Anti-Socialist Tendencies |
|
|
mild-mannered scholar by day, raging anti-socialist by night Drop me a line at: 
Daily Stops Mostly Politics Religious Insight Grab-Blogs Online Journals
Archives 
|
Monday, December 30, 2002
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY "If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race," returned the Ghost, "will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief. "Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God! To hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust." -- Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol JIMMY CARTER: KING OF THE IDIOTARIANS? The final round of voting is on over at Little Green Footballs for the worthy recipient of the first annual Robert Fisk Idiotarian of the Year Award, and it looks like it will be a win for Jimmy Carter. I had already cast my vote for the Peanut Man before coming across it, but if I needed any convincing of Carter's true worthiness, this article by Jay Nordlinger lays out the case for him in all its fulsome splendor... BATTLEGROUND GOD REVISITED Some time ago I mentioned the online philosophical game Battleground God, which tries to test the rational consistency of your views about God. When I first played it, I had some criticisms of the authors' assumptions and positions, but didn't have time to blog about it then. It seems Minute Particulars had some similar thoughts that he has blogged about. While by no means hostile to theism, the game does make some typical erroneous assumptions about its usual tenets. The two that Minute Particulars discusses deal with God's ability to do "impossible things" and God as the basis of an objective morality. In addition to these two, one of the questions I had a particular problem with is this one (followed by the response to answering "True"): True or False: People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose. True: You've just bitten a bullet! Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose. There is no logical contradiction in your position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world? To begin with, my immediate response was to scratch my head over why this question was included in the first place. It's not the groundwork for or a lead-in to a later question, and the response even admits "there is no logical contradiction in [this] position" when revealing such contradictions is the very purpose of the game! My hunch is that this was included more to give the authors a chance to speak up about an idea they dislike than anything else. Whatever the case, this is a very superficial treatment of the topic of suffering and God's purposes. There is a difference between needing to die for a higher purpose and some greater good being produced out of that suffering and death -- the latter does not imply that the suffering itself is good, whereas the former easily can. Conceiving the question in the game's way also neglects considering what the higher purpose might be, and how the suffering involved is related to it. For instance, is this idea as objectionable in the case of someone dying a horrible death in order to save the lives of others? And finally, which is really the more "obscene" position: seeing one's suffering as utterly meaningless and pointless, or instead as something which in some way might lead to a greater good? All this said, the game is quite worthwhile, and great food for thought. FAVORITE BLOGS UPDATED I have now revised and reorganized my Favorite Blogs list at left. I realized it's a bit too long to order according to my interest level and most of the blogs are too general to divide into categories, so I have simply arranged them alphabetically. New additions are the prodigious PejmanPundit and The Leibman Theory, the blog of "Politically Conservative Art Student" and comic book aficionado Max Leibman. Check them out! Saturday, December 28, 2002
WHY EUROPE HATES US, PART III Nicely rounding out the picture of European anti-Americanism as residual Marxism (discussed previously here and here) is an article in the latest issue of Policy Review by Lee Harris entitled The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing. Harris outlines Marx's hypothesis that capitalism will inevitably lead to the "immiserization" of the working class and how, as quite to the contrary the lot of the working-class has steadily and dramatically improved, this hypothesis has proved false and needed revision in order to save Marxism. Coming to the rescue was Paul Baran, who recast the class struggle as a battle between the West and the Third World: ...what Baran has done is to globalize the traditional doctrine of immiserization so that, instead of applying to the workers of the advanced capitalist countries, it now came to apply to the entire population of those countries that have not achieved advanced capitalism: It was the rest of the world that was being impoverished by capitalism, not the workers of the advanced countries. Since America is the unquestionable central power in the advanced capitalist world, it is inevitably the prime target of criticism and hatred for those leftists who, knowingly or not, buy into the Baran-Wallerstein thesis of what could be called "nationalized" class struggle. But as Harris argues, targeting America in this way is ultimately self-destructive for Leftism, and in fact an abandoning of Marx's own approach to political analysis and planning: The left, if it is not to condemn itself to become a fantasy ideology, must reconcile itself not only with the reality of America, but with its dialectical necessity — America is the sine qua non of any future progress that mankind can make, no matter what direction that progress may take. The belief that mankind’s progress, by any conceivable standard of measurement recognized by Karl Marx, could be achieved through the destruction or even decline of American power is a dangerous delusion. THE FRODO SEMINAR Following the path blazed by the Jesus Seminar, Mark Shea now deconstructs and historicizes The Lord of the Rings. Yet another "timeless" "classic" shown to be nothing more than a naked grab for ideological hegemony... tsk, tsk! I'M BACK I'm back in the Blogosphere again, and hope all of you had a Merry Christmas (or at least an Above-Average Wednesday) while I was gone. Blogging should be a little more frequent here now... Thursday, December 19, 2002
VARENIUS STARRING IN "NO TIME FOR BLOGGERS" Sorry folks, but I still don't have much time for the blog. In the meantime, though, here are some interesting links: Skewering a Stupid White Fisking the Tranzies: USS Clueless clears out an especially deluded nest of 'em. Battleground God: Game testing the rational consistency of your views about God. An equal opportunity thought-provoker. Saddam and al-Quaeda: An exploration of the link between them and how our intelligence agencies have tried to downplay it. Three Cheers for Christmas: James Lileks unloads both barrels on some Canuck Scrooges. Comes with a complementary Marxist Yuletide carol: Lenin the bald-head Marxist Friday, December 13, 2002
BUSH'S "ASTONISHING" SECURITY VISION An excellent analysis of the Bush Administration's "National Security Strategy" document by Joshua Muravchik appears in the latest issue of Commentary. Contrary to the Administration's detractors, the strategy outlined in the document is thoughtful, grounded, and nuanced, and one easily defended from the criticisms leveled at it. Muravchik goes so far as to argue that the strategy shares the best elements of the Wilsonian vision of U.S. foreign policy. Required reading. It's All About the Ooiiiillll, ca. 1947 The most startling thing in the article for me is in a brief discussion of the opposition President Truman faced over his policy of containment against the USSR. Just look at these comments -- change the players and they could have been said today! Truman’s request for aid to Greece and Turkey was denounced by one prominent Senator as “a new American imperialism,” aimed at securing “oil for the American monopolies.” The columnist Walter Lippmann warned that by failing to work through the newly established UN, Truman had “cut a hole in the charter which it would be very difficult to repair.” But the next line is the kicker: It was only because such voices were spurned that the world was eventually delivered from the shadow of Soviet tyranny. Wednesday, December 11, 2002
LATEST MARXIST FOLLIES A Book Cora Weiss Needs to Read Revelations about the connections between today's various peace activist groups and Communist organizations just keep coming. First it was that the driving forces behind ANSWER and Not in Our Name are the Workers World Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party. Now it turns out that a suite of other peace organizations are led by millionaire heiress and "Red Diaper Baby" Cora Weiss and/or funded by her family's Samuel Rubin Foundation. And anti-war activists wonder why Middle America isn't getting behind them... In the same issue of FrontPage is a review by Thomas Sowell of a book Cora Weiss badly needs to read: Joshua Muravchik's Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. I've heard great acclaim for this broad history of socialism and plan to read it soon. Monday, December 09, 2002
CHOOSE-YOUR-OWN THEOLOGY Exhausted by the unexpected theological confusion sola scriptura has wrought? Looking for a way to keep your bearings while the Spirit moves your biblical interpretations first one way, then another? Now help has arrived! From the makers of the "Choose-Your-Own Adventure" children's book series comes Create Your Own Protestant Catechism. Thursday, December 05, 2002
