FLG doesn't categorize his blogroll. That's a personal preference and he has actually thought about doing so from time to time. Anyway, two blogroll categories that Fear and Loathing in Georgetown is listed in FLG finds funny.
Over at Dance's Prone to Laughter, he's in the "Unable to Compartmentalize" section which appeals to his self-conception/delusion as an iconoclast, but with two blogs that post pictures of dresses.
Over at Basil's Feast of Nemesis, FLG is in the "The two people I am aware of who read this blog..." section and noticeable absent from "Really smart people I link to in order to make me look good..."
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Things I Picture Sir Basil Seal Saying
I was watching an episode of Magnum, P.I. on Hulu. Actually, the first episode because my computer crashed last time I started watching it. In it Higgins says:
So, Basil. With or without ice?
Don't ruin my whiskey with ice. I'm not a bloody American.
So, Basil. With or without ice?
Locke On Toleration
If you haven't read Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration, then you ought to do so. I felt compelled for some reason to reread it tonight.
Always liked that paragraph.
The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind, that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light. I will not here tax the pride and ambition of some, the passion and uncharitable zeal of others. These are faults from which human affairs can perhaps scarce ever be perfectly freed; but yet such as nobody will bear the plain imputation of, without covering them with some specious colour; and so pretend to commendation, whilst they are carried away by their own irregular passions. But, however, that some may not colour their spirit of persecution and unchristian cruelty with a pretence of care of the public weal and observation of the laws; and that others, under pretence of religion, may not seek impunity for their libertinism and licentiousness; in a word, that none may impose either upon himself or others, by the pretences of loyalty and obedience to the prince, or of tenderness and sincerity in the worship of God; I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men's souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth.
Always liked that paragraph.
A Bit More On The Questions Dance Posed
I was thinking more about one of the questions Dance posed to me, but I didn't answer yet. Mostly because it would be a long answer:
And then I thought of this section from Tocqueville:
I'm not saying it answers the question. Just that I thought of it and that it is worth posting, methinks.
On a related note, the statement on capital punishment being phased out juxtaposed with the unequal status of slaves above, and further combined with the previous post on slavery and Tocqueville, would seem to support a conclusion that the higher levels of African-American people on death row today, and indeed even pursued with capital punishment in the first place, is partially, if not primarily, due to a psychological bias present since slavery that blacks are separate and unequal and therefore less likely to engender compassion or sympathy. I don't know why I didn't think of that when I read the book in the first place. I had a vague notion of slavery as America's original sin, so this conclusion doesn't surprise me but never thought of it exactly.
you yourself have said many times (and I disagree) that slavery only ended when industry offered the labor power to make abolition an economically feasible choice. How does that square with your belief in fundamental decency?
And then I thought of this section from Tocqueville:
Equality of conditions and growing civility in manners are, then, in my eyes, not only contemporaneous occurrences, but correlative facts.
...
Although the Americans have, in a manner, reduced egotism to a social and philosophical theory, they are nevertheless extremely open to compassion. In no country is criminal justice administered with more mildness than in the United States. Whilst the English seem disposed carefully to retain the bloody traces of the dark ages in their penal legislation, the Americans have almost expunged capital punishment from their codes. North America is, I think, the only one country upon earth in which the life of no one citizen has been taken for a political offence in the course of the last fifty years. The circumstance which conclusively shows that this singular mildness of the Americans arises chiefly from their social condition, is the manner in which they treat their slaves. Perhaps there is not, upon the whole, a single European colony in the New World in which the physical condition of the blacks is less severe than in the United States; yet the slaves still endure horrid sufferings there, and are constantly exposed to barbarous punishments. It is easy to perceive that the lot of these unhappy beings inspires their masters with but little compassion, and that they look upon slavery, not only as an institution which is profitable to them, but as an evil which does not affect them. Thus the same man who is full of humanity towards his fellow-creatures when they are at the same time his equals, becomes insensible to their afflictions as soon as that equality ceases. His mildness should therefore be attributed to the equality of conditions, rather than to civilization and education.
I'm not saying it answers the question. Just that I thought of it and that it is worth posting, methinks.
On a related note, the statement on capital punishment being phased out juxtaposed with the unequal status of slaves above, and further combined with the previous post on slavery and Tocqueville, would seem to support a conclusion that the higher levels of African-American people on death row today, and indeed even pursued with capital punishment in the first place, is partially, if not primarily, due to a psychological bias present since slavery that blacks are separate and unequal and therefore less likely to engender compassion or sympathy. I don't know why I didn't think of that when I read the book in the first place. I had a vague notion of slavery as America's original sin, so this conclusion doesn't surprise me but never thought of it exactly.
As If There Were Any Doubt
More proof that the readers of Fear and Loathing in Georgetown are more intelligent, creative, funny, and in all probability better looking that its author.
In The Comments
Dance and Andrew Stevens, and to a lesser extent FLG, have transitioned my post on gay marriage into a broader discussion of the progress of justice. Andrew's positions are so similar to mine on most issues that I'll just second them, except on Brown v. Board. I think something like the Civil Rights Act would've happened without it.
