack us on ours), but to somehow stop growing them (which unfortunately is possibly encouraged by attacking them on their territory). Tough problem.

Read the interview...

Reading the Blogverse (or Blogosphere) this morning, I was thinking about what it is that makes me have such a hard time with sentiments like this one, from Nathan Newman (I’ll try and get to the AIDS issue soon…)

As Leo knows, unlike some on the left, I never said other tragedies, even those with American culpability, excused or even explained the attack in any way. In the weeks after 911, I was actually encouraged that the pain suffered by Americans seemed to be leading to a broader focus and sympathy for others suffering poverty and violence around the world-- symbolized by the "why do they hate us" question, but looking even deeper in many commentaries.

Both KZLA and Keith have disappointed me with the song "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue."
I have enjoyed many of the patriotic songs that have come about or come into popularity after September 11. Alan Jackson's "Where Were You" never fails to make me cry with it's message of love being our greatest weapon and I appreciate how much Aaron Tippin appreciates his country in "Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Flies." Keith's new song, however, is everything that is despised by the people who hate country: close-minded, narrow, and injected with far too much testosterone.
Keith is living in a world of black and white where we are right and they are wrong, but it is gray that is the color of compassion. It is the color of knowing that killing 5,000 innocent Americans to make your point is wrong, even while understanding the harm our American way of life and foreign policy has done to the "have nots" of the world. I can't say that I think we should turn the other cheek to the attacks, but I also cannot say that I think our response has been a valid one. There is no easy answer in a gray world, but Toby Keith seems to think there is. He is not just advocating war, he is celebrating it!

We’re talking the Big Rematch. Rousseau v. Hobbes, in a cage match, with the heart of America as a prize.

As I remember it (all the books are, of course in boxes) Rousseau first argued that we all lived, naturally, peacefully, and in harmony with our own inner nature and that of the world. Then society, property, and science divided us. As I recall he later tempered this in ‘The Social Contract’; but his basic philosophical thrust was that realizing our inner natures was the highest human goal.

Hobbes, on the other hand, is famous for his quote that life in the state of nature was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. And that it was only through the imposition of social control, first in the form of feudal or tribal society and then in the form of national society that he considered to be ‘the Leviathan’, that we could lead our lives.

In one worldview, people are fundamentally good, and it is only through the wrong actions of governments and societies that they are led to do wrong.

In the other, people are fundamentally selfish and violent, and it is only through the restraint imposed by society that they can live together.

I want really badly to believe in one argument … but in reality, I know I believe the other.

I aspire to Fitzgerald’s position; of being able to contain two contradictory ideas at the same time…I'll let you know if I get there.

Avedon Carol, over at the Sideshow, dings me on the Pledge issue:

Armed Liberal made a fairly disappointing statement that pretty well underscores the point that it's at least anti-social and probably unAmerican to insist on equal respect for your religious beliefs if they don't happen to include public displays of piety on behalf of monotheism. And forced recitations in school of the Pledge in its current form goes a long way to teaching us that message from childhood.

And in the other part, I think that including the ‘under God’ clause was an embarrassing artifact of late 50’s cultural rigidity. I’d like to see it removed. But I’d like to see it removed via a process which doesn’t drive a further wedge between the folks in the U.S. who are clinging to the symbols of a nonexistent former consensus, and those who feel alienated from that consensus.

We’re at a point in our history when we need to find the threads that bind us into a nation and a polity. Sadly, ‘win at any cost’ politicians (c.f. Gray ‘SkyBox’ Davis), and culture warriors of one stripe or another are happy to drive wedges, if they believe the fractures serve their short-term political interests.

Says a character in John Brunner’s great book ’Stand on Zanzibar’.

It’s a book you ought to read, even if you don’t like SF.

One of the key features in the book is the prevalence of ‘muckers’…individuals who just lose it in the face of whatever social/population/personal collapse they are facing, and decide to just kill whoever is at hand. Some of them go high-tech, and blow up bridges.

I think we’re there, and I’ll ask the question: where does madness end and organized terrorism begin?

Because I’ll bet that the LAX Limo Driver (I won’t immortalize his name) was on that cusp.

Well, I'm breaking down the 'puters now...we won't have DSL for a few days (you can't order the DSL until the phone line is active...THANK YOU, VERIZON!!)

It's the two-month anniversary...and yes, my name is Armed Liberal, and I'm a blog addict.

