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

 
Now that I've vented about the smug supercilious stupidity of certain antiwar partisans, I can focus on the qualms that I really do have about us going into Iraq. Here's one of the big ones.
posted by CMN at 4:57 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
And now for something completely stupid. Terry Jones is at it again, proving that the style of reasoning he immortalized in film was no mere comedic affectation but the actual lens through which he views reality. Here's his most recent exercise in logic, printed as a letter in The Observer (England) on Sunday January 26, 2003. He spins out an analogy that purports to show the absurdity of Bush's position on Iraq. I'm sympathetic to this rhetorical approach in general, as analogy is an important technique not only of comedic but of serious moral reasoning. When one manages to combine the two effectively, it is potent indeed. But to do this, one has to take care in constructing an analogy that can be regarded as a valid proxy for the situation one is examining. Unfortunately, Jones does this in a way that only Sir Bedevere could be proud of. Here's his opening:

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!

For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

See the problem with this Terry, is that it's only funny if you've had your head up your arse for the past thirteen or so years. (Or if your only news source is the BBC, which by some accounts may amount to much the same thing.) But surely you aspire to a broader audience than that! Python was always the humor group for intellectuals! Don't you want your witty references to be appreciated even by people actually familiar with the source material? If we're going to play this game, let's do a real analogy:

Mr. Johnson is a paroled felon living under a form of house arrest. This is because several years ago he got into an argument with his neighbor Mr. Patel over who really owned the health food shop. Not receiving what he regarded as a satisfactory answer from Mr. Patel, Mr. Johnson sent over one of his sons, heavily armed, to break into Patel's shop, put a gun to his head, and announce that from now on the Johnsons would be running things and taking most of the wheatgrass juice for their own disposal. Most of the rest of the neighborhood banded together and demanded that Mr. Johnson tell his son to get out of the shop and leave Mr. Patel in peace. Mr. Johnson refused. Seeing that there was no other way to free Mr. Patel, a group of neighbors braved the son's gunfire, entered the shop, and forced the son back out onto the street, whence he promptly fled unmolested into the Johnson residence. Not, however, before deliberately setting fire to the shop, just to make sure that if the Johnsons couldn't run it no-one else would get much use out of it for a long while either. At the same time the battle in the shop was taking place, Mr. Johnson was out on his roof, shooting rockets at the house of Mr. Smith down the street. Mr. Smith wasn't one of the members of the group that was trying to free Mr. Patel, but he was an unpopular guy who Mr. Smith hoped to provoke into fighting, because then maybe some of the neighbors who couldn't stand Mr. Smith would switch sides.

The neighbors at this point would have been justified had they busted into the Johnson residence to grab Mr. Johnson and ride him out of town on a rail, but they didn't. They decided there had been enough violence for one day. For one thing, the neighbors didn't want to wind up unnecessarily harming the other Johnsons who lived with him, most of whom they figured to be decent people who they hoped would eventually stick the old coot in a nursing home and act like responsible neighbors again. So they told Mr. Johnson they'd let him stay there and live in the neighborhood on the condition that he get rid of all his guns and rockets so they could be sure he wouldn't use them on someone else. (The Patel incident hadn't been the first time Mr. Johnson had tried to take over a neighbor's property by force.) Mr. Johnson said he'd cooperate and let a representative from the neighborhood watch step in regularly to verify that he was getting rid of all the nasty things he'd saved up for possible use on his neighbors. But soon after the neighbors dispersed to their various homes, Mr. Johnson broke his word. He let the representative in a few times, but became more and more difficult, coming up with constant excuses for not letting him look into certain rooms or closets. "My wife is changing in there right now, you see." Eventually the representative gave up and stopped going, because he knew he was being given the runaround. We don't know exactly what all Mr. Johnson has in there, but we do know that he used to have quite a lot of nasty stuff (including things much worse than guns or rockets), and he's given us no reason to believe he's gotten rid of it.

Back to you, Terry.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Another bad move, Terry. If this thing turns on whether Saddam is a Mass Murderer, Bush has never said not to ask him how he knows. You can have access to all the sources you want on that question. In fact, you don't even have to ask Bush for them. Ask these people, who presumably you trust more. I hate using that classic condescending Chomskyean ploy of announcing "there is no serious debate on this point," but there really isn't. Oh, you can find some debate over one particular incident of mass murder, (a debate I think Saddam's defenders lose pretty handily), but our knowledge of the Anfal genocide campaign is based on quite a bit more than anybody's bare say-so. Now, you might still question whether Bush should advocate using military force just to enforce an arbitrary preference that millions of people not be ruled by mass-murderers. Fair enough. Let's try that one out for humor value "Why, everyone knows that Mr. Patel likes to make snuff films starring his children. So why shouldn't I barge in and stop him?" Oh, you'll get some real belly laughs from that riff.