Dance, as always, asks insightful questions:
Yes, for a variety of reasons. Americans are unified by adherence to a set of ideals, which we may debate the exact meaning of but broadly agree upon, liberty, freedom, equality, etc. This is in start contrast to most countries, which are nation-states. When it really comes down to it. The French are French by blood. Germans are Germans by blood. Italians, Czech, Chinese, Japanese, etc. To the extent that the United States does have a ethnic dynamic, it's the historical power of the WASP. But the important part is that Americanism is primarily about adherence to certain ideals, not ethnicity. These ideals certainly arose from a WASP culture. Protestant work-ethic. Judeo-Christian values. The cultural and social values even if the ones that aren't codified in law are important. But you don't have to be a WASP to abide by them. There's a certain practicality to the whole thing that I think is key. Think Poor Richard's Almanack. That brings me to the next point.
Actually, justice is more important to me than democracy, but it's sorta convoluted or, if one was being kind, nuanced. I wholeheartedly believe there is a universal, permanent form of justice. Problem is its form is difficult to discern. For a variety of historical, cultural, and social reasons I believe the collective judgment American people are the best way to discern it. I'm extremely skeptical of judges trying to interpret the "evolving standards of decency" etc. It presumes some sort of philosopher-king-esque role that I find hubristic and unbecoming. Further, I fear the consequences of ceding the interpretation of morals and ethics for society to a small, elite subset consisting entirely of lawyers. So, my belief that the American people are the best way to discern justice over the long-term leads me to value keeping that role with them over many particular, but temporary things I view as injustice.
This does not mean they always get it right. See: Japanese Internment. But I must say that the society recognizes that it was an grave injustice and has cognizant of that in much of the War on Terror debate. We learned from that mistake.
To return to the gay marriage issue specifically, Andrew writes:
I'd argue that the vast majority of gay people will live in a liberal state, New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc, that already have or will legalize it soon. Gays in Texas will probably have to wait longer or move to a more liberal state. To me, and I'd second Andrew's point about easy for me to say, this is an acceptable price to pay in current injustice to ensure that the American people, who ultimately are our only hope as a nation because the power derives from them, are the final arbiters of our morals and ethics.
I hope that makes sense.
Dance, as always, asks insightful questions:
Are Americans different from the rest of the world?
Yes, for a variety of reasons. Americans are unified by adherence to a set of ideals, which we may debate the exact meaning of but broadly agree upon, liberty, freedom, equality, etc. This is in start contrast to most countries, which are nation-states. When it really comes down to it. The French are French by blood. Germans are Germans by blood. Italians, Czech, Chinese, Japanese, etc. To the extent that the United States does have a ethnic dynamic, it's the historical power of the WASP. But the important part is that Americanism is primarily about adherence to certain ideals, not ethnicity. These ideals certainly arose from a WASP culture. Protestant work-ethic. Judeo-Christian values. The cultural and social values even if the ones that aren't codified in law are important. But you don't have to be a WASP to abide by them. There's a certain practicality to the whole thing that I think is key. Think Poor Richard's Almanack. That brings me to the next point.
And, why is democracy more important to you than justice?
Actually, justice is more important to me than democracy, but it's sorta convoluted or, if one was being kind, nuanced. I wholeheartedly believe there is a universal, permanent form of justice. Problem is its form is difficult to discern. For a variety of historical, cultural, and social reasons I believe the collective judgment American people are the best way to discern it. I'm extremely skeptical of judges trying to interpret the "evolving standards of decency" etc. It presumes some sort of philosopher-king-esque role that I find hubristic and unbecoming. Further, I fear the consequences of ceding the interpretation of morals and ethics for society to a small, elite subset consisting entirely of lawyers. So, my belief that the American people are the best way to discern justice over the long-term leads me to value keeping that role with them over many particular, but temporary things I view as injustice.
This does not mean they always get it right. See: Japanese Internment. But I must say that the society recognizes that it was an grave injustice and has cognizant of that in much of the War on Terror debate. We learned from that mistake.
To return to the gay marriage issue specifically, Andrew writes:
I have no doubt that the gay marriage thing will eventually win and I'm willing to wait the twenty or thirty years it might take to get there in a proper and orderly fashion. (Easy for me to say, I know.)
I'd argue that the vast majority of gay people will live in a liberal state, New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc, that already have or will legalize it soon. Gays in Texas will probably have to wait longer or move to a more liberal state. To me, and I'd second Andrew's point about easy for me to say, this is an acceptable price to pay in current injustice to ensure that the American people, who ultimately are our only hope as a nation because the power derives from them, are the final arbiters of our morals and ethics.
I hope that makes sense.
Quote of the day
Lionel Jospin:
Wikipedia entries for the two men:
Lionel Jospin
François Fillon
As I always say, French socialists are funny.
François Fillon est inélégant, impertinent et imprudent.
Wikipedia entries for the two men:
Lionel Jospin
François Fillon
As I always say, French socialists are funny.