...back in a day or so; I'll try and write something controversial and wake everyone up...

Because buying a house, moving, and looking for new projects so we can pay for it wasn’t stressful enough, we decided to go to Chicago for the weekend and visit my sweetie’s family.

A few observations.

The room mini-bars at the InterContinental have ‘intimacy kits’…two condoms and some lube…that’s a new one on me. And it reminds me that I lost a $100 bet a number of years ago when a friend proved that the Plaza in New York had an ‘afternoon rate’ from 1 to 5 pm.

The pizza in Chicago is in fact better than the pizza in Los Angeles. Period. We lose.

On a beautiful weekend like the one we had, Chicago teems with so much vibrant street life that a neighborhood advocate in Los Angeles would need an intimacy kit…I need to think about why it is that Chicago is so pedestrian-friendly.

The concept of ‘customer service’ does not yet appear to have returned to air travel. So people like me, who are typically voluntary flyers, will doubtless continue to stay away.

We’re about 30% unpacked in the new house; I’m using dialup via AOL, which means that surfing blogs is Right Out because I’m not patient enough...I'll catch up this weekend.

I did manage to read all the comments on the Pledge, and realized that I needed to make a deeper comment on why I’m so unhappy with the suit and the decision.

Ask any political professional what they look for in a campaign and they will tell you ‘wedge issues’; they want a black-or-white issue where they can pin their opponent on one side and where a substantial block of voters are on the other.

There are a few major wedge issues right now.

Gun control.

Abortion.

Affirmative Action.

School Vouchers.

And, potentially, the Pledge issue.

Modern campaigns are about two things: solidifying your base and splintering the opponent’s. How do you do this?

Nixon did it very damn well. The classic Democratic base from the 40’s to the 60’s was ethic urban, labor, civil-rights supporters, and the academic intelligencia.

Nixon used race and fear of the New Left to split traditionally Democratic voters off from Humphrey’s base, and won.

Ever since then, we see it in use in elections. Davis is trying to use it on Simon with abortion and gun control. Simon is trying to use it on Davis with affirmative action.

Down the coast from me, in Newport, there’s a break called the Wedge. It’s an incredible bodysurfing and boogie-boarding spot, because the waves are big, steep, and break close to shore.

The problem is that every year, a few people get broken necks from being slammed there…because the waves are big, steep, and break close to shore.

And the problem with wedge politics is that while this is a great way to win elections, it makes it damn hard to govern.

From Random Jottings:

AN OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN FROM THE WEBLOGGING COMMUNITY

We are not politicians, nor are we generals. We hold no power to dispatch diplomats to negotiate; we can send no troops to defend those who choose to risk their lives in the cause of freedom.

What power we have is in our words, and in our thoughts. And it is that strength which we offer to the people of Iran on this day.

Across the diverse and often contentious world of weblogs, each of us has chosen to put aside our differences and come together today to declare our unanimity on the following simple principles:

- That the people of Iran are allies of free men and women everywhere in the world, and deserve to live under a government of their own choosing, which respects their own personal liberties

- That the current Iranian regime has failed to create a free and prosperous society, and attempts to mask its own failures by repression and tyranny

We do not presume to know what is best for the people of Iran; but we are firm in our conviction that the policies of the current government stand in the way of the Iranians ability to make those choices for themselves.

And so we urge our own governments to turn their attention to Iran. The leaders and diplomats of the world's democracies must be clear in their opposition to the repressive actions of the current Iranian regime, but even more importantly, must be clear in their support for the aspirations of the Iranian people.

And to the people of Iran, we say: You are not alone. We see your demonstrations in the streets; we hear of your newspapers falling to censorship; and we watch with anticipation as you join the community of the Internet in greater and greater numbers. Our hopes are with you in your struggle for freedom. We cannot and will not presume to tell you the correct path to freedom; that is for you to choose. But we look forward to the day when we can welcome your nation into the community of free societies of the world, for we know with deepest certainty that such a day will come.

I read Harper’s, although I’m unlikely to renew as I’m finding little recently that evokes more than vague interest.

Last month, they had a noxious and self-exculpating essay by Stanley Fish; I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to think up something to say about it, then last night I picked up something to read from one of the many open boxes. George Orwell: a collection of essays. And in it, a brilliant essay called ‘Looking Back on the Spanish War’. He said, clearly and brilliantly, what I’ve been struggling to articulate to myself:

I know it is the fashion to say that recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is particular to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past, people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case, they believed that “the facts” existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a substantial body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, you will find that a respectable amount of material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would always be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as “Science.” There is only “German Science,” “Jewish Science,” etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened”—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs – and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.

