A man of prodigious fortune, coming to add his opinion to some light discussion that was going on casually at his table, began precisely thus: "It can only be a liar or an ignoramus who will say otherwise than," and so on. Pursue that philosophical point, dagger in hand.

--Michel de Montaigne, Of the art of discussion.



Stab back: cmnewman99-at-yahoo.com


Home

 
No, I haven't seen it yet.
We have tickets this Saturday in the Arclight dome. And I've been so damn busy with other stuff that I haven't even managed to watch all of the extended TT yet. Aaargh!
posted by CMN at 11:52 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Wow, I am impressed.

I've gotten well over a hundred hits in the past 24 hours from Pejman's link to that last post. Verily, the man has become a mover and shaker. It's like a mini-Instalanche. Clearly we need a name for this phenomenon. A rampej perhaps?
posted by CMN at 6:08 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
What was that noise?

Did you hear it? That sharp, percussive sound emanating from West Los Angeles? Why, it sounded rather like someone getting bitch-slapped.

Or, to be more precise, like a bitch getting anti-SLAPPed.

posted by CMN at 2:18 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Owl to Ms. Rowlings

I just finished Book 4. Good stuff, quite enjoyed it. But here's what I don't get. When Voldemort tried to kill Harry the first time, the curse rebounded and destroyed Voldemort's body. He remained alive in some vestigial spiritual form, but had no physical being for quite a while. Correct? I presume that when this happened, he must have dropped his wand, not having any body that could hold on to it.

So how did he get it back? Did someone retrieve it from the Potters' destroyed house for him? Who? And when? Somebody had to have retrieved and kept it for him all these years so that he would have it at the beginning of Book 4 when he finally has a body that can wield it. It couldn't have been Wormtail, who was in hiding as a rat. So who? Was there an explanation to this that I missed? It's obviously important at the end of the 4th book that this is in fact his wand, the one he'd always had. So there has to be an explanation.

Hasn't there?

UPDATE: Thanks to my good friend Beth, I have learned that I'm not the only one to be perplexed by this. None of the theories posited in this thread strike me as satisfactory, so I guess we shall have to wait and see. At this point my own best guess is that, having gone to such lengths to prevent his soul from slinking off wherever bad dead wizards go, he had also placed some enchantment on his wand that would keep it safe and retreivable in the event his body were to go poof for some reason.
posted by CMN at 1:03 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Vorrei esprimere al popolo italiano le mie condoglianze, ed anche ringraziarvi per la vostra alleanza. Da ieri in poi non raccontero' mai piu' barzellette sui carabinieri.

Translation: I want to express to the Italian people my condolences, and to thank you for your alliance. From yesterday on, I will no longer tell any jokes about carabinieri.

[For those not familiar with Italian culture, carabinieri have traditionally served in their jokes the same role that the Polish used to serve in ours.]
posted by CMN at 3:59 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Qualcuno mi vuole spiegare perche' tanti italiani cercano Mary Carey? Non la troverete qui, ragazzi.

E credetemi, non vale neanche la pena.
posted by CMN at 11:06 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Breaking eggs

Sully reposted for general opprobrium this eloquent post from Democratic Underground:

The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum.

Right after reading this, I read Sully's own essay on Bush's seemingly buoyant reelection prospects. In it appears the following passage:

Consider the obvious current weak spot: Iraq. Last week began with a truly terrible day for the reconstruction of the country: carnage and destruction on a new scale. If terrorists are able to keep Iraq constantly off-balance, and security this tenuous, then the prospects for a successful transition to democracy are slim. That's the downside. The upside is that, at the same time, the new violence marks a new era in the Middle East. For the first time, the Islamist forces of terror are targeting Arabs. They are targeting innocent civilians in Iraq; and they are doing so with no concern for any religious propriety or military decency. They have bombed mosques and the Red Cross - a pretty damning combination. And they launched their mayhem on the first day of Ramadan. So much for their religious piety.

This makes a difference. At some point, Iraqis will perhaps see something that was obscured before. These terrorists are the enemies of Arab self-government, of Arab democracy, of Arab freedom, and of Islam itself. While they only targeted Western targets and murdered Westerners, this truth was obscured. Now it isn't. Iraqis are beginning to see this more clearly; and the newly free press in that country will help illuminate it even more. The Iraq liberation has therefore changed the dynamic in the Middle East in dramatic ways.

Hmmmm. Am I the only one to note an interesting parallel here? Don't get me wrong. I'm not asserting that the two are morally equivalent. The DU poster obviously resents U.S. soldiers and views the prospect of their deaths with satisfaction even beyond the instrumental value she sees them as having. Sullivan has no such animus toward the Iraqis and does not celebrate their suffering. But he does describe the fact that they are now being targeted by Islamist terrorism as having an "upside." He too is looking at the deaths of innocent people as a salutary development, a catalyst for bringing about a desired change in the political state of affairs.

Had the DU poster written her piece without the bile, and merely taken the position that while our soldiers' deaths are tragic, they nevertheless have an "upside" in helping people realize the failings of the Bush administration, I think it would be hard to distinguish her from Sullivan. One could of course still distinguish between the two and judge them morally on the basis of their respective worldviews and the differing end goals in service of which they are willing to countenance loss of life. But they are the same in that each of them sees the violent suffering of others as having instrumental value. Which, undeniably, it can.

So the question becomes: what, if anything, is wrong with seeing that value and responding to it?

Sorry folks, you won't get an answer to that one from me this morning.

posted by CMN at 10:20 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Everything that has a beginning...
Okay Pejman, before you get on a high horse and declare how you're not going to waste any time on the third Matrix movie, read this.
posted by CMN at 2:36 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
The Cyberpamphlet

I've finally started reading Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Near the beginning he quotes George Orwell on the characteristics of pamphlets, which is the form of publishing through which the ideology of the American revolution was primarily developed:

The pamphlet is a one-man show. One has complete freedom of expression, including, if one chooses, the freedom to be scurrilous, abusive, and seditious; or, on the other hand, to be more detailed, serious and "high-brow" than is ever possible in a newspaper or in most kinds of periodicals. At the same time, since the pamphlet is always short and unbound, it can be produced much more quickly than a book, and in principle, at any rate, can reach a bigger public. Above all, the pamphlet does not have to follow any prescribed pattern. It can be in prose or in verse, it can consist largely of maps or statistics or quotations, it can take the form of a story, a fable, a letter, an essay, a dialogue, or a piece of "reportage." All that is required of it is that it shall be topical, polemical, and short.

(Bailyn, p.2.) What leaped out at me immediately, of course, is how absolutely perfectly this description applies to blog posts. And then in a footnote, Bailyn further notes that Orwell's enthusiasm for pamphlets was

sparked by his belief that in twentieth-century society the press does not adequately represent all shades of opinion. "At any given moment there is a sort of all-prevailing orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss some large and uncomfortable fact." He looked back to the days of vigorous, highly individualistic pamphleteering with nostalgia, and hoped that people "would once again become aware of the possibilities of the pamphlet as a method of influencing opinion, and as a literary form.

If only Orwell had lived to see the advent of the blog.

This parallel (which I'm sure I'm not the first to note) gave immediate rise to two thoughts. First, those who sniff that journalism and political editorializing ought to take place only under the auspices of established organizations with editors are either ignorant of American history or hostile to the most fundamental tradition underlying American independence. The second is that I am worried for the historians of the future. While the internet makes it possible to write a pamphlet that can be read instantly across the world, it does nothing to ensure (or even render likely) that the contents of that pamphlet will still be around in legible form in 200 years for some future Professor Bailyn to read in seeking to understand how this historical period was understood by those who lived and shaped it. Scripta just don't manent the way they used to. And given the centrality of linking to blog posts, you can't even really save this medium by printing out and archiving. Each post is the beginning of a potentially limitless chain of cross reference. Not that all blog posts are intrinsically worth saving for posterity, mind you. Not by a long shot. But to whatever extent we think it desirable to preserve the mind of this age for perusal by the future, the impermanence of the medium should concern us. What's needed is a sort of permanent Google cache. Is anyone out there keeping one?

posted by CMN at 2:47 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Here's a blog that's definitely worth checking out if you're interested in the state of the Italian political atmosphere. It's called Cose Turche. How this guy finds time to post in two languages I don't know. I barely ever post anything in one. Anyway, check it out.
posted by CMN at 11:22 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Rips
So Paola and I went to see Intolerable Cruelty. I went despite some misgivings, mainly because it was by the Coen Brothers. Well, they've squandered that trust. Next time I won't go unless I have good reason to think it will be worth it. This wasn't. Cathy ZJ is nice to look at, but that only gets you so far.

As a lawyer, I can't help but be amused by the talismanic significance accorded to pieces of paper in movies like this. One rip, and the legal universe shifts around you. As though the signed piece of paper were actually the contract itself in some metaphysical sense, rather than merely evidence that a binding agreement had been entered into. As though there wouldn't be other copies of it on file in the offices of the lawyers for both sides. I can just imagine going into court and arguing, "Well yes there was a contract, but you see my client ripped up his copy so it's not binding anymore."

That's one of the reasons it sucks being a lawyer. You can't help thinking about stuff like that when you're supposed to be just watching the movie.

posted by CMN at 7:43 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
And I thought conservatives were supposed to favor freedom of contract.