VARENIUS, THEN AND NOW The "Constrained vs. Unconstrained" discussions below got me to thinking about how my views have changed over the years. If I compare what I believe now to my views when I was, say, 18 and first voting (about 10 years ago) I see a 180 degree turnaround on issue after issue. Here's a sampling: Party Affiliation Then: Democrat Now: Republican Environmental Group Then: Greenpeace Now: The Nature Conservancy Gun Ownership Then: Bad. Should be severely limited to reduce violent crime and the deaths of innocents. Now: Good. A necessary Constitutional right and a proven reducer of crime. One World Government Then: Great idea! The dream of worldwide peace would finally be realized. Now: Horrifically bad idea. The government would necessarily be fiercely totalitarian, and with no external power to contest it, would be spectacularly corrupt and abusive to boot. Morality Then: Moral relativist. Whatever works for you. Who am I to make a moral judgment? Now: Moral absolutist. Absolute moral truths exist and apply to everyone, even if we do not accept them. Religion Then: Agnostic. Religion is a bunch of silly old myths we are better off without. Now: Catholic Christian. Religion is the only solid base for a robust morality and a true humanism, and the greatest enricher of culture and civilization. America or Europe? Then: Europe. They are far more sophisticated, knowledgeable, and wise than we boorish Americans. Now: America. Our system of government is the best in the world, and our country brings out a dynamism in its people that keeps us ascending while Europe continues its downward spiral of socialist government, cultural nihilism, and demographic collapse. Israel or Palestinians? Then: Palestinians. They are the innocent oppressed victims of imperialist Israeli rule. Now: Israel. In the last decade Israel has been restrained toward and willing to generously compromise with the Palestinians, who have returned the favor with violence and have made clear their intent to destroy the Israeli state. Euthanasia Legalization Then: Good. Patients should be allowed to end their suffering. Now: Bad. The elderly and disabled would increasingly be pressured to kill themselves, and alternatives such as hospices and adequate pain control would be supported even less than they already are. Governmental Planning & Control of Society Then: Good idea. Put the experts in charge. Now: Bad idea. The "experts" usually aren't, and that kind of power will inevitably be abused. War Then: Wrong 95% of the time. Now: Always regrettable, but frequently necessary given our violent world. What strikes me more than the dramatic change of positions, however, is how my views have become more complex and thoughtful. The "Then" views were much more shallow -- more the result of naivete than careful reflection about the nature of things. I certainly don't think I "have all the answers" now, but at least what I hold true now has been derived from serious thought, which definitely could not be said then. WHY EUROPE HATES US, REDUX Echoing the idea of the source of European anti-Americanism being residual Marxist sentiment (as argued in the article I pointed out in this Latest Marxist Follies entry of mine) Collin May at Innocents Abroad gives his thoughts on Europhobes and Anti-Americans. I actually find his take on this more interesting than the earlier piece. (Via Instapundit) Wednesday, December 04, 2002
CONSTRAINED VS UNCONSTRAINED IDEOLOGIES, PART II As I mentioned while heading out the door last week, Glenn Frazier responded to my post regarding his thoughts on Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. In answer to my observation that Sowell's Constrained/Unconstrained division of ideologies seems to have its limits, especially with libertarianism, Glenn posts an extended excerpt from Sowell's book on the issue. Sowell is quite aware that not every ideology fits neatly into his system, and in fact points out libertarianism as one instance of this.The intellectual traditions upon which libertarianism draws share much in common with one another, yet also have their individual nuances which lead some into the Constrained camp and others into the Unconstrained camp, resulting in conflicting elements in the end result. Sowell concludes that "These conflicting elements in libertarianism are very revealing as to the difference made by small shifts of assumptions," which I think is an insight that also goes far in explaining why seemingly contradictory ideas confront us in a wide variety of ideologies. Glenn also notes in passing that his, my, and Sowell's thoughts in this area overlap and converge nicely, and in the comments section says that looking into these topics has helped him understand both his own political views and opposing ones better. I've been noticing the same with myself on both counts. Especially since reading Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France [1] I better understand the interconnections between underlying, essential worldviews and differences in a broad spectrum of areas, ranging from politics and morality to literature and the arts. It has also helped me better understand the basis for my own conservative views and strengthened my conviction that they are right, and increased my awareness of both basic convergence and divergence between them and other ideas as well. Glenn Frazier, My Blogfather While I'm talking about Glenn, I might as well take the opportunity to [1] Yeah, yeah, I know, you are all sick of me constantly blabbing about that book! :-) THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Sexton: I think the whole world's gone mad. Death: Uh-uh. It's always like this. You probably just don't get out enough. -- Neil Gaiman, The Sandman Monday, December 02, 2002
LATEST MARXIST FOLLIES CUNY Honors Commie This Dec. 8, the City University of New York's John Calandra Italian-American Institute will be hosting a celebration of Vito Marcantonio, a New York Congressman during the '30s and '40s of whom U.S. Communist Party leader Earl Browder once boasted, "He was our spokesman in Congress." Although Marcantonio was never an actual card-carrying member of the Party, historian Harvey Klehr states that no other congressman "so consistently defended and articulated Communist positions" and that "The Communists had no better friend in Congress." Summing up Marcantonio's career after his death in 1954, liberal anti-Communist Jimmy Wechsler saw him as "another dramatic example of the proposition that there can be no honorable alliance between American progressivism and Communist totalitarianism; and that men who seek to preserve such a tie must ultimately become broken captives, losing their own identities as they compromise the principles of justice and freedom which originally inspired them." Tuesday, November 26, 2002
VARENIUS VACATING VICINITY VIA VEHICLE I'm heading out of town for the holiday and so will be away from the blog for a few days. While I'm gone, be sure to check out Glenn Frazier's response to a previous entry of mine (which I will discuss when I'm back). Have a great Thanksgiving Day! AL-GARDHIYAN VS. VEGARD & VICTOR Back from his blog vacation, Norwegian Blogger goes after another article in The Guardian (a.k.a. Al-Gardhiyan, a.k.a. Al-Jazeera on the Thames) with one of his famous MiSTings, this time one on how very difficult a military foe Iraq will supposedly prove to be. Who would have thought puncturing idiotarian bloviation could be so funny? For a more reasonable analysis of what a military campaign in Iraq is likely to entail, check out the latest from the always insightful Victor Davis Hanson. Monday, November 25, 2002
WHO ARMED IRAQ? Sorry, Chomsky and friends, it wasn't the U.S., as Ranting Screeds has recently uncovered. As of 1990/1991, Iraq had the following military hardware: Aircraft MiG-29s - 70 (Soviet) Mig-25s - 18 (Soviet) MiG-23s - 20 (Soviet) MiG-21s - 105 (Soviet) F-7s - 20 (Red China) MiG-17s - 30 (Soviet) Su-25s - 20 (Soviet) Su-20s - 30 (Soviet) Su-7s - 50 (Soviet) F-6s - 20 (Red China) Su-24s - 10 (Soviet) Mirage F1s - 100 (FRANCE) MiG-23/27s - 70 (Soviet) Il-20s - 10 (Soviet) Tu-22s - 7 (Soviet) Tu-16s -12 (Soviet) Armored Vehicles T-54/55 - 1400 (Soviet) Type 59 - 500 (Red China) Type 69 - 1000 (Red China) T-62 - 1600 (Soviet) T-72 - 1000 (Soviet) IFVs, armored recon vehicles, and APCs - 9000 total, aprox (biggest component BTR - 60s); no precise breakdown but consist of: EE-3 (Brazil) EE-9 (Brazil) EE-11 (Brazil) ERC-90 (FRANCE) AML-60 (FRANCE) AML-90 (FRANCE) Panhard M-3 (FRANCE) FUG-70 (Hungary) BRDM-2 (Soviet) BTR-40 (Soviet) BTR-50 (Soviet) BTR-60 (Soviet) BMP-1 (Soviet) Type 63 (China) OT-62 (Czechoslovakia) OT-63 (Czechoslovakia) BVP-1 (Czechoslovakia) Walid (Egypt) Navy Interesting to note, at the time Iraq had 13 modern ships on order from ITALY Artillery G-5 155mm (South Africa) GHN-45 155mm (AUSTRIA) Astros-II SS-30 MRL (Brazil) Astros-II SS-40 MRL (Brazil) M56 105mm (BRITAIN) D-74 122mm (Soviet) D-30 122mm (Soviet) 2S1 122mm (Soviet) 2S3 152mm (Soviet) M1937 152mm (Soviet) M1938 122mm (Soviet) M1939 37mm (Soviet) M1943 152mm (Soviet) M-1975 122mm MRL (Soviet) BM-21 122mm MRL (Soviet) BM-13 132mm MRL (Soviet) S-23 180mm (Soviet) ZSU-23-4 23mm (Soviet) ZSU-57-2 (Soviet) ZU-23 23mm (Soviet) "Majnoon" 155mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA) "Al Fao" 210mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA) 82 mm Mortar (Soviet) SA-2 SAM (Soviet) SA-3 SAM (Soviet) SA-6 SAM (Soviet) SA-7 SAM (Soviet) SA-13 SAM (Soviet) Small Arms AK-47 (Soviet) RPK (Soviet) RPG-7 (Soviet) Well, I don't see any U.S.-made hardware listed... not a single F-16, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, M1-A1 tank, or M-16 rifle in the lot! The claim it was America couldn't be just a lot of hot air, could it??? And who has been arming Saddam since 1991? Eastern Europe, with Yugoslavia as the smuggling hub. Friday, November 22, 2002
THE GUARDIAN: AFGHAN WAR WORTH IT Here's a must-read article on the genuine good that our war against the Taliban has brought for the people of Afghanistan, from of all places The Guardian! (No, really, it's from al-Gardhiyan, I swear!!) I'm looking forward to reading the same thing about Iraq in a year or so... BEWARE HE WHO QUOTES "BEWARE..." After seeing the quote that begins "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war..." popping up everywhere on campus and online, I decided to try to find out who actually wrote it. It's been wrongly attributed to Julius Caesar himself and, embarrassingly for professional airhead Barbra Streisand, William Shakespeare. (I can understand thinking it might be Caesar, but there's absolutely no excuse for anyone familiar with Shakespeare to think it was him since the quote is not in Elizabethan English and has a very un-Shakespearean style.) Well, the truth is nobody knows who actually wrote it! According to both Urban Legends at About.com and the Urban Legends Reference Pages, there is no evidence of the quote's existence before appearing on the Internet in late 2001. Apparently some anti-war activist penned it anonymously and started circulating it via the Internet. Yet another reason to be skeptical of endlessly forwarded e-mails! Thursday, November 21, 2002