Then I realized that he really reminded me of the antagonist in a funny academic novel called ‘Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kessler, J.S.P.S.’, a smug department head in league with the Devil. Hmmm....not a bad description, even for someone like me who doesn't believe in brimstone.

Meryl moved the same time we did...and she's already writing!!

From the same essay:

We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing [AL: totalitarian conquest of the world], because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the one thing you most fear never really happens. Nourished for hundreds of years on a literature in which the Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter, we believe half-instinctively that evil always defeats itself in the long run. Pacifism, for instance, is is founded largely on this belief. Don’t resist evil, and it will somehow destroy itself. But why should it? What evidence is there that it does? And what instance is there of a modern industrialised state collapsing unless conquered from the outside by military force?

There’s been an interesting discussion going on below, and I thought I’d bring it up to the blog and see if we can’t take it further.

The subject is postmodernism and totalitarianism, and the main participants have been Terminus, Demosthenes, and myself…

Terminus opens:

To the extent that history is nothing more than facts, than it could be truthfully written. But it would be of little historical interest. The "meat" of history is the interpretation, and you'll never get truth that way, because there is no independent standard of ultimate judgement. That's the trouble: if you want to say anything that any kind of real meaning or relevance, you must sacrifice the absolute certainty that only comes with simple recitations of fact.

I think you're missing Orwell's and my point; he clearly acknowledges and I believe that the facts are just an armature on which we hang understanding. But without that armature, what are we trying to understand?

And the post-modern, ironic acknowledgement that our selves color our world suddenly becomes justification for denial of the most basic facts, and leaves us with a world in which claims strongly stated have a validity equal to any kind of evidence.

No, this is exactly what I'm getting at. How does this logical progression work? You start with:

1). There are facts, and there are interpretations.
2). Facts are at least in theory objectively veriable, interpretations are absolutely not.

This, I think, is pretty firm, pertty solid, and pretty non-controversial. So where does "denial of the most basic facts" enter into it? Which facts, denied by whom, for what reason?

How does that follow?

Well, Orwell suggests that in totalitarian states, 'basic facts' are up for grabs. We've seen this ourselves, most recently in Jenin, where the 'facts' of the 'massacre' made political news long after the verifiable information disproved them.

Think of all the airbrushed May Day pictures during Stalin's time...

Jenin is a bad example because it's a political, not an historical issue. The fact are the facts, they are to some extent known, and the will be more or less agreed to in the fullness of time. Let's check back in 2050 (that how long this shit can take).

Ok, I understand that in totalitarian states, basic facts are up for grabs. This is a necessary component of successfully running a totalitarian state: you must control the flow and the content of information. I don't see how believing that interpretations of facts cannot be judged objectively contributes either to a) the denial of facts, or b) the imposition of totalitarianism.

It's like your saying "Totalitarianism denies basic facts, it looks like postmodernism is moving disturbingly in that direction, therefore postmodernism promotes totalitarianism." You can't actually be saying that, being that's ridiculous, so I'm still missing something.

The preceding dialog between Terminus and A.L. is great to see. Terminus is intelligent, articulate, obviously educated, and so quite capable of grasping Orwell's point about facts and totalitarianism. Yet s/he won't acknowledge the connection, in general or specific (Jenin, airburshed May Day photos) terms. This way of looking at the world seems currently to be most enthusiastically embraced by the academic left. To some of us outside the Academy, what makes "post-modern" ways of thinking fascinating and scary is precisely the intelligence and articulateness of its practitioners.

There is, of course, a difference between out-and-out hiding of facts and history and the inevitable differences in interpretation. There is a false comparison being made here (and by many others) between discussions of the two.

Personally, I found Fish's thesis in-and-of-itself mostly benign, and have been wondering why the Blogosphere has been foaming at the mouth over it, accusing it of all manner of evils which the essay simply doesn't support. He wasn't defending totalitarianism, relativism, or anything of that sort... he was simply noting that while we may know in our hearts something is true, we cannot convince others of these things, and have no way of reliably doing so. This isn't totalitarianism, it's simple common sense. (It also arguably isn't postmodernism... he's left behind the textual elements). Remember that the term "post-modernism" is entirely a reaction to "modernism"... which is the idea that things are universal and can be understood through reason, which is entirely benign and morally righteous itself. While the evils of post-modernism are shadowy (if not wholly made up by those who can't bear to think that someone might reasonably disagree with them), the evils of modernism are well known and well documented.