Interesting piece by Frum on the WSJ opinion page the other day, taking up Sullivan's gauntlet to justify conservative opposition to same sex marriage. I believe the following accurately renders the logical structure of Frum's argument:

1) Our primary consideration in making laws governing marriage should be to make it more likely that children will be born into households stable enough to nurture them to adulthood.

2) The system most likely to attain this result is one in which the marriage state is a bright-line institution involving long-term commitment that you are either in, and therefore entitled to the benefits and protections thereof, or not in, and therefore not so entitled or protected. This way men and women know exactly where they stand, and women will not be misled into thinking they are in the kind of relationship that makes it safe for them to have children when they are not.

3) To the extent that society allows options deviating from this, such as civil partnership states entailing varying degrees of commitment, responsibility, and joint ownership, people who are not "the rich and the smart" will be confused and misled, and will be more likely to give birth to children in unstable relationships.

4) Many advocates of same sex marriage agree with all the above points, and therefore want a bright-line marriage institution with gay marriage included, rather than a proliferation of civil partnership institutions.

5) As a matter of political reality however, the policy described in 4) will never be enacted in any state where significant influence is exerted by religious organizations for whom the term "marriage" denotes a sacrament from which same sex couples are excluded.

6) Therefore, the drive to legally sanction same-sex marriage will necessarily lead to the proliferation described in 3).

7) Therefore, allowing same-sex marriage is undesirable.

Hmmmm.

A few observations.

The first thing that leaps out at me is Frum's effective concession that there's really no reason why it would be unworkable or pernicious to allow gay marriage on exactly the same bright-line terms as straight marriage. His argument hinges on the premise that religious people will never allow this—which is kind of like arguing against desegregation back in 1955 on the ground that southern white society would never allow it. The point has validity as a description of the political obstacles to implementation of the principle, but absolutely no relevance to the validity of the principle itself. He's not saying gay marriage is a bad idea, he's saying it's a good idea that will never be accepted whole, and whose partial implementation is worse than the status quo. At least, that's the way he's framed his argument.

Which implies that the real question here is why a religious objection to the contours of a civil institution should carry so much weight. I've never quite understood this. The sacrament of marriage from a religious standpoint and the civil institution of marriage from a legal standpoint are two different animals that serve different, though congruent, purposes. Civil marriage is a means of instituting certain arrangments of property rights and legal responsibilies that facilitate and protect the rearing of children. Religious marriage is an institution that tries to situate the spousal-parental relationship in a moral, social, and spiritual framework that will hopefully make it more resilient and fulfilling. To people who really believe in the latter institution, it forms the primary definition of their relationship, and whatever legal consequences also follow from it are ancillary, just as their belief that it's wrong to kill may also be reflected in, but does not depend on, laws against murder. So I simply don't understand how the Christian sacrament of marriage is threatened in any way by the civil institution of marriage being open to people who would not be eligible for that sacrament, any more than it is threatened by people of other faiths--or atheists--being allowed to participate. There is no full faith and credit clause between church and state.

So Frum's reasoning really leads to the conclusion that people like Sullivan need to keep hammering away at the intellectual and moral underpinnings of religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Because the main problem here is their unjustified—and apparently unjustifiable, if Frum's argument is all we have to go on—desire to exclude from a key institution people who believe in it as much as they do. In other words, point 7) is a non-sequitur, unless you assume the state of affairs described in point 5) to be immutable.

But my real argument with Frum goes way beyond that. It's about points 2) and 3). What we have here is a conservative arguing that when it comes to the most crucial transaction any of us will enter into, we need government to dictate the terms to us in a one-size-fits-all form contract that people must either take or leave. Because otherwise, you see, poor and dumb people will be misled. If that's true of marriage, why isn't it true of employment contracts, consumer loans, property sales, and any other transaction you can think of? I know; lots of people think it is. Funny though, I always thought "we must restrict choice to protect poor and dumb people from their poorness and dumbness" was the default lefty position. Go figure. Marriage already isn't a one-size-fits-all institution, because divorce, alimony, and child support laws differ from state to state, and you have no way to be sure ex ante which state's law will wind up governing yours. And the costs of making imprudent choices in this regard are already externalized to a large extent by the existence of welfare and child support laws. If you really wanted to make bright-line marriage serve the role Frum imagines, shouldn't you really go whole hog and make sure there is no welfare or child support for children born out of wedlock? While you're at it, shouldn't you also outlaw divorce?

Given that the bag is a distant memory in the mind of that cat, why not embrace freedom of contract and make it a vehicle for making people more conscious of the choices they're making? Why wouldn't it be salutary for couples contemplating one of these relationships to actually have to think about what sorts of legal obligations to each other they intend--or don't intend--for it to include? Forget prenups--I think it should be the norm that people draft their own nups. I know it seems terribly cold to think of getting married like negotiating a contract, but it is that whether we like it or not. Marriages break up and people come to resent each other often because they find out way down the line that they have different understandings as to what they thought their contribution was supposed to be and what they were supposed to be able to expect in return. Actually having to talk about these things and put them down in writing from the beginning might prevent some people from getting married who shouldn't, and it might also provide a basis for better communication down the road as people find their needs and expectations to be evolving. Would this deromanticize marriage? I don't see why. To a marriage of true minds, a meeting of the minds should be no impediment.

posted by CMN at 4:29 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
This hilarious recounting of a recent Supreme Court argument reminds of something I've thought for a long time. No, not that the 9th Circuit is wacky. I actually think its wackiness is largely overstated. It's that the "reasonableness" of a search should be decided by a jury. It's precisely the kind of context specific, sensibility-of-the-community kind of question that juries are supposed to decide. When courts decide these things they have to worry about precedential value, which leads to either an absurdity like the "leave in conditioner" rule, or (more often) a rule that is so deferential to cops it has hardly any teeth at all. In reality things are more nuanced, and juries are the ones who should be supervising whether their public servants are striking the right balance between respecting their rights and protecting them from crime.

Of course, it couldn't be the same jury that was supposed to try the case. What we should have is an evidence jury, drawn from the community in which the search took place. It gets presented with evidence as to the circumstances in which the search took place, what the cops knew before they performed it, and how they went about doing so. It does NOT get told what the cops found, or what the defendant is being charged with. The evidence jury decides whether, under all the circumstances, what the cops did was "reasonable." Then based on that the court excludes or admits the evidence, and off we go to the other jury who will try the merits.

The main objection I can see to this proposal is that it doesn't give the cops sufficient guidance as to what they can or can't do. I don't know. I suspect that the cops serving a particular community will get a sense as to the kinds of things those people consider "exigent" and the kinds of intrusions they consider unwarranted. They'll also have a strong incentive to build up the trust of the people in that community, so that their actions will be given more benefit of the doubt. And if a certain community tends to think you should need someone screaming bloody murder before the cops can bust a door in, then that's the standard the cops will be held to. Of course, the result of all this is that the goals and methods of law enforcement would have to be more attuned to the priorities of the community than those of the state. When it comes to the investigation of victimless crimes for example, juries would presumably tolerate less intrusion than they will when someone is in danger. So the community's view as to the importance of a particular law will affect the amount of leeway police have in enforcing it. Personally, I regard that as a good thing.
posted by CMN at 2:29 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
What's next, the Apple Pie Act?
I haven't taken the time yet to parse through the various provisions of the Patriot Act to figure out how bad or justified I think they really are. But the more I think about it, the more that name pisses me off. If you're going to introduce legislation, give it a substantive title that conveys some minimal description of what the law is intended to do. Or would that pin you down too much? I suppose the problem with calling it the "Defense Against Terrorism Act" is that it invites the question whether the contents are really narrowly tailored to serve that purpose. Calling something the Patriot Act, on the other hand, tells us nothing. Except that you want opposition to it to sound presumptively unpatriotic. As though the patriots who founded this country thought love of it enjoined any duty higher than safeguarding liberty by scrutinizing the use of power. And then you wonder why so many people are suspicious of the whole idea of patriotism. It's shit like this that gives patriotism a bad name, turns it from a noble sentiment into a form of cynical propaganda. Someone who really held the word in reverence would never profane it that way.

Update: The Argentine writes to tell me I'm underinformed. Apparently it's an acronym: USA PATRIOT = Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. So I have to retract at least partially. Not on my main point, though. I still object to the use of the term "patriot" to denominate a piece of legislation, unless it has something to do with commemorating or compensating the families of fallen soldiers or other people worthy of the honorific. Contrary to my outburst above, however, the fully extended title does tell us what the ostensible purpose of the Act is. Indeed, it does so with more detail than usual in such a title, precisely because they needed more words to contrive the cute acronym. I wonder how many people, though, have forgotten like me that there is an extended title? Now that I focus on it, I see that some media reports concerning the Act capitalize the acronym and others don't.


posted by CMN at 3:12 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
A civil rights crusade that deserves everyone's wholehearted support. (Via Howard Bashman.)
posted by CMN at 12:10 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
I'm outta here...
My family's going on vacation again, and this time I even get to go with them. It's up to northern Cal for granny's 80th. The extended family is converging for some RVing through Yosemite, Gold Country, etc., culminating in the Big Bash in Ferndale. You won't be hearing from me till September.
posted by CMN at 1:36 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Den Beste is gloating over France's tourism losses. Fun though this is to do, I feel compelled to report that Paola and Lucas stopped in Paris briefly on their way to Italy and say they experienced extremely helpful and generous treatment by the locals. Better than they did in Italy. It's obviously very silly to extrapolate individual experiences like this into global judgments, but we're human and that's what we do on a gut level, strictly rational or not. So France has now climbed several rungs higher in my estimation than it had been of late. I wonder how many of the relatively few Americans who are taking advantage of the downturn to go there are having similar experiences, and whether their word of mouth will repair the damage. They'll definitely win us back much faster that way than by having Woody advertise his desire to French kiss his wife.
posted by CMN at 11:17 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
I hate to be fickle, but...
Pejman's got some serious competition now. I think he should try to join forces and get her to be his running mate. I'm sure the skills he's honed while hitting on every female blogger in sight will work on fellow gubernatorial candidates as well.