NAIVE NAKED NINNIES FOR PEACE I know that by now everyone and his brother has commented on this picture, but it is just so ridiculous that I have to take my own potshot at it too: West Marin women strip for peace. (Warning: Viewing this picture has been known to cause blindness, or at least the desperate wish that it would.) Wearing nothing but afternoon rain, 50 determined women lay down on Love Field near the Green Bridge Tuesday afternoon to literally embody PEACE and "show solidarity with the people of Iraq," said the organizers. "Women from all ages and walks of life took off their clothes, not because they are exhibitionists but because they felt it was imperative to do so," the organizers added. Oh yeah, whenever I hear about something really bad in the world I immediately think that I simply must rip my clothes off and roll around in a meadow with a bunch of naked people. Doesn't everyone? "They wanted to unveil the truth about the horrors of war..." War is about spoiled and bored suburbanite white women with liberal leanings getting naked for a publicity stunt? Where's the horror in that? Wait, on second thought... "...to commune in their nudity with the vulnerability of Iraqi innocents..." That's not very effective. Why not try... having their faces stomped on by jackboots? Or being raped by prison guards? Or choking on deadly gases targeted at troublesome ethnic groups? There's lots of room for getting creative -- Saddam has kindly provided us with plenty of sources for inspiration. "...and to shock a seemingly indifferent Bush Administration into paying attention." Apparently they think the Administration is a bunch of neurotic prudes whose response will be to run around shrieking, "EEEK!!! Naked women!! Naked women!! We simply must stop these brazen hussies from exposing themselves! Quick, call back our troops before it's too late!" Sorry to disappoint you, girls, but if they give you any thought at all it will be nothing more than a yawn at your self-important juvenile pretensions. Now go off to play childish provocateur some more so the adults can take care of business. The coordinators, who came up with the idea only a day earlier, said that the coming together of this group on short notice was a testament to the seriousness with which the women view the threat of war with Iraq. What is it like to live in a place where coming together quickly for nude photography is considered a sign of "seriousness"? HUBRIS, THY NAME IS SCIENTIST Genetic scientists Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith revealed plans to synthesize a new species of bacteria. They will do so by stripping down the DNA of the simplest known organism, the M. genitalium bacterium, to the minimum genetic information needed to function and assembling it on artificial chromosomes in an empty membrane. They acknowledge there are safety concerns arising from this proposed project, probably due in part to the bacterium being a urethral parasite, but the scientists seem convinced this can be done safely. I found this statement particularly noteworthy: Smith and Venter told the Post the lab-dish cells would be rendered incapable of infecting humans, strictly confined and designed to die if they escaped into the environment. Yeah, that is until they mutate... Playing God As the BBC News coverage of this notes, the proposal is bound to bring up the issue of "playing God." What always strikes me about this concept is how those who scoff at the issue seem to totally misunderstand it. Time after time I've heard statements from scientists who unreflectively assume that is only a concern for religious believers that everyone else can shrug off. While it is true that part of the reluctance to "play God" has historically been a feeling that it is impious, the idea goes far beyond this and encompasses concerns for both believers and unbelievers."Playing God" ultimately has to do with humans taking on powers that they are not wise enough to handle responsibly. That this can happen should be screamingly obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of human history, or who simply haven't spent life as a hermit. But in my experience scientists tend to become drunk on their sense of power and mastery, and thus stop seeing the implications of their work clearly, most especially the negative ones. On top of this, the tend to share the academic's naive assumption that since "I and everyone else I know would never do anything bad with our research -- we are all good people" nobody else in the world would either. This deep and pervasive foolishness is precisely why research like this quite frankly scares the crap out of me. Wednesday, November 20, 2002
LATEST MARXIST FOLLIES Why Europe Hates Us Arnold Beichman lays the blame for European anti-Americanism at the feet of residual Marxist sentiment. Here are some highlights: Even the unanimous Security Council vote demanding Saddam open Iraq to inspection hasn't diminished this tide of anti- Americanism. This tide is so powerful that had President Bush announced a year ago that he would not under any circumstances invade Iraq, you can be sure Europe, with American peaceniks joining in, would be denouncing him in protest parades for perpetuating the rule of Saddam Hussein, that bloody tyrant, in order, naturally, to protect Texas oil interests.... "Anti-Americanism early became a Marxist theme," Lewis Feuer has written, "for America offered a social alternative that threatened to reduce Marxist modes of thought and feeling into irrelevancies and absurdities."... [European intellectual George Lukacs] declaimed that even if Marx's propositions were proven false, even if every empirical prediction of Marxism were invalidated, he would still hold Marxism to be true and he would still be a Marxist. Marxism forever, dead or alive. Lukacs irrationalism runs in the European bloodstream. Tuesday, November 19, 2002
HONEST REPORTING ON ISRAEL I've found a great media watchdog called Honest Reporting that is dedicated to exposing and answering anti-Israel bias in world media. They have regular critiques of media reports as well as other resources such as this multimedia summary of Arab-Israeli history. It's a great resource for counterbalancing what you hear from anti-Israel outlets like National Public Radio. Mohammed al-Dura: Not Killed by Israelis On a similar note, I came across a documentary analyzing the death of Palestinian "child martyr" Mohammed al-Dura (RealPlayer movie). Al-Dura was shot to death when he and his father were caught in a gun battle around an Israeli outpost in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians immediately concluded that the Israeli soldiers had intentionally murdered the little boy, and he became a martyr memorialized in songs and protest signs. A closer examination of the incident, however, shows that the case is not so simple, and that in fact the evidence suggests it was stray bullets from Palestinian AK-47s that killed the boy. Quite apart from from what it reveals about the case, the film is worth seeing for the disturbing glimpse it offers of the twisted and chaotic world that decades of conflict have created in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Friday, November 15, 2002
DINESH D'SOUZA VISITS CAMPUS Another Firsthand Report by Varenius Earlier this week, Dinesh D'Souza was on campus here to give a lecture based on his latest book, What's so Great about America. I went to it expecting there to be trouble from protesters, as had happened at previous presentations sponsored by the College Republicans, but it turned out to be a fairly quiet scene. That's almost too bad because the message was something that campus leftists badly need to think about, and was presented in a way less likely to evoke knee-jerk dismissals than it easily could have. D'Souza gave an excellent speech, marked by the eloquence and insight for which he is known. The theme was an exploration of anti-Americanism in an attempt to understand America's critics and fashion a thorough yet fair response to them, which he feels has yet to be adequately done. Although the main purpose of his speech was their rebuttal, he started off with an outstanding analysis of the most common criticisms leveled against America. These he classified into three categories: the European criticisms, the Asian criticisms, and the Islamic criticisms. The European complaint is that American pop culture subverts their traditional and higher culture, the Asians criticize our weakening of social values and cohesion, and the Islamic critique is that we value freedom above virtue. This is where he most impressed me, because he was able to present these criticisms fairly and sympathetically to a degree that very, very few are able to match. He agreed that all of these criticisms do have merit, for the central ideal of America does have a genuinely subversive value. This central ideal for him is the self-directed life. This is what inspires French youth to "choose Mickey Mouse instead of Jean-Paul Sartre" [1] to the horror of their parents and threatens to undermine Moslem countries' attempts to create societies universally obeying the Shari'a. He repeatedly emphasized that these potential pitfalls of a society designed around the self-directed life are very real and must be acknowledged, but that its benefits far outweigh these concerns. For D'Souza, these benefits fall into two categories: material and moral. He placed much emphasis (perhaps too much) on the material prosperity and progress of the West in general and America in particular, pointing out that no other society comes even close to matching ours in this regard. In the moral sphere, the liberty we offer is what allows true virtue to flourish. It is only when virtuous acts arise from free choice rather than coercion that they are truly virtuous. D'Souza says that this is the answer to the Moslem critiques in particular, for if their goal is truly to make a society in which all are virtuous, that virtue must be genuine and not merely a superficial acquiescence in the face of coercion. The most controversial part of the presentation was D'Souza's response to criticism of specific actions in American history. He defended our support of some dictators during the Cold War as a morally defensible choice of the lesser evil, of supporting the "bad guy" when the only other alternative was the "really bad guy". On slavery, he pointed out that far from being a uniquely American/Western evil, it has existed in virtually every civilization for all of history, and what is uniquely Western is in fact the decision to systematically eradicate the entire institution of slavery. It was this point that generated the sole critical comment during the question-and-answer session, where an earnest liberal responded that American slavery was uniquely evil, and furthermore Lincoln couldn't have cared less about freeing the slaves. This led to an extended exchange where D'Souza explained that the apparent compromises by Lincoln leading up to and during the Civil War were simply pragmatic decisions ultimately in service to his ultimate goal of ending slavery. I bought a copy of the book there and will probably post a review once I've read it. [1] Hey, if those were my choices I'd pick Mickey Mouse too! Thursday, November 14, 2002