In any case, there are also political philosophers and fiction writers besides Orwell... while an intelligent and capable writer, I've certainly read better dystopian fiction than 1984, and it's worthy to remember that in many respects that novel was a more polished version of the old Russian proto-SF story "We".

By the way, AMac: they won't acknowledge the connection because they don't believe one exists. That is a difference of opinion, not willful denial. The difference between those two things is precisely what postmodernism is about.

Thanks for the kind comments, AMac. I am, for the record, a he. [The name Terminus is an affectation, not an attempt at anonymity, btw... anyone so inclined would not find it difficult to determine my true identity from my blog.] Anyway, I see the connection you mention in the sense that they are similar. But it's not valid to argue that postmodernism is bad because it is, in this sense, similar to totalitarianism, which is bad. That is simply not a valid argument structure. However, if there is some link which I do not grasp that demonstrates how these academic notions somehow promote or lead to totalitarianism, then I'd like to hear them (and I say that without sarcasm).

Well said, Demosthenes.

Terminus says:

It's like your saying "Totalitarianism denies basic facts, it looks like postmodernism is moving disturbingly in that direction, therefore postmodernism promotes totalitarianism." You can't actually be saying that, being that's ridiculous, so I'm still missing something.

No, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not convinced that the connection is causal or direct...that because Derrida was a Fascist apologist he arrived at his philosophy or vice versa.

But I do believe in the power of ideas and philosophy, and that Fish's ironic post-factual philosophy absolutely lays the groundwork for totalitarian despots.

A.L.

People are idea-driven creatures; our actions are as influenced by the ideas we hold as our opinions. Uniquely among living creatures, we can share ideas and that storehouse of ideas provides the structure within we individuals operate as cohesive social groups, or cultures.

N.Z. Bear has talked about memes as they apply to the Middle East; I’ll take a stronger case, and argue that while history is largely about material conflicts over resources and power; it is always framed in ideas and concepts.

Would Hitler’s ascent been possible without the legitimacy offered by the (slapdash, haphazard) philosophical arguments he made?? Without the roots in Schiller and even Hegel?? He had to appeal to his audience, and he did it in the form of ideas, metaphors, and memes. He had to persuade, and convince.

It’s much easier to persuade and convince if no one can challenge your arguments; it is much easier to persuade and convince in a world where soundbites and film clips are the equivalents of investigation and evidence.

Terminus argues that Jenin “is a bad example, because it is a political, not a historical, issue.” Excuse me? Isn’t that exactly what I’m talking about? I think Jenin is a perfect example. Leaders make political arguments, and as above these must be tested somehow; I’ll suggest that political arguments testable by fact are better than those which have not or can not be tested. And, in Jenin, the PA’s position, sadly echoed by the NGO’s, was to stand up and shout to the world that Israel had done certain things…which, had they been done, would have meant one thing. They appear not to have been done, which means another.

But in a world where competing narratives are ultimately equally valid…in Stanley Fish’s world…Israeli soldiers might as well have dragged women and children from their homes and shot them. Because that is the Palestinian truth. And no ‘fact-checking’ or ‘investigation’ could materially change that. Does this matter? Of course. It matters to the men and women who, living in that narrative, decide to put on explosive belts and walk onto Israeli busses.

And, ultimately, it is promoted and fed by a corrupt elite who manipulate the narrative…and for whom the malleability of ‘fact’ becomes the fuel for their political power.

Why did the Germans willingly follow Hitler? Because they believed in him. Because no one tested his narrative.

Jeff Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom is heard from.

I hate my life...I have too much to do to sit down and try and integrate all this right now...so I'll try and do enough to keep stirring the pot.

First, a weak-ass apology; I’m diving into deep waters in raising these subjects, and I’m doing so knowing that I do not, at this moment, have the time to adequately address them. My outside life is pretty demanding right now; but I can’t give up completely. So I owe some of the folks I’m arguing with (in the best sense of arguing, I feel), and the folks just passing by and reading, an apology because I cannot spend enough time in front of the keyboard to hone the lengthy and deep arguments these issues require…if, in fact, I’m capable of making them. I’ll try and improve.