Or you might get a little more clever, and ask why out of all the mass murderers in the world we should start with this particular one. Why not try something like this: "Sure, there is Mr. Kim down the street. He's beastly to his kids as well, and has even nastier toys than Mr. Johnson, but why worry about him when I know Mr. Johnson has a lovely record collection I'd love to get my hands on. Oh, and then there was that South American chap I used to be pals with. He was something of a kiddy diddler too, but he did use to slip me a fiver under the table at the pub now and again till he up and left. God, how I miss the chap. But never mind. I've got a Moral Compass, and here it is: I hereby solemnly announce that I am really and totally committed to the extirpation of all mass murderers in the neighborhood, except for those who I happen to be friends with at the time, but particularly including those whose houses contain Extremely Valuable Objects."

We're getting a little warmer here, now aren't we? It still needs work, but I can at least see the glimmerings of a chuckle. I would still think the point was wrong ultimately, but it would require a little work to explain why, and the joke would at least have some bite to it. Would it have taken so much effort to make a move like that, Terry? I mean, I know that the papers will run any half-assed thing you dash off because of your status as ex-Pythonite Comic Laureate of England, but I'd have expected a bit more pride in your craft. Or is the real problem that by adding the extra layer, all you accomplish is to make fun of Bush for sounding inconsistent and hypocritical? That's not enough, is it? I mean, he's a politician. Sort of like making fun of a fish for having gills. What a waste of your brilliant comedic acumen to convey nothing more than, "Bush may be advocating something morally justifiable, but he's not terribly consistent given the history of American foreign policy." No, what you wanted to do was demonstrate that Bush is advocating something utterly unjustifiable, and indeed insane. Well, I'm afraid we've got some more work to do, my good knight. Grab those coconut shells and saddle up.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

Proof of what, Terry? As I've said, we do have proof he's a mass-murderer. Alright, it was a few years ago, perhaps we should let bygones be bygones unless we can come up with a fresh charge. But we have that as well. Remember Terry, Mr. Johnson is on parole. When you're on parole, just failing to check in with the parole officer is itself an offense for which you can be arrested, regardless of whether your failure is because you were out knocking over a liquor store. Remember when Bush made his speech to the UN a few months back? That was him going to the police with evidence of a list of proven charges as long as your arm. Nobody disputed those charges—and every time Mr. Blix has reported to the UN he's confirmed that Saddam is still violating the terms of his parole. The only quibbling that's going on now is not about whether there's proof Saddam has committed a crime, but about whether the police are worried enough about the next one he might commit to bother fulfilling their duty to arrest him now.

Here's a comedy sketch you should write, Terry. You go to the police complaining that your neighbor Mr. Johnson, a paroled mass murderer who had been ordered to stay under house arrest, is now out wandering the streets. And the police talk in those funny French accents and refuse to arrest him: "Well, 'ee may be wandring about as you say, but ee azn't urt anyone in zee past day or two, 'az 'ee, you pee-shooter for brains cowboy-yankee type? Why should we muss our pretty designer uniforms just because 'ee used ze terms of eez parole to wipe his bottom? Can you prove eez going to urt anyone eef we just leave him be? Eef we try to arrest eem, 'ee may get angry! And then ee'd really be likely to hurt someone, you dyslexic son of a silly SNL impersonation! Oh, so you think eez carrying a pistol under that overcoat of his, eh? Can you prove it? No, we won't geef eem a strip search, you Texan pig-dog knigget! I tell you what we weel do. We 'av manners, unlike you peanut-butter barbecuing pretzel chokers. We weel ask Monsieur Johnson very politely to open one side of eez coat and geev us a peek. Then we geev him his privacy, and ze next day, we peek under ze other side. Eef he does not cooperate, we weel pass a resolution to fart een eez general direction. I'm sure that will keep him from planning anything rash. Eef not, zere eez always ze comfy chair."

I'm sure you could do a much better job of this than me, Terry. If you just put some effort into it. Instead of giving us crap like this:

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

Now we're abandoning the pretense of the comedic analogy and asserting direct, outright falsehoods. What Muslim countries that have never threatened us has Bush advocated bombing, Terry? I hope you have some alleged target in mind besides the Taliban. Or are we really going to have to argue over whether providing room and board to people who fly planes into our skyscrapers counts as a "threat?" Or is it that you think Saddam has never threatened us? Well, I guess you've got a point there, Terry. Except for invading two neighboring countries, and trying to kill one of our presidents, and officially praising the 9/11 bombers, and subsidizing terrorism in Israel, he's never threatened us. Come to think of it, in the years before WWII Germany had never threatened England either. It was that crazy Winston fellow who insisted on starting a war over Poland.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

Oh, it's Mr. Johnson's wife and kids you're worried about. And well you should be. Cause if you think you know how to deal with unacceptable looks, you've got nothing on ol' Mr. J. Of the kids that aren't already buried out in the yard, he keeps several of them tied up in the basement with electrodes attached to their nuts, and if his wife burns dinner he makes her watch while he revs the generator up. That or he rapes her with a broken broom handle. I don't know about you, but I personally feel really bad about this, because at one time we whispered in her ear that if she and her sons would just stand up to the old thug, we'd give them a hand to get rid of him. Only when they followed our advice, we studiously looked the other way while he beat the living shite out of them. That kind of makes me feel like we owe it to them to get this guy off their backs, even though I'm frankly not sure whether it's in our own best interest to be the ones doing it.