NEVER FEAR, TERRIFICA IS HERE! A real-life superheroine is now patrolling the nightclubs of New York: Terrifica, Protectress of Drunk Women Everywhere! Clad in red cape and leotard, she is ever-watchful for predatory men attempting to seduce tipsy young ladies. She even has an arch-villain rival: the sleazy sex machine Fantastico. Hey, that sounds like a Google Fight... Terrifica ( 1 080 results) versus Fantastico ( 209 000 results) Best of luck, Terrifica, it looks like you'll need it... (Seriously, I think this is great, and wish there were someone similar in our pestilential beer-soaked college kid settlement here... though perhaps just a tad less, well, weird...) GOOGLE FIGHTS Atheist to a Theist alerted me to a fun little time waster called Google Fight, where you can make two terms battle it out for search engine hit supremacy. Here are some of his matchups: Catholic (6 140 000 results) versus Atheist ( 14 700 results) Grace (7 030 000 results) versus Sin (21 300 000 results) I demand a recount here, must be because of Palm Beach voters. Also must not have taken Romans 5:20 into account. Bible (14 100 000 results) versus Playboy ( 623 000 results) But Jeff, you've forgotten about one of the greatest contests of all time: Saddam vs. Gamera! Saddam (1 470 000 results) versus Gamera ( 55 200 results) Uh oh, it looks like the giant mutant turtle was no match for Saddam's shiny new sword... Monday, November 11, 2002
CONSTRAINED VS UNCONSTRAINED IDEOLOGIES Glenn Frazier offers some thoughts on Thomas Sowell's latest book, A Conflict of Visions. Sowell posits that most political differences ultimately result from a basic ideological disagreement over human nature, namely whether it is "constrained" or "unconstrained". The Constrained side sees humanity as flawed and thus possessing limits that must be acknowledged, while the Unconstrained side sees humanity as naturally flawless and able to reattain this pristine state with the right sorts of institutions. Sowell has a fairly good classification system here. I've been interested in finding ways of classifying ideologies that get down to the core, essential differences that lie deeper than the familiar Left/Right dichotomy that is becoming seriously strained from over-and mis- use, and is not especially enlightening in the first place. The Constrained/Unconstrained division works well because it gets at a very real and fundamental difference while also being broad enough to encompass a wide range of thought. One ideology that does not seem to fit very tidily into this system, though, is Libertarianism. It would seem to fit into the Constrained category because of its emphasis on things such as Constitutional restraints, checks and balances in government, and the basic idea of needing governments to defend and protect one's rights. However, the recurring Libertarian theme of government being the problem and less government being the solution -- in other words, leave people to their own devices via a libertarian government system and everything will be Just Fine -- is strongly suggestive of an Unconstrained worldview. For my own thoughts on the implications of the Unconstrained perspective, check out my essay on dystopias. MORE GOOD SENSE FROM VDH Right Wing News has a great interview with Victor Davis Hanson on the status of the War on Terror and related issues. I've become acquainted with Hanson only recently, but from the beginning I've been impressed with his clarity of thought, good sense, and genuine love for America -- a rare combination of traits in an academic, of whatever political stripe. Sunday, November 10, 2002
AND NOW, FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT... Some friends and I are attempting to make 1000 origami cranes for someone with leukemia. A Japanese tradition holds that making 1000 paper cranes will bring you good fortune, and cranes are often given to the sick in hopes for a good recovery. More recently, making them has become a way to express a wish for world peace. I think this is a great way to show that you care for and are in solidarity with someone who is seriously ill. If you want to make some of your own, here are some good instructions. Have fun! Saturday, November 09, 2002
GORE VIDAL: STILL CRAZY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS I found a neat little site that has audio and video clips of an infamous debate between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley during coverage of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. The main reason for the debate's notoriety is that near the end Vidal labels Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" and Buckley answers back by calling him a "queer" and threatening to punch him. (If only "Capital Gang" were as entertaining!) What I find most interesting about it is how you can already see the initial germination of Vidal's overheated conspiracy-theorist ramblings that so mark him today, in comments made almost 35 years ago. Worth checking out. In case you haven't had the, uh, pleasure of encountering Gore Vidal's rants before and want to get an idea of what they are like, Ron Rosenbaum royally fisks Vidal's latest feverish emission in the New York Observer. THE AMAZING INVISIBLE ARCHIVES! For some reason, Blogger zapped my archive links about a week ago and they still haven't reappeared, so I've decided to expand the number of entries that will show up here on the homepage to make up for it. Sorry for any added page loading time... Friday, November 08, 2002
MORE TEACH-IN NONSENSE Apparently my experience at the Iraq teach-in that I discussed below is hardly unique. Both David Gulliver at Southern Illinois University and Joseph Sabia at Cornell have similar tales to tell: presentations that were billed as being balanced and bringing both sides together turned out to be exclusively anti-war and gratuitous Bush-bashing fests to boot. Oh well, one can at least dream of seeing this teach-in happen... Wednesday, October 30, 2002
IRAQ "TEACH-IN" REPORT I just got back from a "teach-in" on the potential war in Iraq at my university. The article in the campus newspaper announcing it billed the event as striving "to bring opposing sides of the debate together for education and discussion," but -- surprise, surprise! -- only the anti-war position was presented. The format was a three member panel discussion, with the participants being Richard Falk, a soon-to-be visiting professor in our Global Studies department, sociology professor Avery Gordon, and David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. I did a little research on these three beforehand, and everything I found bolstered my suspicion that they all would be anti-war. By the time I noticed the guy at the door handing out "pre-election peace rally" flyers, I had no doubt that the so-called "discussion" would be anything but balanced, and I was right. Let me start by summarizing each of the panel members' positions: Falk: We should have overthrown Hussein's regime back in 1991 when we had the chance... oops, no, sorry, that's the sensible conclusion to draw from his statements. He stated that the U.S. is not serious about a regime change in Iraq and is actually using the war on terror as a vehicle for global domination. He also chided the U.S. for not approaching this solely through the U.N.. Falk was actually the most objective of the three. Gordon: The U.S. has been waging an 11-year campaign of "genocide" (her word) against the Iraqi people. America has an imperialist mindset and intends to create a global empire via the war on terror. The American media are propagandizing in favor (!) of the war. Oh yes, and Bush stole the 2000 election. Krieger: The U.S. is trying to create a global empire. Bush is a moron and is destroying the Constitution. Here are some of the more, uh, noteworthy thoughts voiced during the presentations and question-and-answer session: * Krieger smirkingly wondered why we are using diplomacy with North Korea now that they have nuclear weapons instead of attacking them. Gee, could it have something to do with the fact that they can now fry South Korea? If anything, the North Korea situation shows that 1) diplomatic agreements aren't honored by despots, so it's foolish to rely on them; and 2) once a rogue nation gets nuclear weapons, your options in dealing with them become severely limited. But of course Krieger isn't about to use these insights in analyzing the Iraq situation. * Gordon referred to Israel as committing "genocide" against the Palestinians. Pretty damn funny, considering that the country that has killed the most Palestinians is the Arab nation of Jordan. But then she couldn't let any mention of Black September diminish her slandering of Israel, now could she? * The U.S. was repeatedly criticized for trying to sustain a military strong enough to defeat any country in the world that might attack us. This is a bad thing??? A nation wanting to live in complete safety? (I'm not distorting what was said at all here -- it was stated that this is a goal of American policy, and that it is a reprehensible thing merely on principle.) * If we just gave them more foreign aid and built up their economies, the Muslim nations would love us. So then why is there a correlation between greater national wealth and greater support of terrorism in the Middle East? * Falk claimed that Hussein has only acted "wildly," i.e. lashing out at other nearby nations, when threatened with attack from US/Allied forces. Ignoring the fact that he did a fine job acting "wildly" against Iran and Kuwait all on his own, this "if we just stop bullying him he'll be nice" mentality is terribly naive. (And it worked so well with North Korea, didn't it?) * Krieger begged the students to take action so that their fellow young people who had to go into the military because they couldn't afford college wouldn't be killed, i.e. have to die because they are underprivileged. What struck me as funny about this is that he seemed to see the military as some sort of social entitlement program -- there to give kids who don't go to college something to do. And does this mean those in the military out of a desire for national service or a respect for martial virtues are less worthy of concern? (I suspect he took this approach because he knew it would tug on the students' liberal guilt/multicultural heartstrings.) * Falk stated that we should learn from the example of the Versailles Treaty and stop enforcing a "punitive peace" on Iraq. When an audience member suggested that the closer parallel would be Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, Falk said the situation was totally different from that of Iraq because Germany had a more threatening army and was committing systematic genocide. Falk was, of course, sidestepping the main point of the comment, namely the folly of negotiating kindly with despots. Regardless, his reply is misleading because, although the comment about the military threat may be valid, the Final Solution had not started yet when Chamberlain negotiated with the Nazis! In contrast, Hussein has already demonstrated his genocidal intentions against the Kurds and Iraqi Shi'ites. So Falk's reply in fact supports taking military action. All in all, there was very little insight or wisdom to be found in this nonsense. "Propagandize-in" would have been a more honest title. Tuesday, October 29, 2002