Plus I confused Derrida with De Man in a posting below.

Meanwhile, to paraphrase Truman Capote’s acid review of On The Road, instead of writing, I’ll type. (his review: “That’s not writing, that’s typing.”)

I’m very fortunate to have a great visual and spatial memory, which reminds me that the little purple book I’m looking for was next to the big Caro books on the upper right shelf, which means it ought to be in…yes! this!!…box.

The Aquinas Lecture, 1961. Metaphysics and Historicity, by Emil Fackenheim

This effect of contemporary events is reinforced by an intellectual development which, in the West, began in the nineteenth century. For a century and a half, Western man has developed an ever increasing historical self-consciousness. And this has not been without grave spiritual effects. In earlier ages, most men could simply accept religious beliefs or moral principles, as unquestioningly true. In this historically self-conscious age, few men can ever forget that what seems unquestioningly true to one age or civilization differs from what seems unquestioningly true to others. And fron historical self-consciousness there is but one step—albeit a long and fateful one—to a wholesale historical skepticism: to the despairing view that history discloses a variety of conflicting Weltanschauungen, with no criterion for choice between them anywhere in sight [A.L.: except essentially artificial and arbitrary ones, per Derrida]. But when events move as they do today, this step is easily taken.

Just how commonly it is in fact taken may be illustrated by a review of three typically contemporary attitudes. The first is what may be called skeptical paralysis. Here historical self-consciousness has led to two results: to the insoght that wherever there has been great purpose, there has been great faith; and to the loss of the capacity for commitment to such a faith. Hence there is paralysis which recognizes itself as paralysis and preaches doom.

Then there is what may be called pragmatic make-believe. Here man, caught in skepticism, seeks escape from its paralyzing consequences. Unable to believe and yet seeking a purpose, he falls to pretending to believe, hoping that a pretended might do the work of an actual faith. But it cannot. For a pretended faith is no faith at all. Pragmatic make-believe collapses in self-contradiction.

When men truly suffer from this contradiction they may seek escape in the most ominous form of modern spiritual life: ideological fanaticism. Unlike pragmatic make-believe and like faith, ideology asserts itself absolutely. But unlike faith and like pragmatic make-believe, it is shot through with historical skepticism. For it knows itself to be not truth, but merely one specific product of history.

Hence, unlike faith, ideology must by its very nature become fanatical. When challenged by a conflicting faith, faith may withdraw on its certainty of being true. Because it knows itself to be but one product of history, ideology can achieve certainty only by making itself true; and this it can do only be re-creating all history in its own image. When challenged, therefore, ideology cannot withdraw on itself; it must seek to destroy the challenger. That is, in order to resolve its internal conflict between absolute assertion and historical skepticism, it must engage in a total war from which it hopes to emerge as the only ideology left on earth.

That last one seemed a little...I donno, serious, so I thought I'd balance things out with one of my favorite quotes from another of my teachers, Clint Smith, of Thunder Ranch:

"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That’s ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"

...that the character Jack Black played in 'High Fidelity' had a website??

Jaguaro.org lists 100 albums he is too cool to own...and sadly, you and I probably do.

Including the Kinks' Arthur was the straw that put me over the edge.

[note: should have credited Matthew Yglesias.]

Had lunch today with a political friend, and was chatting about healthcare; mentioned my distaste for ‘National Health’ type solutions, and was rewarded with a verbal smack to the head.

“What do you think we have now?” he asked, giving me the you-moron look.

He referred me to the LA County Budget (a pdf chart is here), and points out that in 2001-2, Los Angeles County spent 23% of its budget…or $3.85 Billion on healthcare. Public Protection, in contrast (Sheriff & Fire) were 20% of the budget, and Social Services (the County is the major provider of welfare) was 29%.

His point is well-taken. We already have publicly-financed healthcare. It’s just crappy, inefficient, and relatively ineffective because we persist in making believe that we don’t.

This is because the giant institutions…the giant hospitals, and the emergency rooms which increasingly serve as the primary-care physicians for a large portion of the population…soak up an increasing amount of the available dollars, and my guess is that they leave little for the kind of preventative, low-profile, relatively less expensive care which would potentially be less expensive and possibly provide better care.

Now this is a ‘newspaper’ set of interpretations; I’d be most interested in hearing from folks in the field.