Of course, it's true that trying to get the bastard now will be dangerous for them as well. No denying it. The main danger is that he'll deliberately booby trap the house so that if he goes down he'll take as many of them as he can with him just to make us look bad. That is worrisome. But if we know the wife and kids are in the garage, we won't blow it up if we can avoid it. We have pretty good aim most of the time. Still, I suppose there is an argument to be made that they're better off living with him than risking death to get rid of him. Better bled than dead, one might say. This is a serious question, as is that of who's going to take over the family once Mr. Johnson's been got rid of. But these are the kinds of serious questions whose existence you're simply refusing to acknowledge.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

Brilliant, Terry. You run circles around yourself logically. Except that Bush has said repeatedly and rather emphatically that he doesn't regard all Muslims as potential terrorists, so once again your schtick, while just shy of amusing, is miles from any resemblance to that of the guy you're straining so ineptly to ridicule. Actually, it's quite simple to be a terrorist before committing an actual act of terror. If we had put together all the evidence as to what Mohammed Atta was planning before he managed to do it, and arrested him just before he got on the plane, he would still be a terrorist. And of course, as you slyly admit in an underhanded sort of way, not all terrorists blow themselves up in the process. Bin Laden was (is?) quite content to stand back and direct the suicide squad's choreography without joining the dance. And to be a really effective terrorist, you need people who are taking active, identifiable steps to help you—like providing money, weapons, places to train. So there are probably a good many terrorists one can identify with quite satisfactory certainty before sinking into the pressing metaphysical quandary you've so cleverly identified.

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

Funny, right now Bush is under a lot of criticism precisely because he doesn't show much interest in wiping out other the other people who look at him funny. Remember that Mr. Kim we talked about earlier? It's that discarded consistency point again. But at least you're consistent, Terry. You consistently attribute to Bush things that he's never advocated.

My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Have you considered that this might be because she realizes there's no point in arguing with someone who seriously believes this to be logic? Me, I'm just a glutton for punishment.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

Just what "street" is Bush proposing to bomb, Terry? What does that even equate to in your slipshod analogy? I'm afraid that all you've proven is that standards of sanity are much lower when one is playing to a mob of...

PROTESTORS (dragging George Bush):
A terrorist! A terrorist! We have found the real terrorist!
TERRY JONES:
How do you know he is a terrorist?
PROTESTOR #2:
He looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
JONES:
Bring him forward.
BUSH:
I'm not a terrorist. I'm not a terrorist.
JONES:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
BUSH:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
BUSH:
And this isn't my Hitler moustache. It's a false one.
JONES:
Well?
PROTESTOR #1:
Well, we did do the moustache.
JONES:
The moustache?
VILLAGER #1:
And the uniform, but he is a terrorist!
PROTESTOR #2:
Yeah!
JONES:
Did you dress him up like this?
PROTESTOR #1:
No!
PROTESTOR #2 and 3:
No. No.
PROTESTOR #2:
No.
PROTESTOR #1:
No.
PROTESTORS #2 and #3:
No.
PROTESTOR #1:
Yes.
PROTESTOR #2:
Yes.
PROTESTOR #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
PROTESTOR #3:
A bit.
PROTESTORS #1 and #2:
A bit.
PROTESTOR #3:
A bit.
PROTESTOR #1:
He has got a ranch.
RANDOM:
[cough]
JONES:
What makes you think he is a terrorist?
PROTESTOR #3:
Well, he orchestrated a silent genocide in Afghanistan leading to the deaths of millions!
JONES:
Millions?
PROTESTOR #3:
Uh…they got better.
PROTESTOR #2:
He's still a terrorist!!
PROTESTOR #1:
Terrorist!
JONES:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether he is a terrorist.
PROTESTOR #1:
Are there?
PROTESTOR #2:
Ah?
PROTESTOR #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
JONES:
Tell me. What do you do with terrorists?
PROTESTOR #2:
Appease them!
PROTESTOR #1:
Appease!
CROWD:
Appease them!...Appease!
JONES:
And whom do you appease apart from terrorists?
PROTESTOR #1:
More terrorists!
PROTESTOR #3:
Shh!
PROTESTOR #2:
Dictators!
JONES:
So, why do you appease terrorists?
[pause]
PROTESTOR #3:
B--... 'cause they're really dictators?
JONES:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
JONES:
So, how do we tell whether he is a dictator?
PROTESTOR #1:
See if he's represented on the UN Commission on Human Rights!!
JONES:
Ah, but are not democracies also represented there?
PROTESTOR #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
JONES:
Tell me. Do dictators have warm relations with the French government?
PROTESTOR #1:
Yes. Yes.
JONES:
Who also has influence in France?
PROTESTOR #1:
Diplomats who keep their mouths shut!
PROTESTOR #2:
Book banning Muslim immigrants!
PROTESTOR #3:
Uh, very angry poodles!
PROTESTOR #1:
Jerry Lewis!
PROTESTOR #2:
Uh, sna-- snails!
PROTESTOR #1:
Le Pen!
PROTESTOR #2:
Pepe Le Piu!
PROTESTOR #3:
Cote D'Ivorians!
PROTESTOR #2:
Eastern europeans!
A PASSERBY:
The oil industry!
CROWD:
Oooh.
JONES:
Exactly. So, logically...
PROTESTOR #1:
If... he... has ties... to the oil industry,... he's a dictator.
JONES:
And therefore?
PROTESTOR #2:
A terrorist!
JONES:
We shall examine his rolodex.