Afghanistan Revisited
MSNBC:
I thought that accusations of dithering where overblown, but this does concern me. The administration's response has been that the president isn't waffling, he's sitting down with everybody to think things through and make a good decision. Well, when I hear that after all this thinking the president rejected all the options presented to him then I think there are only three possible explanations:
President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
I thought that accusations of dithering where overblown, but this does concern me. The administration's response has been that the president isn't waffling, he's sitting down with everybody to think things through and make a good decision. Well, when I hear that after all this thinking the president rejected all the options presented to him then I think there are only three possible explanations:
- He is dithering.
- He didn't adequately communicate to his staff what types of plans he wanted.
- His staff is incompetent.
FLG Doesn't Remember If He Posted This Before Or Not
Telegraph:
Don't worry. It's about fruit bats.
But this didn't make any sense to me:
Prima facie and a posteriori, I would have assumed that more fellatio would reduce the intercourse time, but I learn something new everyday.
After the male mounted the female from behind, she bent over and began licking his penis.
Don't worry. It's about fruit bats.
But this didn't make any sense to me:
The research found that the longer a female licked for, the longer the intercourse: on average, a second of fellatio gained six seconds of intercourse. On average, mating lasted four minutes for fellators, twice the average of non-fellating females.
Prima facie and a posteriori, I would have assumed that more fellatio would reduce the intercourse time, but I learn something new everyday.
On Abortion
I think I've mentioned this before, but I'm broadly pro-choice. I'd prefer if abortion was limited to the first trimester and beyond that in cases of severe risk to the mother's health. I realize this is an arbitrary distinction, but it's a tricky issue.
All considered, I think the pro-life folks have a more defensible position, but I'm sympathetic to the concerns that women should have control over their own bodies. And I don't want girls dying from back alley, coat hanger abortions. The question is where to draw that line? And again, I've drawn it uncomfortably at the first trimester as compromise between the two. Some of my pro-life readers will probably say that I'm trying to split the baby, so to speak, but so be it. I just can't take the pure pro-life stance even if I think it is by far the stronger theoretical position.
But what prompted this post is what always makes me uncomfortable with being pro-choice -- the writings of feminists when any restriction on abortion is up for debate. In this case, it's in the health care bill. What makes uncomfortable is their tone that gives precisely zero consideration that aborting a fetus is at all different from removing an appendix.
In today's NYTimes we have this:
I think the main issue with abortion discussions is that the moral argument, if taken to the two extremes, is eventually a loser for abortion. What I mean by that is if we were presented with the two most extreme choices, 1) allowing abortion right up until birth and 2) never allowing any, the grotesqueness of the first position would so overwhelm any and all reasoning that pro-choice people could offer would be overwhelmed by visceral human revulsion.
To say that abortion is legal is one thing. It is. To say that therefore, because it is legal, that it is also moral or that the use of federal funds must be allocated for it is just wrong. Plastic surgery is legal, but the health care bill ain't gonna pay for it. It seems wrong to me to make somebody who finds abortion morally abhorrent pay for them through their tax dollars.
I understand the argument on the other side. Access to reproductive health is a right. But, and readers will know this about me, this is one of the reasons why I hate positive rights. Somebody has to provide them. That somebody is the government. A government which is funded by people who disagree about moral and ethical issues and you end up with these types of things.*
I guess my point here, and I'm making it in a rambling way, is I respect a woman's right to choose, but it must be balanced against the rights even potential people have. Because of how abortion has been legalized and defended in this country (Dance this is one of the reasons I don't like courts making decisions like this) many pro-choice feminists are heavily invested in deeply disturbing ideological assumptions and political activities. For example, the assumption that fetuses are completely devoid of moral value. And on the activities front, both sides of the debate have elevated the fervor around Supreme Court appointments. If abortion had moved through the legislatures or Congress, then Supreme Court appointments would still be contentious, but not like it is now.
I just feel deeply uncomfortable when the position I hold is shared by people who argue that a woman's right to choose doesn't have to be balanced with the rights of the fetus because the fetus doesn't hold any or only holds negligible moral value. That assumption or assertion strikes me as cynical, self-serving, and at the deepest level -- inhuman.
-----------------------
* My main issue with positive rights is that it presumes an institution exists to provide them, which is not the case with negative rights. And that institution is always the government, which is frequently less effective at providing things than private industry.
All considered, I think the pro-life folks have a more defensible position, but I'm sympathetic to the concerns that women should have control over their own bodies. And I don't want girls dying from back alley, coat hanger abortions. The question is where to draw that line? And again, I've drawn it uncomfortably at the first trimester as compromise between the two. Some of my pro-life readers will probably say that I'm trying to split the baby, so to speak, but so be it. I just can't take the pure pro-life stance even if I think it is by far the stronger theoretical position.
But what prompted this post is what always makes me uncomfortable with being pro-choice -- the writings of feminists when any restriction on abortion is up for debate. In this case, it's in the health care bill. What makes uncomfortable is their tone that gives precisely zero consideration that aborting a fetus is at all different from removing an appendix.