But the one concrete point is that we have government financed health care for a large portion of the population, and folks like me who sit around and pontificate on how bad government-financed health care would be need to wake up and look at the real world.

So how do we do it better?

Bob Morris, who writes the usually sensible ’Politics In The Zeroes’ blog, takes Ted Rall’s hook and gets reeled in (no permalinks, so just scroll down) with this:

Ted Rall on why it's different this time
Wise words from Ted Rall, an investment banker turned cartoonist/political columnist.

The trouble is that the accounting scandal that brought down Enron, WorldCom and Xerox is something far more serious than a short-term cyclical correction. It threatens to undermine the foundation of market-based capitalism itself. Bush addressed investors twice in one week, but his assurances that help is on the way only drove jittery securities exchanges to record lows. "For lack of a better description, you have as much full-fledged panic as you are going to get," commented Tony Cecin, director of institutional trading at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray in Minneapolis. "The negative mentality is as pervasive as I have ever seen it, and I went through (the) `73 and `74 bear market."
The panic is real and it is rational: Investors finally realize that they can't trust earnings and other "audited" figures released by corporations. Absent that information they can't evaluate stocks, which leads to only one logical conclusion: sell everything and stay out of the market.
"Independent accounting" was BS all along; even companies that didn't bribe their auditing firms outright with lucrative consulting deals controlled them via the millions of dollars in fees paid out for their signing off on company financial statements. It's hardly a unique moment in history to discover that some shepherds have been munching on lambchops from a flock they swore to protect.

Teapot Dome (and pretty much the whole Harding Administration)
Julian Oil, here in L.A.
Ivar Krueger, in Sweden
I.O.S. (Bernie Kornfeld)
Equity Funding
Cendant

People have always cheated; capitalism has survived, Rall’s apocalyptic fantasies notwithstanding.

OK so I asked the one health-care blogger I know of, Alwin Hawkins of View From The Heart what he thought about my post, and he answered in the comments section below. It's too good to risk folks missing it, so here it is:

OK, first question: do we have national health insurance? No, of course not. You answered that question yourself in your example; LA county hospitals are financed by a complex web of county, state, and federal grants to support the system - a system almost ready to collapse and due for major cutbacks.

(BTW, LA county health system is a great model for how such systems collapse. Currently there is a huge budget problem. The solution? Close the public health clinics, which provide primary care. Why? Because you have to provide emergency medical care; it's a federal law. So you shut the inexpensive, cost-effective preventive services and keep the expensive emergency services going. It doesn't have to make sense; it's the law.)

As Ross pointed out, government health money only pays a fraction of the cost of services, and federal law prevents the hospitals/docs from getting the patient to pay the difference. That means that the private patients - both the insured and the un/underinsured - make up the difference. Whether it's directly out of your own pocket or indirectly out of your employers pocket, individuals subsidize government mandated health care and federal/state reimbursements.

Government sponsored healthcare is one of those beasts that works only because the government sets the standards. Run out of money? Don't pay and let the administrators decide which service gets cut, who doesn't get paid, what capital expenditure gets deferred, what medications aren't available. After all, sick people don't bitch much- and if you cut off services, they don't complain long, either.

To answer your final question, we do it better by requiring every government mandated program or law passed also have the money to provide those services. If we want universal health care, fine. But we have to also agree to pay for it, and to understand that it will be really, really expensive as the Boomers hit the Medicare barrier. We pay as we go, and we pay whatever it takes to provide the services so that employers aren't left holding the bag.

Kevin Raybould, over at Lean Left digs down to the roots of what the Democratic Party claims to stand for.

I think his analysis misses a few things...it's no longer labor vs. capital, but labor vs. capital vs. information...and I'll argue that this recent bubble is the fleecing of capital by the information workers. But deep down, I've always felt that the Democrats should be the party that could help my old administrative assistant...a 32-year old single mom, making about $26,000/year, with minimal benefits and no clear career track.

Who speaks for her??

Certainly not the current crop of Democrats...

A.L.

In Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: George Bush Predicts P/E Ratios Will Rise. Megan McArdle Disagrees.

Two more fans of regression to the mean.

In a world beset by terror and violence, it's good to know that a simple pun can still make you queasy. A 'tip' of the hat to the Wall Street Journal's 'Best Of The Web Today'

Military Operations
Turkish troops leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan won friends among hundreds of Afghan families Tuesday after army doctors carried out a mass circumcision of boys who had missed the important Muslim ceremony for one reason or another," Reuters reports from Kabul:

"It takes about five to eight minutes to do each person," an army doctor told Reuters. "If you want, I would be happy to do you and your colleagues."