So you see, the protestors were right. Bush is the real terrorist.

Q.E.D.
posted by CMN at 10:17 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
Don't tell my wife... I just noticed that Texas' own Veronica Franco has put me on her blogroll. Well, I've never been linked to a courtesan before. Really. And I swear, it's totally platonic. But thanks for the nod, Evelyn.
posted by CMN at 5:16 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
A history lesson for Molly. Jeff likes both the French and Molly Ivins. But even he couldn't stomach her latest.
posted by CMN at 5:07 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
AMERICA SHRUGS? Jim Henley has written a speech for Bush in the event the UN refuses to do anything about Iraq. Hearing an American president give that speech would be worth letting Saddam stay in power. It'll never happen, though.
posted by CMN at 1:51 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Re the I-word: Jim Henley handed me some demerits for my use (two posts down) of the term "idiotarian." Of course, I only used it in the negative, as a lazy shorthand for "argument that can and should be taken seriously, as it employs logic that does not depend on axiomatic belief in either the evil of U.S. or the nefarious idiocy of the Bush Administration." Given the tenor of much of the rhetoric we have seen, I can't say I think use of the term has been entirely unjustified. It's understandable, though, that people like Jim committed to an antiwar position would want to see the term scrapped, since its use is in some part designed to keep them constantly on the defensive, as though their position is presumptively unworthy of respect because also espoused by others who engage in self-righteous idiocy. If the term itself represented a well-defined, valid concept, that it had this effect would not necessarily be sufficient reason to scrap it. But I have long been uncomfortable with "idiotarian" myself, because it is not a well-defined term and because it seems to imply the attitude that any criticism of the speaker's position can be dismissed as idiotic. The very attitude, in other words, to which the tagline of my blog is set in opposition. I should say that in my estimation Glenn and others (at least those others to whom I pay attention) have tended to use the term more responsibly than that, making clear that it refers not to an intellectual position as such but to a stridently illogical and morally irresponsible means of advancing it. The reason I was willing to accept the term is that it was being applied to people whose tone I took to be the very one described in my tagline, people who were essentially saying, "Only an uninformed, jingoistic cretin could possibly believe the U.S. to have any moral legitimacy in opposing terrorism." Further, Glenn has gone out of his way to make clear that the term applies not merely to antiwar arguments but to any policy rhetoric, from left or right, that exhibits those characteristics. And ultimately that's the problem. There is no defined "idiotarian" position, which means the term is more a catch-all epithet than a meaningful concept. (Unlike, say, "transnational progressivism," which I continue to think a well-defined term despite the protests of Aziz and others.) Far better to criticize specific offenders by defining their offense with real words. And far better for the quality of one's own thought to avoid use of terms that blunt rather than hone the precision of one's analysis. So I shall take Jim's admonition to heart and say ta-ta to the I-word.
posted by CMN at 6:18 AM
0 stab(s) back

 
You're kidding, right? Andrew Sullivan thinks Hegel was one of the "great liberals." Only, it seems, the Germans "misread" him. I suppose Popper did too. Not that you can blame them; reading Hegel at all is an excruciating endeavor. Trying to get through a page of Phenomenology of Spirit is a pretty decent substitute for clubbing yourself over the head with a frozen mackerel for several hours. But if you're interested in knowing why I object so strenuously to this passing remark of Andy's, here's a decent summary.
posted by CMN at 5:20 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Aren't Arabs Rational?: I finally got around to reading CATO's non-idiotarian argument against war with Iraq. It conjures a very alarming picture, one well illustrated by this simultaneously hilarious and horrific flash game. (Both of which I found via the indispensible Unqualified Offerings.) But in reading these scenarios that predict massive Arab/Muslim uprisings against the U.S., I can't help but wonder what assumptions they are making about the rationality of this large group of people. Take the CATO piece. In order to debunk the premise that the Islamic world "hates us for our freedoms," Healy cites the following data:

A Zogby poll released in April 2002 surveyed respondents from 10 Islamic nations on their attitudes toward American culture, capitalism, and foreign policy. The results show broad appreciation for America's economic system and culture. But when asked whether they approve of U.S. government policy toward the Palestinians, just 1 percent of Kuwaitis, 2 percent of Lebanese, 3 percent of Egyptians and Iranians, 5 percent of Saudis and Indonesians, and 9 percent of Pakistanis say yes. "It's not our values, it's not our democracy, it's not our freedom...it's the policy they don't like," said James Zogby.