In today's NYTimes we have this:
Democrats were told to stop talking about abortion as a moral and legal right and to focus instead on comforting language about reducing the number of abortions. In this regard, President Obama was right on message when he declared in his health care speech to Congress in September that “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” — as if this happened to be a good and moral thing. (The tone of his statement made the point even more sharply than his words.)
I think the main issue with abortion discussions is that the moral argument, if taken to the two extremes, is eventually a loser for abortion. What I mean by that is if we were presented with the two most extreme choices, 1) allowing abortion right up until birth and 2) never allowing any, the grotesqueness of the first position would so overwhelm any and all reasoning that pro-choice people could offer would be overwhelmed by visceral human revulsion.
To say that abortion is legal is one thing. It is. To say that therefore, because it is legal, that it is also moral or that the use of federal funds must be allocated for it is just wrong. Plastic surgery is legal, but the health care bill ain't gonna pay for it. It seems wrong to me to make somebody who finds abortion morally abhorrent pay for them through their tax dollars.
I understand the argument on the other side. Access to reproductive health is a right. But, and readers will know this about me, this is one of the reasons why I hate positive rights. Somebody has to provide them. That somebody is the government. A government which is funded by people who disagree about moral and ethical issues and you end up with these types of things.*
I guess my point here, and I'm making it in a rambling way, is I respect a woman's right to choose, but it must be balanced against the rights even potential people have. Because of how abortion has been legalized and defended in this country (Dance this is one of the reasons I don't like courts making decisions like this) many pro-choice feminists are heavily invested in deeply disturbing ideological assumptions and political activities. For example, the assumption that fetuses are completely devoid of moral value. And on the activities front, both sides of the debate have elevated the fervor around Supreme Court appointments. If abortion had moved through the legislatures or Congress, then Supreme Court appointments would still be contentious, but not like it is now.
I just feel deeply uncomfortable when the position I hold is shared by people who argue that a woman's right to choose doesn't have to be balanced with the rights of the fetus because the fetus doesn't hold any or only holds negligible moral value. That assumption or assertion strikes me as cynical, self-serving, and at the deepest level -- inhuman.
-----------------------
* My main issue with positive rights is that it presumes an institution exists to provide them, which is not the case with negative rights. And that institution is always the government, which is frequently less effective at providing things than private industry.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Seems Like Tenuous Logic To Email Me With
From an Amazon email to FLG:
We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated Alexander the Great by Paul Cartledge have also purchased Ancient Greece: A History in Eleven Cities by Paul Cartledge. For this reason, you might like to know that Ancient Greece: A History in Eleven Cities will be released on November 23, 2009
Lion Versus Deer
A baby deer found its way into the lion enclosure at the National Zoo here in DC the other day. Zoo employees got the deer out eventually, but it was so hurt that they had to put it to sleep.
Quote of the day
Deneen:
FLG pulled this out mostly because he's always loved that quotation from Federalist 55, but the whole post is worth a read. Although, FLG would like to add that Matthew Continetti as a voice for conservatism makes him extremely uneasy.
The contemporary Right can trace its roots to the original American mistrust of the people, particularly seen in the frequent invocation of the wisdom of the Founders. The Framers were just as afraid of popular discontents and governance as the elites on the contemporary Left. The Federalist Papers - the official document that describes and defends the Constitutional order - is rife with condemnations of popular rule, particularly "democracy" that was pervasive in ancient settings. The Framers held the view that human irrationality came to the fore in group or crowd settings. As Madison argued in Federalist 55, "Had every Athenian been a Socrates, the Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." That is, even if every citizen of Athens had been a reasonable and philosophic soul, the fact that they came together in a crowd would naturally lead to the overcoming of reason in favor of irrational mob mentality. The Constitutional order aims to circumvent the creation of a widespread popular will.
FLG pulled this out mostly because he's always loved that quotation from Federalist 55, but the whole post is worth a read. Although, FLG would like to add that Matthew Continetti as a voice for conservatism makes him extremely uneasy.
FLG's Stance On Gay Marriage
Lots of people don't get it, but here it is:
Ask me to vote on a referendum to legalize it and I'd vote in favor of same sex marriage.
Ask me to vote on a referendum to overturn a legislative decision that legalized it and I'd vote in favor of gay marriage.
Ask me to vote on a referendum to overturn a court decision that legalized it and I'd vote to overturn gay marriage in the hopes that it would be re-ratified by the people. I just hate courts making these types of decisions.
Ask me to vote on a referendum to legalize it and I'd vote in favor of same sex marriage.
Ask me to vote on a referendum to overturn a legislative decision that legalized it and I'd vote in favor of gay marriage.
Ask me to vote on a referendum to overturn a court decision that legalized it and I'd vote to overturn gay marriage in the hopes that it would be re-ratified by the people. I just hate courts making these types of decisions.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I Wonder If This Is True
Charles Murray:
Where has this been empirically demonstrated? What study? Number seems awfully low to me.