EUROPE'S SOCIAL DECAY Sobering news on current social conditions in Europe: The latest City Journal has an article on The Barbarians At the Gates of Paris, discussing the increasing phenomenon in France of clusters of unassimilated and hostile immigrants coalescing in government housing projects on the outskirts of major French cities. The situation is both a tragedy for those sucked into these degenerate cesspools and a threat to the French nation through the crime and potential terrorism these places spawn. Meanwhile, across the Channel, Britain's crime rates are skyrocketing at the same time as the government has severely limited its citizens' access to guns and gutted their legal rights to self-defense. Rather than reversing these destructive policies, the UK is looking to harsher sentencing and technological quick fixes such as closed-circuit television cameras for salvation, and truly Orwellian bargains may be in store... WHICH FLAME WARRIOR ARE YOU? Check out this site to discover what Internet debater you are. I think I'm either Profundus Maximus or Rottweiler Puppy, though the less charitable might call me Ideologue or even Troglodyte! Friday, October 25, 2002
NEW BLOG NAME The results for the Rename the Blog Contest are in, and the winner is... Anti-Socialist Tendencies, suggested by Atheist to a Theist! Congratulations Jeff! Your prize is... uhh... hmmm... let me see... [rummages through junk on desk] Oh yes! A toenail clipper with a picture of the Virgin of Guadalupe on it! Direct from a tacky little shop in Mexico City, and forged in the finest steel mills of Korea. Enjoy it in good health, you lucky dog you! And now, I officially rename this blog... Anti-Socialist Tendencies! Tuesday, October 22, 2002
MUSSOLINI: FATHER OF MODERN LEFTISM The term "fascist" has been so abused for so long in political rhetoric that few seem to understand that behind it stands a very specific ideology, let alone what that ideology entails. Almost 60 years ago, George Orwell noted, "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" In today's America, it serves simply as a slur against anyone with right-wing political leanings, implying they are equal to Adolf Hitler. It should come as no surprise, then, that many are absolutely dumbfounded to hear the claim that fascism is actually a left-wing ideology. But the simple fact is that an objective look at fascism reveals it is a variant of socialism. The classic analysis of this is Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, which I can't recommend strongly enough. [1] Taking this fact as a starting point, John Ray points out the close parallels between modern-day leftism and fascism, specifically the fascism of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Ray has written previously about how much of the political currents of the 20th century were expressed in and foreshadowed by Il Duce, but here narrows his focus to the leftism of our current day. In fairness, his argument is most fully appropriate only for the Nation-reading, Nader-admiring Democratic Socialism types, but echoes of Italian Fascism are indeed found in the rest of leftism as well. Read it in preparation for your next encounter with a rude and ignorant leftist! The widespread perception that fascism is a right-wing ideology is no doubt due to its historical association with militaristic nationalism, which correctly or not is considered the province of rightist politics. As Ray shows, however, Communist states have frequently included militaristic nationalism as well, so this alone does not disqualify fascism as a leftist ideology. So if both fascism and communism are simply variants of socialism, what are the characteristics that distinguish them from each other? Ray does not state this with complete clarity himself. My own summary is this: Communism is more internationalist in outlook and explicitly Marxist, whereas fascism is more nationalist in outlook and broadly socialistic. [1] It's hilariously obvious in the comments section on the Amazon page for The Road to Serfdom that the people who attack the book have never actually read it! Monday, October 21, 2002
VEGARD & MILLER DO IT AGAIN Norwegian Blogger and Atheist to a Theist prove their comedic genius yet again. Norwegian Blogger offers a biting MiSTing of Idiotarian spam, and A to T comments on the biblical prophecy of Saddam and Gamera. Sunday, October 20, 2002
SADDAM' S CAMPAIGN SONGS Continuing the musical theme, Atheist to a Theist has a hilarious collection of campaign theme songs for Saddam Hussein that beat the Iraqi Stalin's own choice of "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston. Hey Jeff, give the poor guy a break -- that's still better than the Clinton campaign's choice of "The Macarena" for the Democratic national convention! OBJECTIVISM, RUSH, & FREE WILL Included on Radley Balko's list of libertarian-themed rock songs that I mentioned previously is "Freewill" by Rush. For those who don't know, Rush is a Canadian rock band that had its heyday in the '80s and is notable for being inspired by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Knowing that last bit, I always get a chuckle out of hearing "Freewill". I do agree with the basic sentiment of the song, but I find it very funny that people who are metaphysically materialist are upholding the concept of free will. After all, if we are nothing more than biochemical machines, free will in any meaningful sense cannot exist. And don't get me started on the absurdity of Objectivism professing objective moral values under a materialist metaphysics! But then Objectivism has always struck me as an attempt to have one's philosophical cake (selfishly, of course) and eat it (selfishly, of course) too... Friday, October 18, 2002
MUSICAL "ROCK 'N ROLL CONSERVATISM" Perhaps inspired a little too literally by Eve Tushnet's Rock 'n Roll Conservatism, two authors have posted their lists of conservative-themed rock-and-roll songs. Bruce Bartlett has his broad-ranging list of Conservative Pop Music Top 40, and Radley Balko narrows his focus to libertarian-themed rock songs. Check them out! One of my favorites on the lists is "20th Century Man" by The Kinks: I was born in a welfare state Ruled by bureaucracy Controlled by civil servants And people dressed in gray Got no privacy, got no liberty Cos the twentieth century people Took it all away from me But topping my own list (probably because it resonates with Edmund Burke, of course!) would be The Beatle's "Revolution": You say you want a revolution Well you know we all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well you know we all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out Don't you know it's gonna be alright Alright alright You say you got a real solution Well you know we'd all love to see the plan You ask me for a contribution Well you know we're doing what we can But when you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell you is brother you have to wait Don't you know it's gonna be alright Alright alright You say you'll change the constitution Well you know we all want to change your head You tell me it's the institution Well you know you better free your mind instead But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow Don't you know it's gonna be alright RENAME THE BLOG CONTEST I've been thinking lately that the name "Varenius" for the blog is not a very revealing one. It may be time to give the blog a new name that better reflects the actual contents here. Here's the list of alternatives thus far: All Anti-Socialist, All the Time In Praise of Norwegian Blogger Burke, Burke, and More Burke Varenius' Vacation Notices Suggestions are welcome, but I think I've pretty much exhausted the possibilities here :-) YOUNG SOCIALIST RETURNS At long last, The Young Socialist has returned to the Blogosphere. Maybe now I'll finally get a reply to this post! VALBERG VS BARAKA: NO CONTEST! Norwegian Blogger is now vying against Amiri Baraka for the position of New Jersey Poet Laureate. Bad news, Mr. Valberg: You are far too talented a poet for the airheads in charge to ever pick you. NOBEL PRIZE AS IDEOLOGICAL WEAPON I generally dislike Lowell Ponte due to his often being uncharitable at best and an ideologue at worst, but his columns do often have interesting tidbits. His current FrontPage piece, Carter's Appease Prize, has this noteworthy revelation about the motive behind the recent awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to former President Jimmy Carter: And apparently the five members of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize Committee scarcely thought Carter deserved it this year. Honoring Carter, said Committee chairman Gunnar Berge, “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [Bush] administration has taken. It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.” “A ‘kick in the leg,’” reported Reuters journalist Alister Doyle, “is a Norwegian phrase meaning ‘a slap in the face.’” So the prize was intended not to honor Jimmy Carter so much as to insult and slap in the face the current American President George W. Bush for not following Carter’s policies of weakness, vacillation, and appeasement towards Leftist and other anti- American forces in the world. It should not be called a peace prize, opined the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, but “The Nobel Appeasement Prize.” The article is also worth reading as a reminder of the frequent foreign policy failures of the Carter administration. COLUMBUS VILIFICATION DAY Monday was Columbus Day, and like every year in our politically correct era, vitriolic attacks portraying the poor explorer as Satan Incarnate responsible for every ill and misdeed that has afflicted the Americas since 1492 were predictably trotted out. Personally, I have no patience for this hateful nonsense, but regardless, two of this year's rebuttals to the Columbus-haters really annoyed me: Did Christopher Columbus "Discover" America? by Michael Berliner, and Cornell Leftists Trash Columbus/America by Joseph Sabia. Both of these articles are prime examples of being so determined to trash an opposing view that one ends up just as extreme as the extremists being targeted. Despite some objective and fair statements, their basic approach is to denigrate and mock aboriginal Americans [1] while stating that they should be grateful that "civilization" was forced on them. (In typical Objectivist fashion, Berliner even sees the natural resources of the Americas as having been "wasted" by the Indians through underuse!) True, naively romanticizing Indians as "noble savages" has reached epidemic proportions, but denigrating them as subhuman primitives is no improvement. And although Western civilization is indeed the greatest in the world, and European imperialism did bring benefits to conquered peoples (especially in East Africa), these facts do not erase the evils that were committed against the indigenous Americans. Pretending that they do is no credit to these writers. [1] I prefer to use the terms "aboriginal Americans" or "indigenous Americans" because they avoid the ambiguities and complications of traditional terms such as Indians or Native Americans. Monday, October 14, 2002