UPDATE: It figures that this would be my highest traffic-generating post in recent memory. By the way, has anyone ever listened to Ambush at Fort Bragg? It's an audio rendition of a novella by Tom Wolfe, performed by Ed Norton. Fantastic. It's like the flip side of A Few Good Men, the same issue seen through a wildly different lens, with that level of social perspicacity and devastating characterization that Wolfe seems to have all to himself. And Norton's reading is phenomenal. The reason I thought of it now is that the conniving female journalist character is named, well, Mary Carey. I can't hear that name now without hearing Norton's portrayal of the good ol' boy Marine clueing in the condescending liberal yankee as to what it means to be under fire in Mogadishu. Definitely worth a listen if you're into theater of the mind.
posted by CMN at 10:31 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
The more the merrier.
Pejman really doesn't want to run for governor. I think we should throw him in the briar patch.
posted by CMN at 10:29 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Volokh has an interesting rumination on the Supreme Court's citing of foreign legal authority in Lawrence.

I think there's another point worth making, though. In my view, a careful reading of Justice Kennedy's opinion shows that he was not citing the European authorities as persuasive precedent the way state courts sometimes cite decisions from other states. He was citing that authority for one purpose only--to rebut the asserted factual premise of the holding in Bowers that criminalization of homosexual practices is a deeply rooted feature of western civilization. I don't think there's any valid objection to this particular use of foreign precedent, even if we are--as I think we should be--rightly wary of looking to the moral views of other countries as a way to interpret our own constitution.
posted by CMN at 2:38 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Sounds like he oughta be named Flaming if you ask me...

Diane must be trying to get a rise out of me. On second thought, no--that would be flattering myself. In any case, she's getting one. A moderate, brief one. But a rise nonetheless. Here it is:

No thoughtful libertarian--and that includes the dogmatic Ms. Rand herself--claims that there is no such thing as "common good," that all community is evil, or that cooperation is not necessary to human fulfillment. Come on. Let's think half a sec here. What on earth is "the market"--the closest thing libertarians have to a deity--if not the personfication of the fact that humans are social animals and cannot flourish as disconnected individuals? Market society is all about interdependence.

No, libertarians don't deny that there is any such thing as "common good." They merely ask you to show a bit of caution when you use that term. Seems fair enough given the bloodstains on it. They ask you to remember that there are lots of goods, some of which are arguably common to everyone, many of which are not, and none of which command universal recognition. They ask you, when you toss around this word as a justification for coercion, to keep the following caveats in mind:

1) When a good really is commonly regarded as such, people usually find ways to obtain it through voluntary cooperation.

2) When a common good is allegedly impossible to obtain solely through voluntary cooperation, it's usually because not enough people regard it as a good.

3) Even if we admit the existence of some real, objectively identifiable "common goods" that can be achieved only through coercion, one has to weigh those goods against the damage that coercion--even coercion in the service of real goods--inevitably does to people's ability to voluntarily achieve all the other goods on which their lives and happiness depend.

4) We must also include in the scales the fact that the institutions whose use of coercion we legitimize will never, EVER be limited to achieving the specific "common goods" that we might think would justify such power. Such is not human nature. Such is not power.

The above verbosity can be summed up as follows: There are such things as common goods. And people need communities to achieve them. But communities are conducive to the common good only to the extent that they respect the rights of the individuals to whom the "good" is supposed to be "common."

Alright, back to my cave and porn videos. (No coke, I'm afraid. I tried snorting it once, but the bubbles tickled my nose.)
posted by CMN at 4:04 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
His loss. Our gain.
I remember when Eric Clapton lost his son in that tragic accident, and a friend of mine at college remarked, "Well, at least we know he's going to be putting out a kick-ass blues album soon." Which he did. Now, I certainly wouldn't put Stephan Jenkins' break up with Charlize Theron on anywhere near the same level of traumatic experience as what Eric went through. Still, I think we can all agree: it's got to be tough. Good thing he got a kick-ass album out of it. It took me a few listens to get into, but it hasn't left my CD player since. It's the kind of album that becomes the soundtrack of your summer, that makes you want to drive around with the windows down and the stereo blasting. Which I've been doing. And as with their first album, some of the best songs are the ones you won't hear on the radio.

So, my condolences Steve. But thanks for sharing.
posted by CMN at 4:57 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
How I know I must be old.
My son turns ten today. And what does he ask for for his birthday? The boardgame version of Civilization and some Art Tatum CD's. Poor kid. He never had a chance to grow up normal.

Update: As an extra surprise, I got him this too. He was way excited. Pejman would approve. As for the Civ game, it's got over 700 freakin' pieces and a board larger than many families' dining tables. I anticipate getting all the pieces off the plastic frames by some time in late October.
posted by CMN at 11:00 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Bunraku ping pong
Ever wonder what it would look like to play ping pong in the Matrix?
Here's an amazing live performance from some Japanese TV show.

posted by CMN at 4:48 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Think Pink.
I knew she'd be back.
posted by CMN at 8:12 PM
1 stab(s) back

 
I just don't give a pluck.

I have no idea whether this is true or not. It came to me in one of those circulating emails. But if it's not true, it's still to be admired as a fine specimen of the art of balderdash.

Giving the Finger

Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore be incapable of fighting in the future. This famous weapon was made of the native English Yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" (or "pluck yew"). Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, "See, we can still pluck yew!

"PLUCK YEW!"

Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say, the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows used w/ the longbow that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird." And yew thought yew knew everything.

Update: My good friend the Argentine wrote in with an opinion on this:

Read your post with amusement. I think it's balderdash, at least in part.
First, the English flip the bird somewhat differently than do we. The
English version is to show the back of one's pointer and middle finger, both
slightly curled (a sort of limp-dicked, backwards version of Churchill's
victory sign) to the offender, whilst waving the hand away from oneself.

The custom did, though, have its origin in the Battle of Agincourt, and the
unsuccessful French attempt to disable England's bowmen (if my English
friends are to be believed, that is).

The linguistics lesson is pleasingly playful, but given the plethora of
English words -- not even counting their plurals -- employing the "difficult
consonant cluster," I wouldn't plan on plying the story further. Indeed,
were I you, I'd pledge not to.

I think he's right. Plainly not plausible.

posted by CMN at 12:21 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
That's my boy.
I spoke to Lucas on the phone the other day from Italy. He's been reading Madeleine L'Engle. I had obliged him to read and write a report on Wrinkle in Time as a prerequisite to obtaining the latest Potter installment (how's that for coercive tactics?), after learning that he had blown off a similar assignment during the school year. When he left for Italy he had both sequels in tow to keep him occupied on the plane. No longer as assignments, mind you--just for pleasure should he be bored. So he gets on the phone with me and what does he have to say? The following:

In this fateful hour,
I call all Heaven with its power,
the sun with its brightness,
the snow with its whiteness,
the fire with all strength it hath,
the lightening with its rapid wrath,
the winds with their swiftness along their path,
the sea with its deepness,
the rocks with their steepness,
the Earth with its starkness.
All these I place,
by God's Almighty help and grace,
between myself and powers of darkness.

From memory. He just memorized it, without any suggestion from anyone that he do so. For his own pleasure. Because he thought it was cool. And suddenly I had tears on my face. Because I had forgotten, but I did the same thing when I read Swiftly Tilting Planet at about his age.

Take that, Felipe.
posted by CMN at 2:26 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
More on Lincoln
The amazing thing about blogging is that once in a while a total stranger will take the time to respond thoughtfully to something you've dashed off. I recently got such a message from a guy named Rich Rostrom, who gave me some good food for thought.

It seems to me (and I think most Civil War experts would agree)
that you've misunderstood what Lincoln did and why.

To begin with, at no time did Lincoln wage war for the purpose
of freeing slaves, or for any other humanitarian end. He himself
said this many times.

He made war to preserve the Union.

Well, I certainly don't claim to fully understand Lincoln. I'm only now starting to grapple with this history in a serious way, and until I've digested at least the volumes by Lincoln and Calhoun that I've got on my shelf perhaps I should just keep quiet. But this much at least I -had understood--in fact, my earlier post said precisely this: that Lincoln disavowed ending slavery as a justification for war and based it solely on preserving the Union.

Now, you state that the Constitution does not explicitly
address the issue of secession. This is true; but Article Six
does address secession implicitly, in the Supremacy Clause.