I also found this fascinating --
Richard K. Vedder:
It has been empirically demonstrated that doing well (B average or better) in a traditional college major in the arts and sciences requires levels of linguistic and logical/mathematical ability that only 10 to 15 percent of the nation's youth possess.
Where has this been empirically demonstrated? What study? Number seems awfully low to me.
I also found this fascinating --
Richard K. Vedder:
My own research shows that there generally is a negative relationship between state support for higher education and economic growth.
A Conversation
FLG: Pass interference...false start...illegal motion...offsides...
Mrs. FLG: What are you doing in here?
FLG: Teaching Lil' Miss FLG the football hand signals.
Mrs. FLG: She can't even count yet. She hasn't said her first word.
FLG: Yeah, but I taught her how to hi-five already.
Mrs. FLG: And that means you can teach her the touchdown signal?
Lil' Miss FLG: Ta-dow.
Lil' Miss FLG's hands fly up into the air.
FLG: Touchdown! That's my girl!
Mrs. FLG: What are you doing in here?
FLG: Teaching Lil' Miss FLG the football hand signals.
Mrs. FLG: She can't even count yet. She hasn't said her first word.
FLG: Yeah, but I taught her how to hi-five already.
Mrs. FLG: And that means you can teach her the touchdown signal?
Lil' Miss FLG: Ta-dow.
Lil' Miss FLG's hands fly up into the air.
FLG: Touchdown! That's my girl!
Fry And Laurie
Despite what Robbo says, I still find Stephen Fry hilarious. E.D Kain posted the linguistics video that I posted about a year ago. At that time, I also posted this one about the hijacking of the word gay, which I found amusing as well. Ah, hell. Might as well just post them both again. Can never get too much Fry and Laurie.
On Afghanistan
Richard Cohen writes:
I'm sympathetic to the pull back over the horizon and take out the bad guys from the sky strategy. Afghanistan itself, meaning the territory, is of little strategic value. I'm also becoming less convinced by the idea that preventing a safe haven requires boots on the ground. The intelligence and drones are seemingly too effective in the border area of Pakistan to support the conclusion that we need to be on the ground in Afghanstian to harrass and destroy the enemy. I'm also convinced that the government in Afghanistan is a corrupt mess. Lastly, it's been ten years and our soldiers are dying.
But here's why I'm not so sure we should pull out:
First, it gives credence to the Islamic terrorist narrative that we can't stick it out. That they can just wait for us to leave places. Also, it supports their narrative that we are weak behind all our technology.
Some may say that narratives are simply stories with no real impact and that the Islamists will spin how they spin. But an important aspect of radical, militant Islam is its materialist basis. We are largely talking about engineers who see the world through the materialist lens, but are dissatisfied. They see Islamic countries as economically and politically weak. Their lives, like those of many materialists, are devoid of profound meaning. They, like a first semester freshman (with whom they share the same ignorance of history, theology, and philosophy), have become enamored of a theory that seemingly explains it all. If we provide material evidence that the narrative is correct, then it will only exacerbate the problem.
Second, there's a long-term impact to withdrawing when the narrative we were using is that this was the good war. The war we must win to be safe. Plus, as the story goes, we were bringing modernity and equality to the people, especially the girls, of Afghanistan. Do we want to be seen as turning our backs on little girls and leaving them to the wrath of the Taliban? Seems like a bad precedent to set.
To continue will certainly be expensive, slow and frustrating. It's going to take a lot of economic development, decades of sustained effort probably, to produce the circumstances where a tribal area with a long history of poppy cultivation, with its appeal of quick and dirty profit, can transition into a stable state run by honest and competent leaders. Is it worth it? I dunno, but I feel dirty turning our backs on little girls whom we've promised a shot at a better life. If we get into something, we really ought to finish it.
The lesson that Britain learned the hard way now has to be learned all over again. The trick for the United States in Afghanistan is to eradicate al-Qaeda and suppress the Taliban -- and do both in such a way that it does not go from self-proclaimed liberator to perceived oppressor.
...
Leave Afghanistan to the drones and the Special Forces. It's no way to win, but it's a good way not to lose.
I'm sympathetic to the pull back over the horizon and take out the bad guys from the sky strategy. Afghanistan itself, meaning the territory, is of little strategic value. I'm also becoming less convinced by the idea that preventing a safe haven requires boots on the ground. The intelligence and drones are seemingly too effective in the border area of Pakistan to support the conclusion that we need to be on the ground in Afghanstian to harrass and destroy the enemy. I'm also convinced that the government in Afghanistan is a corrupt mess. Lastly, it's been ten years and our soldiers are dying.
But here's why I'm not so sure we should pull out:
First, it gives credence to the Islamic terrorist narrative that we can't stick it out. That they can just wait for us to leave places. Also, it supports their narrative that we are weak behind all our technology.
Some may say that narratives are simply stories with no real impact and that the Islamists will spin how they spin. But an important aspect of radical, militant Islam is its materialist basis. We are largely talking about engineers who see the world through the materialist lens, but are dissatisfied. They see Islamic countries as economically and politically weak. Their lives, like those of many materialists, are devoid of profound meaning. They, like a first semester freshman (with whom they share the same ignorance of history, theology, and philosophy), have become enamored of a theory that seemingly explains it all. If we provide material evidence that the narrative is correct, then it will only exacerbate the problem.