From this, Healy draws the following inference:

What's utterly unreasonable is to assume, as the administration and its fellow travelers seem to, that the number of recruits to Al Qaeda's murderous jihad is relatively fixed, and will not increase dramatically if the U.S. begins a policy of conquering and occupying Middle Eastern Muslim countries with the avowed purpose of making them secular and free.

I'm a little confused here. The only policy of ours Zogby (as quoted by Healy) found opposition to was that regarding Israel and the Palestinians. That's obviously a major problem, but it's a rather unique, sui generis situation. What does it have to do with trying to make other Middle Eastern countries "secular and free"? If it's true that these people have "broad appreciation for America's economic system and culture," then why would they hate us for trying to bring these things to them?

One answer might be that they wouldn't—if they had any reason to believe that's really what we're doing. They have ample reason for skepticism on this score. During the Cold War, we showed ourselves willing to support virtually any status quo, even if oppressive, any dictator, even if brutal—so long as they were anti-communist in aim or effect. (During his interview with Fallaci, William Colby justified the coup against Allende by saying that no communist government, once in power, had ever relinquished it democratically. This would be a somewhat more persuasive position if it hadn't been offered in defense of installing Pinochet.) To win this conflict, we're going to have to convince the third world that the name of the game has changed. That we're not merely anti-terrorism, but pro-freedom. Their freedom. That we'd rather see them have real democratic systems—even ones that occasionally elect people we don't like—than be under the thumb of a royal family or dictator who is willing to cozy up to us. Or pretend to.

So it seems to me that if I'm an Arab, my attitude toward a U.S. invasion of Iraq depends largely on what comes out of it. If what starts to materialize when the dust clears looks like the imperialistic install-a-docile-sonofabitch-and-grab-the-oil scenario so many people expect, then maybe I do think about heading to the nearest al-Qaeda recruitment station. But if it looks like the yanks are actually trying to live up to their rhetoric and set up a free democratic state ala post WWII Japan (yes, I know it will be a lot harder), then maybe I experience a glimmer of hope and watch a little more. To assume that if war comes I will be up in arms against the U.S. no matter what is to assume that I'm not very rational. And it seems strange to conclude that Saddam, about whose unsavory psyche we know so much, is "demonstrably deterrable," but assume that millions of normal Arab/Muslim men and women lack any capacity to think through their own self-interest and act accordingly.

Update: Hitch makes a similar point.

posted by CMN at 2:21 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Various star sightings, and reflections thereon: Paola and I drove up to Malibu to have breakfast with blogdom's hottest couple, Cap'n Scott and Asparagirl. It's bizarre in a way to sit down with people whose blogs you've been reading for a while. This was the first time I'd ever met Brooke, and yet I already knew more about her than I do about many of the people I work with every day. (And they say the internet is inimical to real social interaction?) It was a beautiful morning. Azure sky, deep blue ocean, calm yet agitated enough to break up the sunlight into shimmering fragments. Brooke was eating it up. I think she's going to be quite happy out here. They are. You can't really get to know someone in the course of a brief conversation (even if you have been reading them for a long time), but there's no doubt that the two of them are very together, very in love. Always nice to see.

On the way back up the PCH, Paola noticed a sportscar on the road next to us, and asked me what make it was. I turned to look, and said, "Well, I can't tell what make it is, but the guy driving is Pierce Brosnan." And again it struck me: here's a guy I've never met, and yet in some sense I already know him. Such "sightings" aren't uncommon in L.A. And while you can pretend to be blasé and pull out the whole "I didn't catch the name" routine, you can't help but be struck when you see someone like that. Even if it's a celebrity you don't particularly care about, the mere fact that they are famous somehow makes them interesting, makes you want to scrutinize them. Why is that? They're just people.

Alright, are you ready for my armchair philosophical explanation? I think the lure of fame has to do with the nature of human consciousness. For us, what's real is what we are conscious of. And because we're aware of that fact, on some level we feel that to really exist we need other people to be conscious of us. This is of course in many ways a dangerous impulse; fame does not correlate with happiness or virtue or anything else desirable (except wealth perhaps). But even if we're wise enough not to unduly prioritize desire for fame, we still feel it. Even if we're truly happy, our happiness is augmented if other people perceive us to be happy and tell us so. Indeed, if Dante is to be believed even God has this same impulse—He created other conscious entities so that they could reflect His own glory back to Him.