The laws made by Congress, as authorized by the Constitution,
are the supreme law of the land, "anything in the laws or
constitution of any state notwithstanding".

If you read that literally, then it doesn't matter whether a
convention in Georgia or Texas has passed a declaration of
secession - the laws of the United States remain in force in
all the states. It was Lincoln's sworn duty to enforce
the laws in every state.

If he had failed to do so, he would have permitted serious
and probably fatal damage to the idea of democratic self-
government.

The Supremacy Clause argument is a fair one. The only textual counter argument I can think of at the moment would be to point to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and argue that among the rights and powers retained by the people and States must be those fundamental ones invoked in the Declaration of Independence, namely to withdraw consent from a government that has become oppressive and institute a new one. Consent that can't be withdrawn isn't real consent. So one might accept that as long as a state remains in the Union, it is subject to the supremacy of federal law, and yet hold that states can exit the Union if they so choose.

There is, I suppose, the wrinkle that technically the constitution wasn't entered into by the states but by the people, in ratifying conventions organized by state. So arguably to secede you needed not a vote of state legislatures but the holding of deratifying conventions parallel to the earlier ones. Whatever formal niceties we decide to require however, is there any doubt that the popular sentiment for secession was overwhelming?

In his First Inaugural, Lincoln made this point:

If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority
must, or the government must cease. There is no
other alternative; for continuing the government,
is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a
minority, in such case, will secede rather than
acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn,
will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their
own will secede from them whenever a majority
refuses to be controlled by such minority. For
instance, why may not any portion of a new
confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily
secede again, precisely as portions of the present
Union now claim to secede from it?

...

Plainly, the central idea of secession,
is the essence of anarchy. A majority,
held in restraint by constitutional
checks and limitations, and always
changing easily with deliberate changes
of popular opinions and sentiments, is
the only true sovereign of a free
people. Whoever rejects it, does, of
necessity, fly to anarchy or to
despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the
rule of a minority, as a permanent
arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so
that, rejecting the majority principle,
anarchy or despotism in some form is all
that is left.

(Speeches and Letters of Abraham Lincoln :
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/linc.html)

Lincoln believed he was fighting for something even more
important than the end of slavery (even though he cared
very much about ending slavery): the future of democratic
government.

If the authority of a legitimate democratic government
could be undone at will by any regional majority, then
democracy was doomed to failure.

This is an interesting argument, too. Not sure I buy it, though. It seems to be based on the premise that you can only have functioning democratic government if everyone in sight belongs to the same one. States always think that any lessening of their sphere of power is a step toward inexorable anarchy. I say, what's wrong with a little competition between regional democratic governments? What's wrong with a picture in which, say, 20 states stay in the Union, 12 form a separate Confederacy, a few strike off on their own, and maybe a few break up even further into sovereign city-states? Each of these entities could be thriving democracies. Or some could fail and wind up joining back up with one of the bigger ones. I still don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to try. Now one might posit all kinds of practical difficulties that might need to be worked out. If, for example, these various political entities couldn't get their acts together to cooperate on defense, the region might become vulnerable to foreign invasion. But there's no reason in principle why they couldn't swing that. The Greeks did pretty well against Xerxes, thank you. As long as each of these political entities recognized the others' rights to self-determination, they could compete and get along and form ad hoc conventions as to those matters on which cooperation was important. Why would this necessarily spell the end of democracy? I need to hear more.

Lincoln was determined that the government should be
preserved and all its powers maintained. In this he was
supported by nearly all Americans outside the South,
including many who were not opposed to slavery.

(After Fort Sumter, when Lincoln issued a proclamation
calling for 75,000 volunteers to put down rebellion,
he first asked his old adversary Sen. Stephen Douglas
to look it over. Douglas told Lincoln he shouid call
for _200,000_ men.).

And my understanding is that few people would have been willing to fight a war whose purpose was to end slavery.

Oh, and the story about Lincoln arresting state legislators
in Maryland is neo-Confederate hooey. The Maryland
legislature voted 53-13 against secession in early 1861,
with no Union troops in sight. Later that year, several
Maryland legislators _were_ arrested, but for activities
such as fundraising and recruiting for the Confederacy.

Lincoln (and his subordinates) did many things which
would appall civil libertarians today. Thousands of
people were held prisoner without charges. A newspaper
was suppressed (the Chicago Times). An opposition political
candidate was arrested and thrown out of the country
(Clement Vallandigham).

Not to mention the deliberate civilian destruction inflicted by the Union in the South. Is there any doubt that by today's standards the North was guilty of war crimes?

Considering the gravity and insidious character of the
threat to America today, the restraint shown by Bush
is remarkable. The measures taken by Bush are mild compared
to the actions of such liberal icons as Franklin Roosevelt
and Woodrow Wilson.

No argument there. But believe it or not, my purpose in writing that last post wasn't necessarily to defend Bush. I said we can't hold him in opprobrium without holding Lincoln doubly so. But I take quite seriously the possibility that we should so hold Lincoln. It may be that of the two, Bush is less blameworthy. We should still blame him when necessary, but also keep our perspective.

posted by CMN at 10:22 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Following referral links can be a humbling experience. I am but one among a large constellation of Chris Newmans, many of whom are far more accomplished than I. Oh, well.
posted by CMN at 5:28 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
It all depends on what the meaning of "knows" is.

Alright, here's my take on Yellowcakegate.

I start with the premise that we're entitled to assume that when a president makes a representation of fact to the nation about a matter of public importance, he is representing that his administration and the various information gathering agencies under its control have reviewed evidence of that fact and judged it to be reasonably reliable.

What representation did Bush make?

If I say, "Tony believes X," I am making a representation only about Tony's state of mind. Likewise, if I say "Tony told me X" or "I have a report from Tony that says X", I am making a representation only about the contents of Tony's statement or report and not about the veracity or reliability of the matters asserted therein.

But what if I say, "Tony has learned X"? We're on the edge of an pit of epistemological quicksand here, but without getting too philosophical I think we can all agree that the product of "learning" is "knowledge," and that "knowledge" means more than mere belief. It means belief that is supported by sufficient evidence to be regarded as true, whatever we believe that standard to be. If I say "Tony has learned X," I'm not just saying he believes it, I'm saying that Tony has direct evidence that X is true, such that there's really no reason for him to doubt X short of belief in a Cartesian demon intent on deceiving him.

So now the question arises: How can I, as a responsible president, make a judgment as to whether my statement "Tony has learned X" is sufficiently reliable to offer to the public as part of a discussion of national interest? There are only two approaches I can see.

Option One is to just take Tony's word for it. But in that case, it seems I really ought to be up front that that's what I'm doing. I really ought to say something like, "Tony has told me he has learned X, and I have no reason to doubt him." Because the fact is, I don't have any basis on which to directly evaluate whether Tony's views on X are knowledge, belief, or mere speculation. I'm staking my belief entirely on my trust in Tony's judgment, and my opening premise dictates that I ought to say so.

Option Two would be for me to obtain access to and evaluate the same evidence that forms the basis of Tony's knowledge. Of course, once I did this it would become superfluous for me to talk about Tony's having learned something anymore. At that point, I could just talk about my having learned it. In fact, once I had done this, it would be very strange for me to limit myself to talking about Tony's having learned it. If anything, you'd expect me to say, "I have learned, though Tony, of X."

So when you think about it, in the context of a discussion about whether evidence exists to support a proposition, the sentence "Tony has learned X" is logically suspect from the moment it's uttered. If I know the basis of Tony's knowledge, then it's my knowledge too. If I don't, then I have no basis for asserting he has knowledge.

In other words, this is clearly a weasel phrase. It suggests that there is knowledge out there we can rely on, but simultaneously distances the speaker from vouching directly for that purported knowledge. It is clearly intended to make listeners believe X to be true, yet preserve the ability to say, "Hey, I never claimed X was true." Kind of like saying "we never had sex" but reserving the right to say, "well, I did come on her dress, but she didn't get any pleasure so I didn't consider it really sex."

The record indicates that the CIA told Bush it didn't have reliable knowledge of X. Then it relented and okayed the weasel phrase, because it read it as following Option One. Bush wanted the phrase in the speech because he wanted people to understand it as Option Two. Instead of being scrupulously precise about what we knew and didn't know, he tried to have it both ways. Did he lie? Well, it's hard to say because the phrase was deliberately worded in a way that leads you into logical circles in order to evaluate its veracity. There's an adjective in our political lexicon for this sort of calculated word play. Clintonian.

Which is precisely why the Dems are making such a big deal out of this, and why they have every right to. Whether it really helps them much in the long run I don't know. But they endured how many years of smug sneering attacks from Bush and the Republicans about how they're the kind of straight talking morally upright people who would never think to cavil about what the meaning of is is. Maybe what Bush said was not really a lie. But the very fact that it requires so much parsing to explain why not is what condemns him.

Now. I understand all the various arguments that this isn't a big deal. Yes, it was just one small part of a long speech and a longer argument. The decision to go to war didn't really turn on it. This whole brouhaha has little to do with the merits of the war. It has to do with Bush's credibility. Now in the grand scheme of things, as presidential misrepresentations go, this was pretty minor league. But having pilloried Clinton relentlessly for this kind of thing, the Republicans should have held themselves to a higher standard. They asked for it.