Second, there's a long-term impact to withdrawing when the narrative we were using is that this was the good war. The war we must win to be safe. Plus, as the story goes, we were bringing modernity and equality to the people, especially the girls, of Afghanistan. Do we want to be seen as turning our backs on little girls and leaving them to the wrath of the Taliban? Seems like a bad precedent to set.
To continue will certainly be expensive, slow and frustrating. It's going to take a lot of economic development, decades of sustained effort probably, to produce the circumstances where a tribal area with a long history of poppy cultivation, with its appeal of quick and dirty profit, can transition into a stable state run by honest and competent leaders. Is it worth it? I dunno, but I feel dirty turning our backs on little girls whom we've promised a shot at a better life. If we get into something, we really ought to finish it.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Quotes of the day II
Actually, a few quotes, all from Ross Douthat's column on the Fall of the Berlin Wall:
Fucking Obama.
Fucking utopians.
Fucking Hitler. Fucking bin Laden.
Fucking Kim Jong-Il. Fucking pseudo-Marxists.
I was tempted to post the whole fucking thing. Pretty fucking good stuff.
There will be speeches and celebrations to mark this anniversary, but not as many as the day deserves. (Barack Obama couldn’t even fit a visit to Berlin into his schedule.)
Fucking Obama.
Never has so great a revolution been accomplished so swiftly and so peacefully, by ordinary men and women rather than utopians with guns.
Fucking utopians.
Osama bin Laden is no Hitler, and Islamism isn’t in the same league as the last century’s totalitarianisms. Marxism and fascism seduced the West’s elite; Islamic radicalism seduces men like the Fort Hood shooter.
Fucking Hitler. Fucking bin Laden.
On the right, pundits and politicians have cultivated a persistent cold-war-style alarmism about our foreign enemies — Vladimir Putin one week, Hugo Chavez the next, Kim Jong-il the week after that.
On the left, there’s an enduring fascination with the pseudo-Marxist vision of global capitalism as an enormous Ponzi scheme, destined to be undone by peak oil, climate change, or the next financial bubble.
Fucking Kim Jong-Il. Fucking pseudo-Marxists.
I was tempted to post the whole fucking thing. Pretty fucking good stuff.
Quote of the day
Tom Barnett:
The difference between the Netherlands and the Maldives? One has the money for dikes and all manner of sea-retaining technology, and the other does not. So what's the solution? Beggar the Netherlands or develop the Maldives? And if there's no compelling economic logic for the latter, just how far do we go to slow down globalization for these slices of humanity that will no longer be able to live in environmentally unsustainable landscapes? Do we really want to define our global future on the basis of what works to keep Bangladesh Bangladesh-like going forward?
Is Onan A Concern If Only Females Are Involved?
NewsObserver:
FLG did find this quote, from somebody at the Campus Catholic Center, funny:
H/T
At Duke University, a school that likes to tout its cutting-edge research, a sex toy study being conducted by a behavioral economist and student health workers has roused criticism.
For much of October, researchers recruited female Duke students to take part in a "sexually explicit" study on Tupperware-style parties in which sex toys, not kitchenware, are the draw.
FLG did find this quote, from somebody at the Campus Catholic Center, funny:
I don't think it's a good developmental practice to just tell somebody to just sit around and masturbate.
H/T
Sunday, November 8, 2009
View From FLG's Window
FLG was minding his own business watching the Giants-Chargers game when some bird of prey, hawk or falcon or some shit, flew up and landed right outside the window. By the time FLG returned from getting the camera it had flown to another tree that was farther away.
Quote of the day
Le Monde:
Translation:
Babies cry in their native language.
I think this is probably bullshit and even if it were true I'm not sure why it matters.
Les bébés crient dans leur langue maternelle
Translation:
Babies cry in their native language.
I think this is probably bullshit and even if it were true I'm not sure why it matters.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Good Versus Evil
A good person uses this if they forgot their password. A bad person uses it when they find somebody's computer sitting unattended and then hack into the computer.
Quote of the day
Miss Self-Important:
Somehow I doubt that Miss Self-Important ever thinks to herself, "Wow, I've never thought of it that way before, FLG. Yet, now that it's been brought to my attention it's both obvious and fascinating." But I feel that way quite often in the reverse.
This is an axe I will one day grind in article form, but I think the rise of a professional school librarian class in the postwar error has contributed a great deal to the popularity of socially-conscious "problem novels" in YA lit as well as the (manufactured) hysteria about "banned books." This seems to me to have been part of a larger war over childrearing authority between enlightened, progressive educational professionals and benighted, regressive parents in the past 40 years. Trends in children's literature track this war very closely.
Somehow I doubt that Miss Self-Important ever thinks to herself, "Wow, I've never thought of it that way before, FLG. Yet, now that it's been brought to my attention it's both obvious and fascinating." But I feel that way quite often in the reverse.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tunica Molesta
FLG was just watching the Ancient Discoveries on the History Channel. He's never seen it before, but this episode focused on torture.