It follows that the fascination we have with famous people isn't as much about them or their qualities as it is about the knowledge that all those other thousands or millions of people out there know who they are, and the reflection of all those consciousnesses somehow gives the famous person more presence. Just like a judgment expressed and shared publicly takes on a life of its own that augments people's perception of the phenomenon it's based on. Uma Thurman once said something like (I'm paraphrasing from memory), "There are plenty of women out there tending bar who are better looking than I am. But I'm up there on the screen for everyone to obsess over." We recently saw a form of this in the blogosphere with that whole "Jane Galt is a babe" meme. Don't get me wrong here—I'm sure that even if I'd watched that PBS show without ever having read a weblog, the irreducibly male part of my psyche would have reacted favorably to Megan's vivacious visage. But the mini frenzy that occurred wasn't based simply on that. It was based on the fact that Glenn had expressed the judgment, and therefore thousands of people knew about it, and she was already famous (in the blogosphere at least), and there were all these guys out there who were already fantasizing about her sight unseen because that's just the way our brains work. And when I say that last, I don't mean sexual fantasy in the crude sense; I mean that male appreciation of female virtue—even purely intellectual virtue—is never without an erotic element. As I wrote before in response to Diane's post about sexism in the blogosphere:

Yes, the knowledge that you are a woman, despite my best pretenses at disembodied intellectual objectivity, probably will have a subliminal effect on the way I react to your writing. But it won't make me take you less seriously. Quite the opposite. When I agree with and admire it, that agreement and admiration will be tinged with something extra, a certain thrill of attraction that isn't there when I read Lileks no matter how much I love his stuff. If I read something by you that disparages or repudiates things I hold dear, the cut will be incrementally unkinder. If I ever get a message from you in response to anything I write, it will affect my ego just a little bit more. There's no good reason for this. You might even term it a form of sexism. And since we're dealing in unsubstantiable conjectures, I'll offer one of my own: I suspect I'm not the only male to suffer from this form of prejudice.

But now I'm getting somewhat off track. This train of thought was about fame, not eroticism. The point is that fame augments whatever phenomenon it mingles with, makes it seem more real because other people think it's real too. We scrutinize the famous people we meet in part because we want to pare them back down to size. Living as we do in a fame-driven culture, we have internalized versions of that man who used to ride in the chariot alongside the honoree of a Roman triumphal procession, lest he forget that he was only a man. Only ours are addressed not to us but to the people outside, the ones we can't help being drawn to and envying even as we profess our indifference. Which is why it really is difficult to be famous, even though we don't have much patience with famous people who whine about it. They know everyone is looking for the flaw, looking to relieve themselves in one way or another of the burden of envy. Or worse—someone who is really a fan and really wants to admire them might be disappointed. Just as we can't help being interested in famous people, they can't help having some part of their self-esteem invested in their fame. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole babe flap has left Megan on some level more self-conscious about her appearance than she was before. Now she's got a rep, and probably some fear (even if unfounded) of disappointing expectations. Which would be unfortunate.

Enough. I think I've ridden this train of thought to the end of the line. I'd love to make my own bid for fame by turning out regular well-crafted essays here rather than random thoughts, but I have other things I need to invest time in.
posted by CMN at 4:36 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
Speaking of Oriana, here's a recent interview she did for the New York Observer if you haven't already seen it. Again, the piece contributes to my love/hate relationship with the woman.

I mean, ya gotta love a septugenarian who says stuff like this:

When she gets phone calls threatening her life, she said, she lets them talk. "Then I say, 'Do you know where it is your mother and your wife and your sister and your daughter are right in this moment? They are in a brothel of Beirut. And do you know what they're doing? They are giving away their'-I don't tell it to you, but I tell it to them-'and you know to whom? To an American. Fuck you!'"

But on the other hand, the piece also contains this:

In Italy, a booklet titled "Islam Punishes Oriana Fallaci," written by the president of the Italian Islamic Party, called for Muslims to "go and die with Fallaci." Ms. Fallaci sued the author for slander and instigation to murder.