The dispatch doesn't say if the wire service took the doc up on his offer. Nor does it say if the doctors received payment for their work, though we suspect they only took tips.

.

Kevin Raybauld asks (in the comments below):

I guess I am just not sure why information qualifies as a different category. Like I said, to me, it seems to fit the category of a natural resource, at least in behavior. How is information different than say, steel? In the 19th century, one could have argued that control and manipulation of steel was just as important to economic success as information is today.

Kevin, steel is information - the information on how to make steel, plus the natural resources (iron ore, coal) plus the labor needed. It's all one unified process, distinguished only by the way we try and analyze it (candle flame: chemical process or physics problem?).

I argued below that Marx screwed up because he divided everything into two categories: labor and capital (land and frozen labor). I'll argue there is a third category, information, and that the history of modernity is in part the trumph of the information-wranglers (think clerks, bankers, engineers and scientists) over the landowners and the laborers.

Of course the wranglers are themselves laborers...so the analysis gets kinda complex.

But to quote Dante (the clerk, not the poet) "I'm not even suppsed to be here today..."

Back to looking for projects...

In the comments on my post on Rall, below, Demosthenes takes exception to my position:

AL: I think you're glossing over Andy's valid point, and missing the fact that this is neither the Harding administration, and historical comparisons are limited by other, differing factors. At this point, we've got a combination of factors that hasn't really happened in history: we've got a tightly integrated worldwide system of capital flows, a lot of "rank and file" investors, the presence of an abundance of other ways of capitalizing companies, and proof that corporate bosses were playing around with the numbers in an attempt to make themselves look good. Some of these have been present before (Harding administration, for some, 1929 for others) but I believe the combination is unique, as are all the other social, political, etc. forces involved nowadays. (Hell, this is happening in the middle of a war... isn't that new?)

Well, one could argue that every historic moment is different from every other moment; there's truth in that. I'm suggesting that the current situation has more in common with similar situations in the past than not; that's partly my philosophical approach to life...I learned early on that the exceptionalist argument made by my generation didn't hold much water. I think we're in for an interesting time of it on a lot of fronts, but don't believe that the current round of market scandals nor the (to me inevitible, if only I'd had the nerve and cash to back it up...) decline in the markets represents The End Of Things As We Know Them (or as my gun nut friends are fond of discussing TEOTWAWKI - The End Of The World As We Know It). I'm actually more interested in why it is that so many people seem to long for the Catastrophe, and wonder if that's somehow unique or related to the philosophical crises I've tried to discuss before.

As for that silly bit against Rall... I realize you don't like the guy, but dislike doesn't mean dismissable. I think Rall had a valid point in that this could mean a significantly lowered role for stock markets for a long time to come, and it plays into the hands of those young protestor critics of global capitalism awfully well. I think the only reason they haven't had a bigger presence is because of the WoT, but if that changes, they've got ready-made examples for their charges.

I don't dislike the guy, I've never met him. I think that he tends to write stupid things, and since he nominally plays on my team (liberals) that annoys me. I think that markets will play a lower role in corporate capital formation than before, but that's a good thing, because five clowns and a Yugo can no longer go public at an immense market cap. There's a reason old-fashioned investment and lending strategies tend to survive: they work pretty well.

Via Yourish:

Calif. governor calls for crackdown
on anti-Semitism at state universities.

I haven’t blogged about yesterday’s Israeli attack that killed Hamas military leader Salah Shehada (I’ll assume everyone knows the basic facts, if not, click here), partly because there’s not much new to say, and partly because I’ve been trying to figure out how I feel about it.

Short version: Israeli intel showed a major terrorist leader’s location, and they sent an F-16 to take him out with what is variously described as a bomb or missile. Whatever it was, it got the bad guy and leveled his apartment building, killing 14 others, including women and children.

I’ve turned my head when Israel has assassinated Palestinian terrorists; it’s a dirty war as all wars are. And there is a part of me that genuinely roots for the Israelis to simply wipe out the bastards who are sending Palestinian youth to blow themselves and innocents up in Israel.

But I’ve always been uncomfortable with it.