As part of this "investigation" they decide to build a tunica molesta. They try different stuff before creating a paste with wax in it. Then they put it on a guy wrapped in protective gear and light him on fire. At the end of this, the announcer says something like "the accounts of this are apparently true. Romans could make a tunic that would burst into flames and sustain for more than a minute."
Ya don't say?
This is a civilization that built roads, aqueducts, and the Coliseum. They discovered concrete and conquered vast swaths of territory. I think they could handle a tinsy feat like lighting people on fire. Speaking of which, perhaps that whole Prometheus and Pandora myth slipped you guys by. Mastery of fire ain't exactly the most advanced technology.
I know. It was just an excuse to light a guy on fire to appeal to that base pyromaniac element that exists in most men for ratings, but it still pissed me off.
As part of this "investigation" they decide to build a tunica molesta. They try different stuff before creating a paste with wax in it. Then they put it on a guy wrapped in protective gear and light him on fire. At the end of this, the announcer says something like "the accounts of this are apparently true. Romans could make a tunic that would burst into flames and sustain for more than a minute."
Ya don't say?
This is a civilization that built roads, aqueducts, and the Coliseum. They discovered concrete and conquered vast swaths of territory. I think they could handle a tinsy feat like lighting people on fire. Speaking of which, perhaps that whole Prometheus and Pandora myth slipped you guys by. Mastery of fire ain't exactly the most advanced technology.
I know. It was just an excuse to light a guy on fire to appeal to that base pyromaniac element that exists in most men for ratings, but it still pissed me off.
Horse Buggery
Yahoo! News:
His explanation is priceless:
He didn't mean to do it? He accidentally stuck his erect penis into the horse...twice?
Also interesting is that he is sorry for what he did to himself. Now, you may say that this is simply selfish and he's simply embarrassed, but seems to me that he must realize that he demeaned himself.
So, just to recap. A horse fucker is smarter than Freddie because he at least realizes that bestiality is demeaning to the man. There really ought to be a League of less than Ordinary Gentlemen where Freddie could spew his illogical and incoherent bullshit. Perhaps the horse fucker could blog from prison with him.
You're probably saying to yourself, "FLG, what's the deal with this Freddie thing?" Well, he's a sarcastic prick, which always grates me. But then he's also incredibly dumb. I mean, I could deal with a intelligent and interesting sarcastic prick, but a mush-headed dolt who is also a sarcastic prick is too much to stomach.
What shocks me is that other bloggers engage with his bullshit. If the blogosphere were arranged like a high school, then he'd be the kid sitting by the window who wears sweatpants everyday, eats what he finds in his nose, and smells of faintly of poo. (In case you are wondering, FLG would be the guy in the back shooting spitballs who everybody thinks is childish and immature, if they notice him at all, which most, thankfully, don't.)
Now you're probably saying to yourself, "FLG, didn't you say that you were going to stop posting about Freddie?" Yes, but the horse fucker reminded me too much of him. Not that he literally fucks horses, but that his use of logic and reason is the intellectual equivalent. It's demeaning to both himself and the object of his attention.
This really will be the last post on the topic.
A South Carolina man caught on video having sex with a horse was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison after pleading guilty for the second time in two years to abusing the creature.
His explanation is priceless:
"I'm sorry about what I've done. I didn't mean to do it. It's my fault. I'm sorry for what I've done to myself," Vereen said during Wednesday's court hearing.
He didn't mean to do it? He accidentally stuck his erect penis into the horse...twice?
Also interesting is that he is sorry for what he did to himself. Now, you may say that this is simply selfish and he's simply embarrassed, but seems to me that he must realize that he demeaned himself.
So, just to recap. A horse fucker is smarter than Freddie because he at least realizes that bestiality is demeaning to the man. There really ought to be a League of less than Ordinary Gentlemen where Freddie could spew his illogical and incoherent bullshit. Perhaps the horse fucker could blog from prison with him.
You're probably saying to yourself, "FLG, what's the deal with this Freddie thing?" Well, he's a sarcastic prick, which always grates me. But then he's also incredibly dumb. I mean, I could deal with a intelligent and interesting sarcastic prick, but a mush-headed dolt who is also a sarcastic prick is too much to stomach.
What shocks me is that other bloggers engage with his bullshit. If the blogosphere were arranged like a high school, then he'd be the kid sitting by the window who wears sweatpants everyday, eats what he finds in his nose, and smells of faintly of poo. (In case you are wondering, FLG would be the guy in the back shooting spitballs who everybody thinks is childish and immature, if they notice him at all, which most, thankfully, don't.)
Now you're probably saying to yourself, "FLG, didn't you say that you were going to stop posting about Freddie?" Yes, but the horse fucker reminded me too much of him. Not that he literally fucks horses, but that his use of logic and reason is the intellectual equivalent. It's demeaning to both himself and the object of his attention.
This really will be the last post on the topic.