As I've said, I read the complaint she filed and even based on her selected quotes I think this is a distortion of what Smith actually wrote. (I've since heard from someone who read his whole book and agrees with me.) And I still have yet to see any acknowledgment from her that there are plenty of Muslim Americans who obviously have opened the doors of their religious faith to freedom and democracy and progress. Recognizing this wouldn't weaken her point with regard to the many other Muslims who haven't; it would strengthen it. It's too bad she won't sit down for a real interview--like the ones she used to conduct with others. I read that piece she did in Panorama following the Social Forum, and it was disappointing. It was so damn safe. The interviewer cleaned out her colon with his tongue before he even asked the first question. He wasn't challenging her, even in a friendly way. He was tossing her gift-wrapped softballs. What she did with Rabbia was valuable, but this tossing-thunderbolts-while-staying-above-the-fray pose is wearing thin. If she's not willing to subject herself to a serious conversation and refine her message, she should go back to writing her final novel.



posted by CMN at 1:11 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
A view from the German street. Occasionally I'll still get an email from someone who's read our Fallaci translation. (When this happens, of course, I always tell them it was unauthorized and urge them to go buy the book.) This time it was from a German fellow by the name of Johannes Kiessling, an art teacher in Öhringen, Germany. (You can see some of his cool computer art here.) He had some interesting things to say about the atmosphere in Germany:

As to the content [of Fallaci's article] - as a German (not from choice but there it is) I can only heartily agree. Alas - this morning there was a "peace demonstration" only 50 yards from where I live in a small/tiny town. Peace for Saddam? Or maybe it was an "Anti-American demonstration"??? I didn't go to listen - someone might have thought I were part of it. But I listen to e.g. my colleagues who sputter fury and hate if you just mention America or Bush (not all of them - "only" most of them). I wish I could sit them down and read Fallaci's article to them - even if it would not help any...

I wrote back and asked him how widespread he thought this attitude was. Here's his response:

Let me begin by describing my (limited) field of vision: - I am a teacher in a small (provincial) town - 90 % of my contacts are - teachers. And, of course, students. - like everyone's, my information stems to a large extent from media (I have chucked out the telly and listen to the radio). - Among the teachers I talk to, there is a large majority who repeat "mantra-like" that "America"/Bush just wants to rule and exploit the world. Iraq is just interesting for the oil. Globalization is an instrument of exploitation etc. (Americans are stupid anyway, uneducated, their schools are bad etc.) – Regarding Israel - the Israelis are a strong ruthless power who suppress the "poor Palestinians". There is always a feeling of indignation in this. They are prepared to say that suicide bombing is bad - but immediately return to this view so that I get the impression that there is little sympathy for Israeli victims and lots for Palestinian problems. (Like: after all, the Israelis bring it on themselves like it's the US' own fault that September 11 happened.) –

What you have to know: teachers in Germany (worldwide?) are the most unrealistic group of people I have met. They are masters of the lie - to fool themselves. Hardly any perception of reality. Like they fancy themselves as brilliant paedagogues while their students have a totally different view. They fancy that all they do is "very important" while it is only important in that it enhances their self-esteem etc. Observing these bigotted ways - regarding politics you find that they desperately follow straits which in the end will "make them look good". Palestinians? Ah...underdogs. Therefore: if we are for them, we share a high moral point of view. Additionally: The majority is of middle age. People who demonstrated against the Vietnam war in their youth. And as teachers - in charge of learning - hardly ever learn themselves, they have just retained the view of the US as the huge power murdering "poor Vietnamese" etc. On top of that all - there is a scattering of Nazi-thought, unrecognized by the people themselves, which lurks at the back of their judgement. (Not only in this respect). In all - a mixture not geared to straight thinking!!! (Dreadful US sells weapons all over the world and causes trouble. They refuse to see that perhaps 1/3 of their income comes from German weapons sales...). What I tried to refer to here appears to me symptomatic for a certain strata of society - and I can't judge the size of it. But I do meet up with it a lot and therefore conclude that it is a considerable number of people. Like e.g. in the Islamic world, "America", being strong, is made into a symbol on which you can project every trouble you might have in your life. You don't have the guts to criticize the authorities in front of you? Well, "let fly" at the US... This seems stupid and one might think unimportant. BUT in Nazi times the very same mechanism was applied to the Jews. (There is a a cabaret song: "Die Juden sind an allem Schuld" = it's all the fault of the Jews. The weather is bad? The Jews. Your wife tells you off? The Jews. etc. etc. Wish it were only funny...)

I also believe that the character of it all is very Christian: Not what you DO matters, but what you think. So, generally, it is to be taken as "blabb" rather than a base for actions. Like they go to this peace demo, hold up a placard and feel good afterwards for weeks - their moral plate is clean. Whether it has consequences or not matters little. Only... it MIGHT have consequences - and if it has, they'll probably not like these either. So what do you do with them??????? - The media - again and again, not exclusively but frequently - I hear e.g. reports on the Palestinians which might not be untrue but lie in the respect that they lack the sympathy and detailed reports on how this must feel for people in Israel. What it means to go on a bus, to send kids to school and not knowing whether they'll be back etc. In short: lopsided reports. Another example: This year we had this large art exhibition, the "Documenta" in Kassel (it is huge). Almost a whole exhibition building was dedicated to "the plight of the Palestinians". The usual lopsided view... (I hear 5 interviews with Palestinians before I hear one with an Israeli). I have little contact to the "general population" and can only refer to isolated incidences. From these I would say that "the uneducated" are a lot less Anti-American (?) but on the other hand even more blatantly consider Jews (they have never met any!) as the force behind "evil world economy"... thoughtlessly repeating Nazi-positions which they probably are unaware of as to their source. But - ignorance is probably a worldwide affliction in those circles anyway, only that here it is particularly unfortunate because it prolongs ancient propaganda... You do get a minority of people who think (more or less) differently. Like I took part in a group who demanded and succeeded to have put up a bronze table at the former synagogue (a provincial one, not recognizable as such) to remember what happened, and, as there is a memorial of war victims incl. WW I in the church here, a tablet commemorating the Jewish soldiers who died fighting then just beside the German tablet. So you do get a number of people who think differently - only they are normally not seen and seldom go public...This group is not very large, I presume.