SOMEBODY MiSTed MINDLESS POETRY Norwegian Blogger shows his ascerbic wit yet again, this time with a hilarious Mystery Science Theater 3000 spoof of the laughably juvenile "Somebody Blew Up America" by Amiri Baraka. The poem is so painfully bad that I couldn't finish reading it the first time, but skimmed ahead enough to at least be treated to the dumbfoundingly bizarre "exploding owl" imagery. (Was there an aviary in the World Trade Center, perhaps?) But I will forgive (almost!) this travesty of art for the simple fact that it inspired Norwegian Blogger to write something that made me laugh uproariously on one of the worst days I've ever had. John Derbyshire has a less funny but still good take on the poem, and Ward Connerly responds to his being "honored" in it [1] as well. [1] "Who do Tom Ass Clarence Work for/ Who doo doo come out the Colon's mouth/ Who know what kind of Skeeza is a Condoleeza [sic]/ Who pay Connelly [sic] to be a wooden Negro" (I think I'm... gonna... b-be... s-s-sick...) Saturday, October 12, 2002
CANTICLE OF THE SUN In thanks for a wonderful week of travel... The Canticle of the Sun by Francis of Assisi Most high, all powerful, all good Lord! All praise is yours, all glory, all honor, and all blessing. To you, alone, Most High, do they belong. No mortal lips are worthy to pronounce your name. Be praised, my Lord, through all your creatures, especially through my lord Brother Sun, who brings the day; and you give light through him. And he is beautiful and radiant in all his splendor! Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness. Be praised, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars; in the heavens you have made them, precious and beautiful. Be praised, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air, and clouds and storms, and all the weather, through which you give your creatures sustenance. Be praised, My Lord, through Sister Water; she is very useful, and humble, and precious, and pure. Be praised, my Lord, through Brother Fire, through whom you brighten the night. He is beautiful and cheerful, and powerful and strong. Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Mother Earth, who feeds us and rules us, and produces various fruits with colored flowers and herbs. Be praised, my Lord, through those who forgive for love of you; through those who endure sickness and trial. Happy those who endure in peace, for by you, Most High, they will be crowned. Be praised, my Lord, through our Sister Bodily Death, from whose embrace no living person can escape. Woe to those who die in mortal sin! Happy those she finds doing your most holy will. The second death can do no harm to them. Praise and bless my Lord, and give thanks, and serve him with great humility. (Thanks to Mark Shea for reminding me of this prayer.) Saturday, October 05, 2002
VARENIUS THE JET-SETTER I'm off to a conference and so will be away from the blog for another week. See you then... Wednesday, October 02, 2002
POST-VACATION ARTICLE DRAG-NET HAUL Some interesting articles during my absence... Madeleine Not-so-bright: A paean to the incompetence of Madeleine Albright, architect of the Kosovo fiasco. The Iraqi-Oil-for-U.N.-Jobs Program: The U.N.-(mis)managed scheme for giving Iraq oil money. Tales of the Tyrant: How Saddam Hussein is proving to be a first-rate student of Koba the Dread's playbook. More to be added shortly. Sunday, September 22, 2002
VARENIUS ON HOLIDAY I'm going on vacation to northern California, so there won't be any entries here for a week or so. (I'm not one of those hard-core blog on the road types!) Will try to blog on something other than communism when I come back... :) Thursday, September 19, 2002
A COMMUNIST BRAZIL? REDUX Enter Stage Right recently provided a two-part article on the possible election of a Marxist president in Brazil that I blogged about previously. The first article explores the situation and the key players in the upcoming election, and the second discusses the implications of a win by the Marxist da Silva for the US. As the author points out, Washington seems to be basically ignoring the issue, presumably due to the understandable emphasis on the War on Terror. Part of it too is that even those who should know better have tended to discount the threat of communism since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the "marketization" of mainland China. This is foolhardy because even though here in the West communism is thoroughly discredited (at least outside of academia!) it still is the guiding ideology in several nations and the inspiration for many would-be revolutionaries around the world. The need to remind people of this is one of the reasons my blog entries so often deal with communism and related issues. Wednesday, September 18, 2002
IRAQ AND NEO-ABSOLUTIST WARFARE Norwegian Blogger has an excellent piece on how Hussein may respond with Weapons of Mass Destruction to the upcoming invasion. His points about the use of human shields and how Hussein may try to provoke the U.S. into a nuclear response in hopes of shattering the coalition remind me very strongly of an essay that has frequently been on my mind since the 9/11 attacks: Sometimes the Dragon Wins by Col. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF. I came across this essay, written in 1996, while researching the U.S. military's pilot programs for integrating cutting-edge information technologies into its hardware and tactics (such as Force XXI). Col. Dunlap's thoughts on "neo-absolutist warfare" were a much-needed antidote to the naively giddy attitude of the time that information technology would ensure unquestionable victory with trivial losses to our side against any likely foe. Dunlap argues that, to the contrary, these technologies may empower even non-Western opponents in unexpected ways that dissolve the military advantages we have over them. Among other things, he proposes they will use the global media to manipulate public opinion (especially exploiting the West's aversion to casualties through spectacular brutality), telecommunications to allow a dispersal of combatants/belligerents, and low-tech ways of circumventing our high-tech capabilities... which is exactly what we have seen al-Qaeda and associated groups/countries doing. (Can't get a missile? Use an airliner instead!) Well worth reading. Tuesday, September 17, 2002
VEGETARIAN NO MORE This item on the trend of vegetarians returning to meat eating caught my eye, but I was disappointed to find it virtually ignored what I consider to be the real story. The reasons given by the people quoted all boil down to their lack of discipline in maintaining a strict vegetarian diet -- they decided that their diets were too boring and meat was too appealing to continue. What the article fails to mention is that many people make this switch for health reasons. As the excellent site Beyond Vegetarianism (by former and current vegetarians) illustrates so well, many people find that their health and well-being suffer on a vegetarian diet, and improve once they reintroduce animal products. And articles such as this one document the shortcomings of a vegetarian diet and the misunderstandings involved in its promotion. The bottom line is that certain nutrients are difficult and others impossible to obtain from a non-meat diet, and this is becoming increasingly acknowledged. The Dangers of Soy Another harmful aspect of the typical vegetarian diet is its heavy reliance on soybean-derived products (especially tofu). With soy being promoted as healthy and added in one form or another to almost every processed food, it's startling to discover that soy contains many toxins that cannot be fully removed by processing. And the phytoestrogens in soy that are praised for their health benefits? While based on my readings they may have some benefits for post-menopausal women, for everyone else phytoestrogens disrupt the body's endocrine system. Vegetarians need to be especially aware of these dangers since, using soy products as an all-around replacement for animal products, they consume far, far more than the relatively small amounts consumed by Asian populations on whom all the claims for supposed benefits are based. Monday, September 16, 2002
REFLECTIONS ON THE REFLECTIONS or, Edmund Burke ROCKS! During my time away from the blog, I finally finished reading Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. I'm left with just one question: Why didn't I read this sooner?!! I can't recommend it highly enough for anyone with conservative leanings (and most especially for those without!). What is so outstanding about Burke is how he so clearly outlines the foundation of conservative thought: A mature awareness of human nature, good and bad, allied with an acknowledgment of the limitations of government and an appreciation of the lessons that the past has to teach us. It was all of this that Burke saw the French Revolution disregarding, with its leaders preferring to base their plans on pure theory rather than experience, and bloodily chopping the world to fit that theory wherever there was a mismatch. He explores all of this in amazingly insightful point after amazingly insightful point, with a richness I've only seen from G.K. Chesterton before this. So stop reading my review this instant and go read Burke instead!!! LATEST MARXIST FOLLIES "Premature Antifascism" A Myth A favorite pastime among hard-core Leftists is the idolization of the American volunteers in the communist-led International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War. Part of this has been portraying them as victims of the oppressively paranoid USA, whose government blacklisted them as "premature antifascists" which led to their being discriminated against in the war effort of the 1940s. Well, an article by Harvey Klehr now shows that the historical evidence for this simply is not there. But don't expect a revision of the pertinent section of The Encyclopedia of the American Left any time soon... THE BLOGGER RETURNS! I'm finally back, folks. I've been caught up in other things and had some computer problems, but am back to blogging now. Can anyone answer this question, though: Is there any real difference between Windows XP and 2000, other than XP's cheesy Lego-style interface? Now that I've upgraded due to nebulous but strident insistence by the network admin, I don't see what the point is... Wednesday, August 28, 2002