A lot of Bush's support is based on the perception people have of his character. Sure, he's not a flashy intellectual, he doesn't have high falutin' pretensions, he's just a decent man who's made his mistakes in the past, grappled with his personal demons, found God, and finally achieved a strong though humble moral compass. He's a common sense, down-to-earth, call-it-like-he-sees-it kind of guy. The very opposite of the condescendingly self-righteous yet cynically manipulative Clinton crowd. Right? So the question for us observers is this: Was this slip up just a momentary lapse of judgment, or actually a slip of the mask? If the Dems can present a clear, non-shrill case that it was the latter, if they can effectively show that Bush's supposed character is just a façade, they might throw enough doubt into his ranks that a compelling alternative (if there were one) would have a fighting chance. I somehow doubt they'll succeed at this, but you can't blame them for trying. The conservatives have always said character is relevant.

And even though I reluctantly thought this war was justified, I think it's absolutely essential that presidents be held accountable to the highest standards of probity when making and justifying such decisions. I don't care that the Dems are doing it for purely partisan reasons. Partisanship is to politics what competition is to business. It can be unsavory, but it provides the well-needed kicks in the pants that keep us all in line. We all need to be reminded to watch like hawks the justifications governments give for war. And government leaders need to be put on notice that they will have to answer for everything they tell us.

Is this the kind of thing that justifies impeachment? No. Clinton committed perjury and probably obstruction of justice. Bush didn't. Even if you regard his statement as an out and out lie, mere lying is not a crime, even if the subject matter is of far more import than was the use and abuse of Slick's Willy. If every president who lied got impeached, we'd have had more administrations than Italy by now. Sad, but probably true. But is this a hit to Bush's credibility?

Absolutely. It may or may not be a very big hit. But that will depend on whether in retrospect it winds up looking like an exception or the rule.
posted by CMN at 3:09 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
On rationales for war
I've been watching Ken Burns's Civil War while riding the exercise bike. Pretty amazingly engaging for something that consists mainly of panning over still photographs. And what an amazingly horrific war that was. Can you imagine what would happen if Bush lost 10,000 troops in a single battle? Lincoln did that several times. Thinking about that war I continue to find myself torn, even more than I am over the present one. What was the justification? Let's apply the antiwar position taken now against going into Iraq to the question whether Lincoln should have waged war on the Confederacy. The most compelling justification, of course, is the humanitarian one. Anyone would be morally justified in trying to help the slaves gain freedom. But the argument that there were means for doing this short of war had at least as much force there as here. Why not let them secede, stop sending their fugitive slaves back to them, and encourage would-be John Browns to go in and try their luck? I'd say there was a much better chance of that working than there would have been of getting rid of Saddam by similar strategies. But of course, Lincoln disavowed freeing the slaves as a justification, saying if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he'd do it. So if we take him at his word and leave slavery out of it, what was the moral justification for slaughtering hundreds of thousands to hold onto sovereign states for invoking the same principles we did when we split from England? The Constitution doesn't address secession one way or another. One can argue either way from that, but Lincoln couldn't point to any indisputably violated obligation the way Bush could with Saddam. Nor could Lincoln claim that the Confederacy was likely to invade the Union or seek to directly harm its citizens. (On the other hand, he might reasonably assert that armed conflict was inevitable as both nations vied to expand westward.) And if you think Ashcroft is bad, check out the stuff Lincoln did. You can analogize these indefinite detentions to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus perhaps, but last I checked Bush hadn't jailed any legislators to keep them from voting against him. And no doubt there were people who felt Lincoln just wanted to keep his hands on that valuable natural resource the South had so much of. It was all about cotton! Clearly, Bush is no Lincoln. Not by a long shot. You can't read Lincoln without being in awe of his intelligence and humanity. Whereas you can't read Bush at all, because he doesn't write and it's hard to imagine him penning an essay that would be worth it. But when it comes to the way they each responded to what they understood to be a mortal threat to the future of the nation they believed it their duty to protect, I'm not sure I see how anyone can condemn Bush's conduct without holding Lincoln in at least as much opprobrium.

I need to go to bed.

posted by CMN at 4:53 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
A few more freebies like that and I'll be broke…

Well, I'm stag for a fortnight. The loves of my life are in Italy visiting the family. Fain would I be with them, but this was a spur of the moment trip at a moment when the wheels of justice simply can't turn without me. So here I am, spending what free time I have doing guy stuff like working out, renting all the war movies I know Paola would never watch with me, and reading the proofs of Randy Barnett's new book on con law, something I had been anticipating in a manner usually associated with scar-browed pubescent magic-users. Yea verily, I am a party animal. Actually, tonight I was.

It was quite an interesting evening. It started with this film, which a friend wanted to go see. This is a disturbing film. How disturbing? Remember Silence of the Lambs? Se7en? This one is similar, except that it makes those look like Disney flicks by comparison. I think it could only have been made by Germans. And I think the review in the link gets it wrong. They're not trying to set up a sequel, they just don't have that American law which says movies are required to have tidy happy conclusions. That would be so banal, so bourgeois. Now ees ze time on Sprockets ven ve dance. Don't get me wrong; the movie is very well done. But don't go see it if you're remotely squeamish. I spent half the time averting my eyes, and it's gonna be real interesting trying to continue my fling with Atkins induction now that I'm not sure I can face red meat for a while. Nuff said.

Right after the movie I sped off up the 10 to attend the Justice Ball. My firm had bought a number of tickets, one of which I obtained after someone else cancelled. That's one of the perks of working for an L.A. firm—if you work with the right people occasionally you get to go to stuff like this. For free. Of course, these private benefit performances are never as good as going to a regular concert, even though you get to be closer to the performers than you'd normally be able to get without camping out for a week to buy your tickets. Why? Because benefits are fundraisers, and the tickets are sold to people with lots of funds. Who generally aren't the kind of people that do a lot of roof raising, if you know what I mean. I'll bet artists hate playing these gigs, even when they think it's for a good cause. In fact I'm sure they do.

Anyway, I got there about ten, and my timing was perfect. I had just time to grab a drink and breeze into the concert hall where Camryn Manheim was just getting ready to introduce Macy. There weren't any seats in the Wiltern, just various tiers of open space. I made a beeline for the floor right in front of the stage, and was surprised to find the crowd there sparse enough that I could get quite close with no problem. I kind of suspect that only people with VIP tix were supposed to be down there, cause I can't explain the lameness of the crowd any other way. But if that was the case no-one ever challenged me, and there I was, like five feet from the stage. I haven't been up that close since slamdancing to the Violent Femmes at the Aragon Ballroom during my misspent youth.

But as I've already intimated, this was no mosh pit worthy of the name. It was rather annoying, actually. I went there fully intending to make this a calorie burning event. I mean, come on—this is Macy Gray we're talking about. Ms. Sex-O-Matic Venus Freak herself. Why on earth would you go to see Macy Gray and plant yourself on the dance floor within brushing distance of her afro if you have no intention of getting your freak on? Yet there was this whole row of stiffs standing there, some even talking to each other during the performance. One guy was resting his head on his elbow on the edge of the stage with a bored-looking smirk on his face the whole time. I kept wishing Macy would come up and kick him in the teeth or something. It just struck me as rude. She's up there putting out (and yes, this is an appropriate term), the least you can do is give her some energy back. Or go stand in the lobby and collect business cards if you want. But how the hell is she supposed to funkify with some piece of front and center deadwood flaunting the level of excitement lawyers usually reserve for document production?

Well, she did. And I didn't let it stop me any more than it stopped her. I was into it. I don't know why I wasn't more self-conscious given the zombies between me and her, but apparently I've progressed beyond the stage where I need to be drunk to dance. And mind you, I'm by no means anything to brag about on the dance floor. I'm your basic white guy, the kind black comedians like to make fun of. Only in a mosh pit full of Jewish lawyers could I wind up feeling pretty motherfucking fly. I just let loose, and had a great time. When Macy wanted me to jump, I jumped. When she wanted me to shake my ass, I didn't ask how wide. When she demanded increasing numerical sets of pelvic thrusts (yes, she really did), I made sure the air would wake up sore tomorrow. I tried to say goodbye, but I choked.

When it was all over, I was drenched, I was forming a blister on my right heel, and I was very happy. Until. On my way into the lobby I reached into my shirt pocket to retrieve my glasses, which I had put in there just before the show. That's how close I was to Macy—I didn't even need them to see her clearly. When I put the glasses in my pocket, I remember noticing that my sunglasses were also in there. since I had unfortunately forgotten to remove and leave them in the car. Now in the lobby I found to my dismay that my pocket was empty. I never felt them come out. It's not at all surprising that they would have, given all the jumping I was doing, but I had completely forgotten about them. I went back to the dance floor and made an effort to look. Strangely enough, now the dance floor was much more active even though they were only playing records. Where were all these ambulatory people when we needed them during the show? I peered around, trying to make use of the intermittent blasts of house light that were punctuating the dance beat, expecting with dread that I would find mangled bits of plastic and metal in worse shape than the poor schmucks who'd been mutilated in that movie I'd watched earlier.