So that's one man's impression. I'm always wary as to how much stock to put into such perspectives. So is Johannes:

Problem: no individual person has enough knowledge to give an overall picture. But if you collect impressions, the picture nevertheless will become clearer. And as my friend, the old lady, always tells me and "kicks my butt if I do": "You can't generalize!!!". Like her cousin who lives in Israel, was saved from extermination by an SS-man. So...reality is complicated indeed. And yes, I tend to generalize off and on, I like a bit of polemics and might need to be reminded! :-) If I should try and generalize (!) - I have the impression that the combination of a lack of realism and bigotry is very strong in this country. I go to England a lot - I think the majority tends to see things as they are, maybe the percentage of realism-unrealism is like the other way round... (Even though I was surprised to see the Brits go sentimental when princess Diana died. The "stiff upper lip" suddenly melted away...).

If any other native Germans happen to read this and think Johannes is off the mark, I'd love to hear from you. It would certainly be a relief to be told that things there aren't everywhere as bad as he perceives them.
posted by CMN at 12:23 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
I don't watch TV news much, even when events are breaking. It always strikes me as 2% news, 20% speculation, and 78% meaningless filler. Actually, you're ahead of the game if the filler is innocuous. This morning I heard a newscaster, don't know who, don't know which station, reporting how all across Southern California churches are holding memorial services for the lost astronauts or including them and their families in their prayers. Then she goes on to add that in local synagogues, prayers are being offered for their fallen hero, the lost Israeli pilot.

Excuse me? Did you mean to report that unlike Christian churchgoers, our local Jewish congregations aren't interested in praying for all the people who suffer tragedy, but only ones who happen to be from Israel? Cuz from where I was sitting, that's kinda what it seemed to imply. The statement was made in passing, and I doubt the woman who mouthed the words even realized she was saying anything remotely strange. Nor, perhaps, did whoever wrote the copy. And what religious leaders, I wonder, did they contact to get this information from? The statement was certainly not accompanied by any on-the-scene reportage interviewing random people as they left services. Jewish services, I mean. Churchgoers, yes. No doubt because they, unlike the templegoers, were sharing in our national tragedy? I don't know why this leapt out at me the way it did. A few years ago I probably wouldn't even have picked up on it, and even now I'm probably reading too much into it. It's just that lately I've been reading stuff about how it's a commonplace in Europe for people to assume that American Jews aren't really American but have their first allegiance to Israel. I usually laugh off idiocy like that with a derisive "spoken like someone who has no idea what he's talking about." But to get that kind of sloppiness from a local news network was kind of a slap in the face. And no, if you happen to be tuning into this blog for the first time, I'm not Jewish. But large numbers of my friends, acquaintances, and colleagues are. And it would never occur to me, in my wildest dreams, to doubt their identity as Americans, their love of this country, or their compassion toward suffering of any denomination. I feel really stupid even having to say this. But I do so, for the benefit of anyone who happens to read this and has no direct experience with American society.
posted by CMN at 9:24 PM
0 stab(s) back

 
I'm back. I didn't see my shadow today. Nor was I looking. Make of that whatever omen thou wilt. I woke up this morning in a cabin in Big Bear, where we had skiied all day yesterday. This evening I played chess on the beach with my family and watched the sun go down. Not a bad birthday. I do love it here.

How old am I, you ask? I'm that same age at which Pete Townsend tells us he was still wandering in a haze, wondering why everyone he met seemed like they were lost in a maze. (Yes, I know. I for one am going to give him the benefit of the doubt as long as it is possible to do so.) If Pete's description was accurate, I'm in a distinctly better place than he was then. I most assuredly do not think I have some kind of divine right to the blues. Anzi. I have so much to be grateful for, I don't know where to begin. Well, yes I do. A woman who against every probability chose to cast her lot with me, whose love and beauty leave me little else to strive for, yet whose spirit forbids me the easy torpor of complacency. A son blessed with beauty and talent far surpassing what could have come from me, whom I can only watch in wonder, trying as best I can to help him harness them and build a character worthy of them. I am fortunate indeed. And on this day when so many who were as fortunate are in mourning, I can feel only humility and gratitude.




posted by CMN at 8:00 PM
0 stab(s) back