DYSTOPIA IN ONE EASY STEP Dystopian novels and films have provided us with some of the most disturbing possible futures for our world in science fiction. The vision of a negative utopia, in which utopian social engineering results not in a paradise free of suffering but rather a straitjacket for the human spirit, is a powerful counterpoint to the “every day in every way we’re getting better and better” naivete often found in the genre. Whether in the form of the communistic iron fist of crushing oppression in 1984, or the “therapeutic society” velvet glove of smiling repression in Brave New World, or the computer-managed human anthills of THX 1138, This Perfect Day, and Logan’s Run, dystopias provide a disquieting but healthy reminder that the march of progress is not necessarily headed to a brighter tomorrow. For me, the most important question to ask about a dystopia -- and the one rarely addressed in these works -- is, “What led to this?” After all, a warning about how the future may go wrong is little help unless it also reveals the cause. Few of these works have much to say about this. Some may reveal the goal of the dystopia’s creators (e.g. the alleviation of suffering as in Brave New World) but not the real why of it, the why of utopian goals and means going so horribly wrong. Even though these authors do not directly address the question, the dystopian concept itself points out the path to an answer. The why cannot simply be a matter of the wrong type of social engineering being used, or the right type being wrongly applied. If nothing else, the dystopia is the rebuttal to the utopian thinking that if we can just find the perfect system, every problem will be solved. So if the cause does not lie entirely in a given system or "ism" we must instead continue our search at the level of the individual (no matter how alien that may seem to the modern mindset). After all, any system is not something that magically falls out of the sky and imposes itself on a society, but rather is ultimately the end result of decisions and actions of individuals. Even if their role is merely one of unwitting support, every individual involved contributes to the system. When we look at the level of individuals, we find the most important trait that opens the door to dystopia is this: Arrogance. The lack of humility regarding human knowledge and reasoning and ability, a proud reaching beyond our actual grasp, is what makes all of these dystopias an open possibility. This “dystopian arrogance” manifests itself in several ways: Managerial Hubris. The first facet of dystopian arrogance is managerial hubris, specifically the certainty that one can have enough knowledge of and control over every important aspect of a society that a functional utopia is possible in the first place. Given the mind-boggling complexity of a technological society, this is a truly audacious view. As Friedrich Hayek shows in his classic anti-socialist treatise The Road to Serfdom, in economics it is ultimately impossible to know enough about a national economy to plan and control it effectively, and attempting to do so results in disaster. If this is true just for an economy, how much truer must it be in attempts to control a society in its entirety? Any utopia that is dependent on this type of maximal oversight to succeed will be warped into a dystopia when it inevitably proves to be an unattainable ability. Temporal Arrogance. Closely linked to intellectual hubris is temporal arrogance, the view that only the present offers anything useful, and that wisdom and insight did not exist in the world until we were born. Edmund Burke describes those with this arrogance well in Reflections on the Revolution in France: “With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things, [merely] because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of the building run up in haste; because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery [i.e. progress].” The dangers in this attitude are twofold. First, it ignores any lessons that history might have to offer regarding a utopian project. Past experience is the best critique of any plan, and by dismissing out of hand whatever the past may be able to teach us, any social engineering scheme will be needlessly naive. Second, it leads to a carelessness in planning for mistakes and unforeseen obstacles. Temporal arrogance assumes that because something is being done now, in the “enlightened” age, it is certain to succeed. Such nonchalance means that, if the utopia can even get off the ground to begin with, it may become something quite different when it encounters the unexpected. Spiritual Reductionism. Along with these is an arrogant confidence that the human spirit is simple enough that it can find spiritual fulfillment in some quantifiable and formulaic set of things, and that one knows what this set is. In all of the previously mentioned dystopias, human happiness is assumed to be dependent merely on the fulfillment of material needs, or inspiration by a short list of simplistic values. These societies ignore the fact that the human spirit is far broader than these stiflingly small resources, and ultimately involves a mysterious something that resists easy definition. The arrogance lies in assuming that everyone can be shoehorned into limited “one size fits all” sources of spiritual nourishment, and a disregard of the need for individuals to search for, explore, and affirm these sources on their own. The end result is the main theme of dystopian fiction: a wholesale degradation of society into a thoroughly inhuman, animal- or machine-like state combined with a choking agony for the few who can see the truth around them. So in the end, it appears that utopia falls victim to the weakness of all worldly endeavors: our flawed and fallen human nature. The best hope for making a better world thus lies where it always has: Not in any ambitious scheme or clever system, but instead the long, slow, uncertain road of personal transformation by each and every individual, and with societies free enough for individuals to travel it. Along the way there will be much that is messy and inefficient, and perhaps the world will not be as kind as can be imagined, but what is best in us will be allowed to flourish rather than be clipped and managed into stunted sterility. To quote Edmund Burke again, “It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, by leaving much to free will, even with some loss to the object[ives you may have], than to attempt to make men mere machines and instruments of a political benevolence.” Tuesday, August 20, 2002
BURKE ON THE REVOLUTIONARY MINDSET More from Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France: Something they must destroy, or they seem to themselves to exist for no purpose. One set is for destroying the civil power through the ecclesiastical; another, for demolishing the ecclesiastic through the civil. They are aware that the worst consequences might happen to the public in accomplishing this double ruin of church and state; but they are so heated with their theories, that they give more than hints, that this ruin, with all the mischiefs that must lead to it and attend it, and which to themselves appear quite certain, would not be unacceptable to them, or very remote from their wishes. A man amongst them of great authority, and certainly of great talents, speaking of a supposed alliance between church and state says, “perhaps we must wait for the fall of the civil powers before this most unnatural alliance be broken. Calamitous no doubt will that time be. But what convulsion in the political world ought to be a subject of lamentation, if it be attended with so desirable an effect?” You see with what a steady eye these gentlemen are prepared to view the greatest calamities which can befall their country.... Plots, massacres, assassinations, seem to some people a trivial price for obtaining a revolution. Cheap, bloodless reformation, a guiltless liberty, appear flat and vapid to their taste. There must be a great change of scene; there must be a magnificent stage effect; there must be a grand spectacle to rouse the imagination, grown torpid with the lazy enjoyment of sixty years’ security and the still unanimating repose of public prosperity.... INTERNET ATHEIST'S DEBATE PLAYBOOK REVEALED! Very funny satire on atheist antics in Internet debates, though a little too uncomfortably true if, like myself, you once played by it. Be proud, fellow atheist, that "intellectual quality" has been preemptively defined as a medal you are allowed to pin on yourself, just for accepting our doctrine! Monday, August 19, 2002
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
ROBOT EVOLVES LAST 1% OF FLIGHT! Yet another misleading reference to evolution appears on Yahoo Science News today: Swedish researchers have built a robot that was able to teach itself how to fly. The report opens with: A robot has taught itself the principles of flying -- learning in just three hours what evolution took millions of years to achieve, according to research by Swedish scientists published on Wednesday. Sounds impressive, huh? Millions of years of development compressed into a few hours? Well, not quite. The robot was essentially a fully functional robotic bird that was directed to try different flapping techniques until it achieved the maximum amount of lift. In other words, it was like an entirely normal bird -- possessing every physical characteristic necessary for flight -- that had to learn how to fly. The robot really only "evolved" the very last step in flight after being given the vast majority of the necessary pieces. This is something radically different from evolving flight from scratch, which is what the report equates it with. This sort of evolutionary hyperbole may seem like harmless artistic license, but the reason it bothers me is that it only serves to muddy the waters on the subject of evolution. It promotes misunderstanding of what true evolution is and how it works in nature, reinforces the esteem given to evolutionary ideologues such as Richard Dawkins, and contributes to the increasingly prevalent fuzzy-headed view of computers and robots being another form of "life". But knowing what it takes to secure research funding, I guess I can't blame the scientists for inflating the significance of their work a bit! Monday, August 12, 2002