I found nothing, of course. I checked twice at the lost and found, but no luck. I left them my number and a description of the lost items. My hopes are not high, but I had to try. Between the two pairs we're talking about 500 dollars of eyegear here. Like I said, a few more freebies like that and I'll be broke.

posted by CMN at 3:10 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Europe v. Italy: I think the self-deprecating Italians who made this are giving the rest of Europe too much credit, but it's still pretty funny. And fairly accurate.
posted by CMN at 9:30 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Big G, little g.... Thanks to the Name Conspirator, (and a heads up from The Democrat) I learned that the lecture/article on copyright law that I had way too much fun co-authoring with Judge Kozinski is now available online. Check it out, if you're interested in fair use, the Juice, or gratuitous misuse of Dr. Seuss.
posted by CMN at 9:04 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Spoiler alert. I'm in Michigan for work this fortnight or so. I'm working on sorting out my thoughts re the Big Decision that made my alma mater so happy, but at this moment late at night I'm thinking about something of less import. I finally got around to seeing Matrix Reloaded. In fact, today I went with my brother to see it for the second time this week. From which you can gather that I do not concur with those who claim it sucks. I actually enjoyed it more the second time, because I could sit back and focus on details and try to put together the stuff that leaves you nonplussed the first time. Like the scene with the Architect, which is about the only time I can remember wanting to stand up in a movie house and go, "Alright, would you please stop the projector and hand me the screenplay so I can read this scene?" I don't know where people get off saying "Oh, they went so overboard on the special effects too bad they didn't write a good storyline." That's the stock reaction of someone who has decided the film is beneath them and therefore is not willing to invest any mental effort to engage with what the film is offering you. Talk about spoilers. (Here, by the way, is the one notable exception I've found. Read what he has to say--and follow the link at the bottom to his redux post--and tell me if you still think the movie uninteresting.)

It's a question of tact, you know? Yes, it's just a movie. Yes, you have to do something called suspension of disbelief. Yes, it has some scenes we could have done without, and some logical inconsistencies that can only be resolved by accepting the fact that it's a movie damnit, and they have to make it fun to watch as well as perfectly coherent. So many of the reviews I've read, by bloggers and non, have struck me as lazy potshots by someone who just wants to make easy points. Even a fanboy at heart like Lileks, sad though it is to say. (I bet on a second viewing he'd appreciate it more too.) But I don't see how if you liked the first one you can find this one so irretrievably inferior. It's dealing on the same level of intriguing philosophical ideas woven into a plot structure that, granted, you can't think about too much without it falling apart, but that still rewards thought if you're capable of thinking while respecting the lessons Icarus learned the hard way. And maybe, just maybe, it doesn't fall apart. Because if the whole thing, the Matrix and the "real world", are both artificial constructs--which is what this film seems to suggest--then the implausibilities are not flaws in the plot but flaws in the construct. Which you'd expect any construct to have, wouldn't you?

Maybe I liked it because I was once really engaged in the whole causality v. free will conundrum. I remember spending many hours writing missives arguing Spinozistic compatibilism to an email list full of Objectivists who thought this proof that I was a non reasoning creature. Do I think these movies are going to resolve the problem? Of course not. But I did find it valuable and interesting to see the quintessential antimony filtered through the cyberpunk mysticism of this particular scenario. Choice as the anomaly that makes the ordered system sustainable. Come on people, the Wachowskis are aiming pretty high here. They're taking on pretty basic intractable questions, and trying to address them in an entertaining way. So at least meet them half way, will you? Are we so spoiled that we can offer people bearing such gifts as these the peremptory back of our hand? I mean Jim, if you could muster gratitude for the wonderful explosions George served up in Episode 2, can't you breath a sigh of appreciation for the two trailer trucks giving us a physics lesson in bullet time? Or for the sheer choreographic complexity of the Burly Brawl? (And enough already people, with the "If he could fly away why did he fight them at all" bullshit. I'll tell you why. Because he was curious. Because he wanted to see what Smith could do. Because he wanted a challenge. Because it was personal. And if you were paying attention, you'd have seen that when he finally does fly away, it looks as though he's afraid they might actually eventually overwhelm him if he doesn't.)

And I have to say I enjoyed the acting as well. Yeah, even Keanu. Say what you will, he's in character. And even if you can't stand him, how can you not love every expressive moment the Oracle's face is onscreen? May she rest in peace. And what about the Merovingian and his Italian goddess of a wife? (Yes, I do wonder what would lead sentient programs so thoroughly to internalize human psychosexual dynamics, but I'm willing to go with it. The answer may simply be that they're stuck between living in exile in the Matrix and deletion, so they may as well enjoy themselves.) Call me a philistine, but these are simply not unintelligent performances. And mark my words: Hugo Weaving has created an indelible cinematic archetype with his manneristic Rod Serling extrapolation. He's always on the verge of self parody, but he does it with so much conviction and enjoyment that you can't help loving every cadenced phrase to come out of his smirking lips. And yes, Morpheus too is on the verge of self-parody. But whereas his somnolent messianism would be intolerable were it to triumph, it becomes suddenly tragic at the end when his messiah informs him that in fact there is no God.

I for one am looking forward to seeing how they resolve things in the third film. With a lot of apprehension, mind you. Because they've raised the bar, and it could easily come crashing down on their heads like Neo's metal pole. The end could really suck and vindicate everyone who trashed the first two films. Or it could be amazing. For now, I'm clinging to Hope. Like the Architect says, it's our greatest weakness. And our greatest strength.
posted by CMN at 12:06 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
It did not end well.

Obi Wan went the way of his mentor. And though he had managed to weaken Maul to the point where the palace guards were able to dispatch him, it took them far too long to do so. While they and the Queen spent precious moments firing at the accursed Sith, the place swarmed with battle droids brought in from the outside. Nor did Anakin's vaunted midichloridians suffice to get him anywhere the control ship so as to deactivate the metal fuckers. Just a small fry indeed. Panaka and the decoy queen had led a detachment through the window to the second floor of the palace, but they were decimated. The Gungans had some success on the battlefield, but soon the remaining palace guards were overtaken and killed, leaving no forces able to retake the throne room. That's what you call game over.

Of course, it was all just the luck of the dice.

That's what losers always say.
posted by CMN at 1:38 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Check out today's Day by Day.
posted by CMN at 2:54 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Breaking news flashes:

Qui Gon is toast, and Obi Wan is hurtin'. I'm going to have to try something daring and unexpected, like bringing some catapults out from behind the shield on the plains of Naboo and go after his mechanized troop transports.

Turns out I actually do get to work on the fun case against the evil Mecha monster. See what a little begging will do? Which means that you'll hear no more about the case here. Wouldn't be prudent. Sometimes I do love my job, though.
posted by CMN at 3:44 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Newman Family Gaming Update:


Fusball championship of the world: U.S.A. v Italy: Italy has a 3-2 lead in this best of seven series. It doesn't look good for the U.S., because whenever we continue the series again Paola will be fresh, and the only way I ever win is by wearing her down through superior stamina.


Star Wars Queen's Gambit: Yes, the table top reenactment of all the climactic battle scenes from The Phantom Menace. Don't laugh. As Herr Doktor Suarez has learned, the quality of a piece of pop entertainment has no necessary correlation with the quality of the board game based on it. This is actually a quite engaging strategy game. You only have a certain number of moves you can make per turn, and you have to divide your attention between four separate (yet interrelated) battles at once. Status: Lucas (the Trade Federation...hiss) thinks he's going to take me this time. So far he's been concentrating most of his attention on Darth Maul, who has nearly finished off Qui Gon while receiving barely a scratch. This is a problem, because if he manages to kill both Jedi and still has any life left, he's going to be able to run through my palace guards like bullshit through the NYT editorial staff. Stay tuned.


Civilization III: Paola is assimilating the globe one city at a time through the sheer overawing superiority of her culture. Again. Resistance is futile.


Chess: Coming off his hard-fought battle with a very cheritable and wine-addled Pejman, Lucas got his posterior handed to him twice in a row by the good Professor Volokh, who even pointed out and encouraged him to take back various bad moves along the way. I was very gratified by this, both as a father (because I think it was a salutary learning experience for my son) and as a frequent opponent (because it's nice to see someone treat Lucas the way he usually treats me).
posted by CMN at 12:43 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Babs, populist defender of free speech and the environment against callous rich people who think property rights trump everything. No, wait. Strike that. Reverse it. The lawyer representing the defendant, I am proud to say, is a partner at my very own firm. I am not, alas, involved in helping to defend this particular client.