I’ve talked in the past with friends who argue for war by assassination…make the political leaders backing the war as vulnerable as the scared kids they send to the front lines, they say. And there’s something to that.

And in the Israeli’s defense, their enemies don’t exactly live on bases, surrounded by uniformed military, and drive vehicles with distinguishing markings, as contemplated by the Geneva Convention.

And now…to blow up a building to get the one guy inside it...seems like a dangerous thing for the Israelis to do.

Let’s be clear. It would take Israel two, maybe three hours to demolish every structure in the West Bank and Gaza. The limit would be how fast they could rearm and turn around the aircraft. They could do it with conventional munitions and would easily have enough left over to defeat the armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan and mount a credible threat to the Iranians.

They haven’t. Why? Because they have to live with themselves, and because they are smart enough to realize that they ultimately have to live with their neighbors. The fact that they would mightily piss off the United States might factor into that as well.

So how do I feel about this? Confused, unhappy. The Israelis have the high moral ground exactly because everyone knows they could flatten Palestinian-administered territories and haven’t.

That moral capital is worth something, even in the face of all the anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli sentiment abroad in the world.

So how do I feel?? Confused, concerned. Glad they got him, and sad they didn’t get him in another way. Sad that they have to get him at all.

For some other views, check out Protein Wisdom in support and Jeff Cooper not.

Take a look at Steven David's commentary in today's L.A. Times (obtrusive registration required, or just sign in as "laexaminer"/"laexaminer").

Short version:

As long as the Palestinian Authority is unwilling or unable to curb those who deliberately seek to kill innocent Israelis and bring these attackers to justice, it is up to Israel to do so. Targeted killing does this, and at a cost that is far less harmful to the Palestinians than its alternatives.

Targeted killing will not bring peace to the Middle East. Only a political solution that calls for an independent Palestinian state can do that.

A policy of targeted killing also must carry with it adequate safeguards, including civilian oversight. Targeted killing must focus only on combatants. Political leaders, no matter how odious, must be spared. And targeted killing cannot be carried out forever. It is a policy that makes sense only during war or armed conflict. Once a peace settlement is reached, it must end.

For a region going through a horrendous time, targeted killing is the worst possible policy--except for all the others.

The process begins...here's L.A. County's reaction to the health care fiscal crisisin today's L.A. Times (obtrusive registration required, or just sign in as "laexaminer"/"laexaminer").

Los Angeles County supervisors will ask voters to approve a $175-million parcel tax to shore up the county's fraying network of emergency rooms and trauma centers, officials said Wednesday.

Alwin Hawkins, over at ViewFromTheHeart (note: no permalinks) responded with a description of the German health insurance system (his disclaimers: it was from an old class, he's not a health care economist, bla bla bla)...it's a clear explanation of what sounds like a damn sensible system.

I'll dig in a bit as time allows and try (for once) and comment sensibly.

God, I love technology...

From today's NY Times

The bill, which has been vigorously opposed by consumer-rights groups, had long been the top legislative priority of credit card companies and some banks, which insist that many debtors abuse the bankruptcy laws to escape debts they should be able to pay. The companies sharply stepped up campaign contributions to members of Congress in recent years as they promoted the legislation.

Among the biggest beneficiaries would be the MBNA Corporation of Delaware, which describes itself as the world's biggest independent credit card company. Ranked by employee donations, MBNA was the largest corporate contributor to President Bush's 2000 campaign.

The company has also recently acknowledged that it gave a $447,000 debt-consolidation loan on what critics viewed as highly favorable terms to a crucial House supporter of the bill only four days before he signed on as a lead sponsor of the legislation in 1998. Both MBNA and the lawmaker, Representative James P. Moran Jr., Democrat of Virginia, have denied that there was anything improper about the loan.

Jeff Goldstein, over at Protein Wisdom fillets the fast-food lawsuits.

I couldn't say it any better; why bother?

Jeff Cooper discovers a truly stupid man in Boston Globe and MSNBC sports 'columnist' Rob Borges, who suggests that Lance Armstong isn't an athlete.

I raced bicycles (a long time ago), and was lucky enough to be a suiveur (one of the guys in the cars) at the '78 Tour (Hinault won, the riders went on strike, I got to have lunch with Eddy Merckx and Jacques Anquetil). These guys were riding up hills comparable to Sepulveda going north into the San Fernando Valley at over 23mph...

...and this moron thinks they aren't athletes?