THE ANTI-NARNIA IN THE BLOGOSPHERE There's been a sudden blogospheric eruption of concern over Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials children's book series, a well done but startlingly preachy anti-Christian work that's been branded the "Anti-Narnia" since it has the feel of an atheist doing C. S. Lewis. Several blogs have noted, quite rightly, that Christian parents are overly concerned about children's books such as Harry Potter that present a trivial possibility of problems while giving little attention to Pullman's blatant polemic. The best collection of links on these books can be seen over at Amphibious Goat's blog, including a hilariously biased treatment of them in The Guardian (a UK paper that sometimes makes the New York Times look positively objective!). Two things strike me about these books: One is how Pullman is another instance of an author who is intelligent, imaginative, and insightful, yet cannot see beyond a shockingly naive and simplistic caricature of Christianity. (Science-fiction writer Sheri Tepper is another example that comes to mind.) Wisdom never is a certain companion to talent, and open-mindedness is not necessarily had by the self-professed open-minded, but it is still hard to believe that anyone with simply a little curiosity would be oblivious to the depth of Christianity even if they do not believe in it. The second thing is how the books remind me of G. K. Chesterton's comments in Orthodoxy on those who criticize Christianity for being "anti-life": I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin.... But the extraordinary thing is this. They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction)that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II., they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery.... One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool's paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world.... I rolled on my tongue with a terrible joy, as did all young men of that time, the taunts which Swinburne hurled at the dreariness of the creed-- "Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilaean, the world has grow gray with Thy breath." But when I read the same poet's accounts of paganism (as in "Atalanta"), I gathered that the world was, if possible, more gray before the Galilean breathed on it than afterwards. The poet maintained, indeed, in the abstract, that life itself was pitch dark. And yet, somehow, Christianity had darkened it.... I thought there must be something wrong. And it did for one wild moment cross my mind that, perhaps, those might not be the very best judges of the relation of religion to happiness who, by their own account, had neither one nor the other. Link to this entry Sunday, August 11, 2002
BURKE ON WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION As you can see, I've been away from the blog for awhile, but plan to be posting more pieces soon. Some will probably be inspired by Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France which I am currently reading. I kept seeing references to this book -- a contemporary Englishman's analysis of the French Revolution -- over and over again in political writings and decided it was finally time to read it. Anyway, to start things off, here's an insightful quote from the book regarding the outcome of any wealth redistribution scheme: In this diffusion each man's portion is less than what, in the eagerness of his desires, he may flatter himself to obtain by dissipating the accumulations of others. The plunder of the few would indeed give but a share inconceivably small in the distribution to the many. But the many are not capable of making this calculation; and those who lead them to rapine never intend this distribution. Wednesday, July 31, 2002
THE X-FILES & SPIRITUAL DILETTANTES The always interesting Norwegian Blogger has a recent piece on the phenomenon of The X-Files and Laziness: religious sentiment among many today consists of knowing there is something spiritual out there, but being too lazy to find out what it is. Norwegian Blogger is right on target with this. A vague and flabby faith is indeed what many in the West have, which can be mistaken for secularism and is on the whole not a good thing. But while it's certainly a start, I don't think that simply a willingness to go out to look for what this "something" might be is the remedy. There is after all a subgroup of this X-Files & Laziness crowd: They know something spiritual is out there, and are willing and interested enough to look around for it, but do not want to seriously commit themselves to whatever it is. These are what I call spiritual dilettantes. They are very interested in spirituality and may devote a good amount of time to investigating various religions, but in the end they merely skip around from belief to belief without delving deeply into them and especially not giving them truly serious consideration. (I suspect many Unitarians are in this category.) They are ultimately false seekers because their seeking is an end in itself rather than the means for attaining the greater goal of uncovering The Truth. So why this insincere seeking? For some, it may be due to the belief that the Truth cannot be known, or at least that it is extremely difficult to find in anything more than a partial and piecemeal way (more on this in a moment). For others, it may come from a discomfort and fear with the thought of committing fully to a single belief system, especially a demanding one. Serious commitment is a challenging matter and requires giving up the appealing convenience of ambiguous beliefs. As C.S. Lewis puts it in Miracles: It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. "Look out!" we cry, "it's alive." And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back - I would have done so myself if I could - and proceed no further with Christianity. An "impersonal God" - well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads - better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap - best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband - that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was there a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion ("Man's search for God"!) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us? Then too, there is a certain cachet to being a seeker these days. Celebrities are quick to reveal their ongoing "search for meaning", and seekers are credited with such praiseworthy traits as openmindedness and an appreciation of diversity. People are much less laudatory when you become so gauche as to settle on a set of definite beliefs, especially if you choose a politically incorrect religion such as traditional Christianity. There is an interesting tie-in to The X-Files in all this: As Shoot the Messenger notes, one of the show's major themes is the elusiveness of truth. Mulder and Scully are constantly on the verge of grasping the full truth only to have it slip out of their fingers, and those fragments of truth they do manage to attain are always a little suspect. This demonstrates both the presence of this view of elusive and perhaps unobtainable truth in society at large and one example of how false seeking is reinforced. So in the end, overcoming The X-Files & Laziness requires not just an interest in seeking the truth, but also a willingness to commit to whatever it is one finds. The X-Files & Transcendent Worship Another Shoot the Messenger essay on The X-Files argues that the show's popularity demonstrates a widespread thirst for mystery and transcendence that Christian worship is not addressing but should in order to speak more deeply to the current generation. The case for this dearth of subliminity in Christianity as a whole, however, is overstated, for this type of worship is very much present in the Eastern Orthodox liturgy and (at least in its traditional, non-yuppie-fied forms) Catholic liturgy, and these two denominations constitute the majority of Christians. (Interestingly, my discussions with converts to Orthodoxy supports the article's contention, since they say it is precisely this transcendent liturgy that created their initial interest.) In Protestant denominations, however, transcendent worship is indeed hard to find, and I would argue that this is inevitable and very difficult to remedy given their general rejection of sacramental liturgy. Take away sacraments and your worship will consist of little more than a sermon sandwich, i.e. a sermon bookended by singing. This stripped-down worship makes it challenging to implement the suggested solutions, such as this one: We need such a reverent and expectant administration of the Lord's supper that... there is a real presence of Jesus Christ... objectively and really present at his table and among his people, coming to meet us, ready to make himself known in the breaking of the bread, anxious to give himself to the believer, that we feed on him in our hearts by faith. Those Protestant denominations who do have some form of Eucharist tend to see it as a symbolic and dispensible reenactment, little different than a gradeschool play, rather than a sacramental vehicle immersing the believer in divine grace. Given this mindset, I have little hope that this vision could be implemented. How can there be a sense of a "real presence" without holding to the Real Presence? The necessary changes lie not in worship style but rather theology. An Aside on Norwegian Blogger and Saints & Icons In a followup piece to the X-Files essay, Norwegian Blogger writes: I think Lutheranism is the closest you can come to that truth, but I have seriously contemplated Catholicism and the Orthodox faith, but various aspects about said faiths, mainly the veneration of saints and the presence of icons, has so far made me unwilling. I'm quite surprised that his main objections are saints and icons. Usually the main ones are far more basic and central tenets such as Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession (at least for Protestants) rather than these fairly minor ones. In fact, for me these central tenets are the ones to put the most energy into evaluating because the minor ones fall into place as a consequence of accepting the central ones. Link to this entry |