By the way, just in case any psychiatrists happen to read this, I'd really appreciate having someone explain to me just how far up your ass your head has to be for you to believe that the configuration of your lawn chairs is information of any consequence to anyone.
posted by CMN at 11:29 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Good thing it wasn't my other anniversary... I just realized, I passed my one year blogiversary and didn't even realize it. Not surprising, given that it fell during a rather lengthy lacuna during which I hadn't had much to say or time to say it in. So, do I have any words of wisdom to mark this august yet obviously forgettable milestone? Nah.
posted by CMN at 3:40 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Principles for Iraq: I for one was willing to cut the administration some slack for not having a detailed plan as to how Iraq was going to get running again, because I don't think such a plan is really possible if we're serious about giving the Iraqi people autonomy. But I was frustrated that we hadn't seen a clear statement of principles telling the Iraqis and the world what they could expect from us and what we expected of them. That should have been the first speech Bush made after the regime fell. Instead we had to wait till now. Notice how Rummy's first two bullet points, Assert Authority and Provide Security, represent a tacit admission that we've been rather remiss up to now. In an email exchange with Mr. Tough Guy I was recently arguing that even if we were ultimately going to have to take on that responsibility, it made tactical sense for us to err initially on the side of under rather than overdeployment. Because in the former scenario, you wind up with the Iraqis and the rest of the world demanding that you send in more troops to keep order, which strengthens and legitimates your hand when you do so. Whereas if you go in immediately and clamp down on everything, you're nothing but an evil occupier whose contributions to civil order go unnoticed because no-one has ever tasted life without you, but whose every misstep in trying to keep order is touted as oppressive and tyrannical. Does it make sense to attribute this kind of calculation to the Bushies? Tough Guy says no, the Bushies just don't like nationbuilding and therefore screwed it up with colossal negligence. He may be right. Certainly, the little mini regime change we just saw from Garner to Bremer suggests that Rummy's current first principles are the product of experience rather than foresight. Oxblog's David Adesnik made a similar point, asserting that no-one in their right mind should believe that "the Bush administration wanted there to be just enough chaos in Iraq to ensure that everyone would demand a stronger American hand in Baghdad rather than an immediate withdrawal." Funny, what I had theorized as a possible justification for the Bushies' apparent blunder, he regards as a conspiracy theory against them.

But my favorite one of Rummy's bullets is this:

• Contracts--promoting Iraq's recovery. Whenever possible, contracts for work in Iraq will go to those who will use Iraqi workers and to countries that supported the Iraqi people's liberation so as to contribute to greater regional economic activity and to accelerate Iraq's and the region's economic recovery.

Anyone else catch the glaring non sequitur? Well, maybe it isn't really one. Given the economic conditions these days in those countries that didn't "support[] the Iraqi people's liberation," maybe steering contracts elsewhere actually is more conducive to economic recovery. Maybe it will actually serve to bring the Iraqi people into contact with businessmen who have healthier ideas about the way to run an economy.

Alright, it's a stretch. But you know, I don't feel all that inclined to demand much in the way of justification for this particular policy.
posted by CMN at 6:28 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Anybody still reading? Yes, I'm still alive. Just been busy, and somewhat low on blogging steam. But I do want to draw the attention of anyone who does still come here to a new blog, the Tough Democrat. I know the guy behind it, but I can't say who he is cause he's chosen to be pseudonymous for now. I will say that he's very politically savvy, very smart, very Democratic, and does a mean Elvis impersonation. I've had a number of spirited email exchanges with him over off the cuff remarks made here that he called me on, and I'd definitely recommend checking him out. I know I will.
posted by CMN at 10:05 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Amazing, isn't it, how even when I can't seem to find time to write anything for my own blog, I somehow find myself writing lengthy posts in other people's comment sections.
posted by CMN at 6:42 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
A matter of priorities:
Here's the article that seems to be the momentary rage.

Some Iraqis, however, question the allocation of U.S. forces around the capital. They note a whole company of Marines, along with at least a half-dozen amphibious assault vehicles, has been assigned to guard the Oil Ministry, while many other ministries -- including trade, information, planning, health and education -- remain unprotected.

"Why just the oil ministry?" Jaf asked. "Is it because they just want our oil?"

Before and during the war, I remember lots of catastrophic scenarios being bandied about. But among the visions of the entire Arab Street (where is this street, anyway?) joinng al-Qaeda and Israel nuking Baghdad, I don't recall hearing anyone express concern about the risk that museums and hospitals would be looted by liberated Iraqis. Is there any reason we should have expected this? I've heard it stated that there was some looting in Paris after its liberation as well--but did they really try to clean out the Louvre? (And did U.S. troops stop them? "Put down the Mona Lisa, Monsieur, and come out with your hands behind your head!") I suppose with hindsight it's easy to say we should have realized that people this destitute would grab anything they could once order broke down, but that they'd actually loot hospitals never occurred to me at least. Did anyone predict this?

On the other hand, we knew that there was a huge risk Saddam's men would set fire to the oil wells if attacked. They had done it before in Kuwait. And they did in fact use trenches full of burning oil as a military tactic (albeit a pretty ineffective one). Further, oil fires take years to extinguish and cause terrible environmental pollution. (Preventing that sort of thing is usually pretty high in the priorities of America's critics, trumped only I guess by the need to generate conspiracy theories about us.) Finally, the oil is crucial to the immediate economic future of Iraq and its people. The loss of historical treasures is tragic, but only from the perspective of people who already have food on the table.

Forces are limited. You have to figure out the areas of greatest risk and commit them accordingly. I've seen the usual suspects trying to make hay out of this story, but I have yet to hear any attempt to mount a serious argument on either of the following points:

1) That the danger to Iraq's museums, hospitals, etc. was known beforehand to US planners to be serious enough to require specific preventive measures.

2) That this risk, if known, was remotely as great or as consequential as the risk that the oil fields would be detonated.

If you don't address those two points seriously, then you have no basis to infer from our allocation of resources that we don't "really" care about the Iraqi people.

So, no Jaf, we don't want your oil. We want you to have it. We were trying to save it for you from the same guy we were trying to save you from. Sorry we didn't also manage simultaneously to save you from yourselves.

But you know, ultimately only you guys can do that.


posted by CMN at 7:34 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Aha! My secret plot to take over the blogosphere by plying its most prominent citizens with food and drink is proceeding perfectly! Now I just need to have Glenn over... Or maybe I could just send him some cookies.

Ironic, isn't it, that I should gain admittance to the sphere of ascetic contemplatives by means of wine-soaked repartee?
posted by CMN at 2:32 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Quote of the day:

"Note to Medical Science: please give Oriana Fallaci another ten hale years, but should she pass anytime soon, put her brain in Ms. [Monica] Belucci's skull. Entire religions would arise to worship such a being."

Lileks, of course.
posted by CMN at 1:02 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
And we used to compare him to them. Here's an Onion piece that sounds like it could have been written by Scrappleface.
posted by CMN at 6:44 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Speaking of Lucas, he was just on the receiving end of quite a Pejmanian panegyric. I should really be glad that my son is smarter, more talented, and better looking than I am. Right?
posted by CMN at 5:25 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Days of miracle and wonder. So I'm sitting in my office at work, and a box opens on the screen in front of me, filed with words floating in an animated fish tank. It's my nine year old son Lucas, who wants to ask if I know of any good websites for his science project on time travel. I assume he's at home, and ask him to tell Paola that I'll be home as soon as my filing gets back from the court so I can fax it to the east coast defendants into whose hearts I wish to strike terror. He replies that he's actually not at home, but at work with Paola, who brought our laptop there for him to use. If you stop and think about it, every single one of the sentences I just wrote describes a truly miraculous way of living and doing business. We live in an age of science fiction, and we take it for granted. But sometimes it just hits me.

Oh. And at one point Lucas wrote, "I'm sorry my grammar wasn't good in that last sentence."

Into a chatbox.

That's my boy.
posted by CMN at 6:38 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
If the opening skit on SNL this week isn't making fun of the Black Knight Sir Sahaf and his BBC page boys, I'm going to be disappointed. I know, they're an easy and obvious target, but I still want to see it.

Update: Well, close. Lame, but close. The best segment was the CNN parody.
posted by CMN at 11:28 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Best served cold. I'm sorry, but Saddam being vaporized in a bunker blast somewhere just doesn't seem satisfactory. It's like one of those manipulative thrillers that always let you down in the end. You know the ones, where they spend the whole movie building up your hatred of the villain. He repeatedly inflicts unspeakable suffering on innocent people, and does so with an air of idle amusement. Impervious to remorse or compassion, he smugly taunts those whose wives he has raped, whose children he has tortured. It's transparently manipulative, but it works like a charm. You can't help but want to see this guy go down. Way down. The problem, though, is that the more creativity they use in building up the villain's evilness, the higher the bar is set for what constitutes just desserts. Mere death is too easy for these people. You want to see them broken, because the most offensive thing about them isn't their acts, but their lack of human feeling. You want to see them in real fear, real suffering. And you want it to last long enough to expiate all the suffering they inflicted on others. This is the deep-rooted moral sentiment that Dostoevsky put so eloquently into the mouth of Ivan Karamazov. It is of course frowned upon by civilization and the higher forms of morality that civilization seeks to promulgate to maintain its own existence. But it is ineradicable, which is why there's so much entertainment that vicariously panders to it. The problem is that the civilizing impulse, while not doing away with revenge fantasy completely, nevertheless manages to emasculate it. Heroes never torture villains, even though everything we have seen makes us feel that the villain deserves that and more. Because that would in some way legitimize revenge and torture and take us a step away from civilization. So we are left most of the time with comeuppances that feel horribly hollow and anticlimactic. For the villain to be killed in hand to hand combat with the hero is minimal satisfaction at best. For him to die horribly by means of one the same cruel mechanisms he used on others is better, but usually too quick--good only for a moment of fear and pain, when what one really wants is psychological suffering of the kind that the victims experienced. The only movie I can think of that accomplished this was The Crow, because there the hero actually had the power to transfer the suffering deliberately inflicted on the victim directly into the villain's consciousness. Perfect justice.

So it is with Saddam and his sons. Getting blown up is far too impersonal and instantaneous. Ideally they'd be captured alive so that the new Iraqi government could try them. Not us, not the Hague. The Iraqi people. They're the ones with the right to try these guys. That process in and of itself would be punitive, because it would give these people who are used to wielding the power of life and death at whim over everyone around them some salutary humiliation, some time to let it sink in that now they are in the power of their victims. And this would be the best outcome politically as well, because then Saddam would be subject not to the rightly suspect "victor's justice" but to victim's justice. And though they'd probably want to inflict the death penalty, maybe for these guys long term humiliation in prison is actually a better punishment than death. Ideally chained at the bottom of some cistern with an opening at the top where the public could come and pay their respects. If the prisoners were in danger of drowning in respect, they could always open a drain once in a while.
posted by CMN at 12:01 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Dialing it in. We went to see Phone Booth the other day. Gee, I wish I too could be stalked by an omniscient guardian sniper who would kill a couple random people just to force me to face up to my character flaws and remake my life.
posted by CMN at 11:48 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
WHEREAS:


Reading news sites, weblogs, email, and other internet-based media, while in certain respects a valuable and enriching activity, is also an extremely addictive and easy way to idly fritter away an unconscionable amount of time that might otherwise be devoted to other activities that are equally or more valuable and enriching;


IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:


Starting immediately, the signer of this post shall not open or use any web browsing software on any computer or other electronic device unless he has already that day spent at least two full hours engaged in one or more of the following activities:

Reading a book.
Interacting with family members.
Engaging in physical exercise.
Writing something other than a weblog post.


Signed March 26, 2003,


Chris Newman



posted by CMN at 5:26 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Oriana on Iraq: I'd been waiting for this. And she says pretty much what I thought she'd say. As always, she's a bit over the top but mainly on target. And she has the same concern I expressed below about post-war Iraq.

But I don't know if I buy the idea that we could or should have taken out Saddam in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Half the world was opposed to us even taking out the Taliban, for chrissakes! I think we needed to get resolution 1441 first, to go before the world in good faith and try to get them on board. Now that they've refused, history will decide who was wrong.

Oriana asserts without explaining that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Bush I had finished the job. A lot of people will take her to task for that. It's obviously impossible to know with certainty what would have happened, but I think a causal connection is very plausible. The 9/11 bombers were Saudis. We know that public opinion of the Bin Ladenite persuasion was severely inflamed by the stationing there of our troops throughout the 90's, and that this was one of his primary grievances against us. And why did we need to have those troops there? To "contain" Saddam. Remember how indefinite containment is the peaceful solution?

Her apology to Blair is classic Oriana, both in its megalomania (because, of course, his standing in the world is dependent on her approval don't you know) and its heartwarming passion. She admires integrity more than anything, and the guy deserves the praise. My bet is that she wrote this in Italian and translated it herself into English. Wonder if the original was published there.
posted by CMN at 12:52 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
I finally got around to reading Jim Henley's attempted debunking of Kenneth Pollack. I have some problems with it. Here's the first one:

Pollack cites three Iraqi defectors whose positions would have given them access to the truth about Iraq's nuclear program. All three apparently reported that the program was bigger and better concealed than the international inspectors had believed. Jim, citing Hesiod, points out that one of these defectors, Kamel, called another, Hamza, a "professional liar" who had provided some forged documents. From this, Jim concludes that Kamel and Hamza "can't both be telling the truth."

Well, not about everything perhaps. But the only proposition for which Pollack is citing them is that Iraq had a concealed nuclear program. If in fact they both reported this, then with regard to that point they must both be telling the truth. Or both lying. Indeed, when two people who otherwise criticize each other agree on some point, we usually take that to corroborate it, not undermine it. And here, unless Pollack is lying, they're both corroborated by a third defector that Jim hasn't given us any reason to doubt, other than generalized caution that not every defector is "noble or reliable." Fair enough. Maybe they're saying what they know we want to hear. But the other doubt-engendering possibility Jim raises--that these guys are plants that Saddam deliberately sent out--seems fanciful. What does Saddam have to gain from telling the world that there's a secret nuclear program? If Kamel had called Hamza a liar and said there was no remaining nuclear program, the idea that maybe he was sent out deliberately to discredit Hamza would make sense. The way I read the interview excerpts Hesiod quoted, it sounds like Kamel was saying "That guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. I'm the guy with the real goods." But he's not disputing what kind of goods they are, and that's the crucial point.

Jim also doesn't comment on Hesiod's addendum:

It just occurred to me why the Bush administration is so blatantly lying about what Kamal said, and is contantly hyping the quality of the information he provided.

They are using him to cover up other intelligence assets in Iraq that are providing them with valuable information. Kamal is dead. And, he was sufficiently high up in the Iraqi heirarchy to have provided high level inrtelligence. By using him as a stalking horse the CIA and British Intelligence are protecting other intelligence assets in Iraq, or who's families are still in Iraq.

Might it be that Pollack doesn't give us all the details about why we believe these defectors because he can't for reasons like those Hesiod identified? Ultimately, the problem comes down to this: Do you believe it to be possible that there could exist a weapons program hidden in Iraq that the inspectors didn't find? If the answer is yes, and you're concerned about responding to that possibility, you can't set your standards of proof at a level that are impossible to meet. Trust me, I share Jim's dislike of giving the government the benefit of the doubt on things like this. They have lied before. But we also have to look at things in context. It's not like we're faced with some Allende figure and the CIA is saying trust us, we have to get rid of him because he'll never relinquish power. We're talking about a fully actualized mass murdering totalitarian who nobody doubts would give nearly anything to see us fry. Under those circumstances, I think we give the benefit of the doubt to defectors, and to our elected officials when they tell us they have the goods even if they can't show all of them to us yet. And if they turn out to have lied to us, we should hold them responsible. But right now that's the kind of call we put them there to make, and it can't be a prerequisite for action that they first present all of us with direct declassified evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.

posted by CMN at 3:32 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
An answer to my question: I asked below whether there would be any justification for preventing a newly-constituted Iraqi state from choosing to acquire WMD. Lee Harris has an answer. A very interesting one.
posted by CMN at 10:46 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Feeling our au bon pain: Ever the patriot, Bill Clinton is leading a boycott of French goods.
posted by CMN at 3:34 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Was I the only one who thought this question a little strange the other night?

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

We went into Vietnam to effect regime change in Hanoi? Really? I always thought we were in there trying to prop up a regime in the South that Hanoi wanted to change. And that one of the main reasons the war was unwinnable was precisely that going for actual regime change in Hanoi was off the table politically. Nor, I think, was there ever any claim at the time that if Hanoi won it would directly harm or threaten Americans. Not in the way the present administration fears Iraq will do. The concern in Vietnam was about dominos and world communism. So what was the point of this analogy again? I forgot. Maybe what he meant was that if we get stuck having to defend a new Iraqi government against some VC-like form of Islamic insurrection, it could wind up looking like Vietnam. Only without the jungle. And probably without anyone willing to play the role of Hanoi, after seeing what happened to the Taliban and Saddam. Which could still be ugly, don't get me wrong. But it has precious little to do with Vietnam.

But here's what does bother me. Bush said the Iraqi people will choose their own form of government, and whatever they choose will be better than Saddam. That's probably true; it's a pretty low bar. But will whatever they choose be enough to provide the paradigm-changing beacon in the Middle East that the neocons are counting on? Suppose, for example, that the new democratic Iraqi electorate elects some hardcore Islamists to power. It's not impossible, is it? I'm not even talking Taliban here; let's imagine people genuinely committed to abiding by the rules of democracy, but just with a serious Islamist policy agenda. Sort of like if some Pat Robertson-type got elected here. And suppose this new government complies with all the UN disarmament resolutions, but passes democratically some laws restricting the rights of women? Or decides to continue providing "humanitarian assistance" to Palestine in the form of subsidies to families of suicide bombers? What do we do then? Or suppose they decide to start building their own WMD? Remember, this is a brand new government that we have legitimized, and they have no ties to the history of Baathist aggression. So what right do we have to tell a new sovereign regime that hasn't hurt anyone yet that they can't build defensive nukes just like we can?

The thing is, any way you look at it we're going to be more than disinterested bystanders when the Iraqi people "choose their own government." We will have invested quite a lot in giving them the ability to do so, and not all outcomes of that process will make our investment worthwhile. But if we have too heavy a hand in the process, the result will be perceived not as a real representative Iraqi state, but just a U.S. puppet. Ironically, the only sure way to prove to the world (or that part of it even willing to entertain proof that we are not bent on world conquest) that the new Iraq is not a puppet state is for the new Iraq to have policies we clearly don't like.

So what is the bare minimum we do insist on? Clearly, there has to be some constitution providing for a democratic process and protecting freedom of political speech. We'll want something in there guaranteeing equal treatment of religious and racial groups. But beyond that? What if they go socialist? Do we let them? I think we have to, though it would diminish our great hopes to see a prosperous Arab country. If we want to live up to our word as liberators and not imperialists, we have to give them enough liberty to do some really dumb things, and have faith that the democratic process will correct them through experience.
posted by CMN at 4:26 PM
0 stab(s) back