Robert Browning (1812 - 1889)
The years at the spring;
The day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
God's in his heaven...
All's right with the world!
The day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
God's in his heaven...
All's right with the world!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
A Reminder
Plant trees that are indigenous to your community.
Seriously though. Does this stuff really work? Sure, PETA gets press from naked hot chicks, but does anybody even remember anything besides the hot chick? I'm linking right now, but nobody is going to plant an indigenous tree. They're just thinking that's a bunch of asses in bikinis.
Don't get me wrong, I think hot chicks are the secret to world peace, but global warming and environmental issues? Not so much.
Seriously though. Does this stuff really work? Sure, PETA gets press from naked hot chicks, but does anybody even remember anything besides the hot chick? I'm linking right now, but nobody is going to plant an indigenous tree. They're just thinking that's a bunch of asses in bikinis.
Don't get me wrong, I think hot chicks are the secret to world peace, but global warming and environmental issues? Not so much.
Election Results Analysis
FLG finds the rush to form the narrative around how to interpret the election results yesterday hilarious. Conservatives are trying to draw a direct line from the NJ and VA races to Obama. The Left is focusing on the NY race and throwing out any possible logic for why the results don't mean anything that should hold back the progressive agenda until something sticks.
The Left does have a point about being an incumbent in times of economic trouble and there being particular candidates in each contest. But they're overstating these. Furthermore, focusing on the win in NY-23 is stupid for two reasons. First, it has almost no impact on national policy and is far less important than losing two governorships. Second, if you take the vote for the Republican and Conservative in that race and add them, then the Democrat loses. I realize this is a hypothetical and that there is an internecine debate on the Right. But I'd be a bit concerned if I were the Democrats that the Republicans will heal those wounds. More people voted for somebody other than the Democrat.
I always think these things are to be expected. So, I wouldn't read too much into this as a conservative either. It's a see-saw where each party gets elected, and the almost inevitably misreads its mandate. This alienates the moderate voters, who then elects a majority from the other party. It's pretty natural.
Interesting story about this theory, and I'm obviously not the only one who has thought of it by any means, is that I was in a congressional politics class and brought it up to the professor. The discussion went something like this:
Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand -- yesterday's elections -- Democrats ought to be a bit chastened and consider this a warning for 2010. Republicans need to realize that these weren't pro-hard line conservative votes either and that they'd better get their own house in order before then too.
The Left does have a point about being an incumbent in times of economic trouble and there being particular candidates in each contest. But they're overstating these. Furthermore, focusing on the win in NY-23 is stupid for two reasons. First, it has almost no impact on national policy and is far less important than losing two governorships. Second, if you take the vote for the Republican and Conservative in that race and add them, then the Democrat loses. I realize this is a hypothetical and that there is an internecine debate on the Right. But I'd be a bit concerned if I were the Democrats that the Republicans will heal those wounds. More people voted for somebody other than the Democrat.
I always think these things are to be expected. So, I wouldn't read too much into this as a conservative either. It's a see-saw where each party gets elected, and the almost inevitably misreads its mandate. This alienates the moderate voters, who then elects a majority from the other party. It's pretty natural.
Interesting story about this theory, and I'm obviously not the only one who has thought of it by any means, is that I was in a congressional politics class and brought it up to the professor. The discussion went something like this:
Prof: Didn't happen in 2002. So, your theory isn't very useful.
Me: Are you serious?
Prof: Of course I'm serious, what good is a theory if it can't predict results?
Me: You really expect a theory of politics as simple as "Americans prefer divided government" to explain the results of every election without fail as if there are no other factors at work?
Prof: Yes, otherwise it's not worthwhile.
Me: Can't it be more like there's a normal range with some standard deviation that the results fall into? Other mitigating factors, like wars or depressions or what have you enter into the picture, but generally speaking Americans strongly prefer divided government.
Prof: A theory without explanatory or predictive power isn't very useful.
Me: Are you seriously saying that a theory without perfect explanatory power is useless?
Prof: We do endeavor to be political scientists.
Me: There's a Cervantes novel you ought to read.
Prof: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
Me: Nothing, just contemplating your statement.
Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand -- yesterday's elections -- Democrats ought to be a bit chastened and consider this a warning for 2010. Republicans need to realize that these weren't pro-hard line conservative votes either and that they'd better get their own house in order before then too.
Fact, Theory, and Time
I've been harping on the different values liberals and conservatives place on time. As I mentioned before, Keynes famous line "In the long run, we're all dead." Pretty much sums it up on the economic front. But this stuff also ties into empiricism and I've been trying to wrap my head around it. Sorry if I'm repeating myself.
First, let's look at foreign policy. I once said that liberal realists are really pacifists in disguise. My theory is that liberal realists worry about causing death now. Conservative realists worry about ability to fight future wars. Two different time values, often same conclusion.
But we can look at two current conflicts and see some of this. As I've said before, you can take the view many liberals have that if Iran gets the bomb, then Iran gets the bomb. Some on the left believe this based upon the logic of "who are we to say who gets the bomb?" I'm less interested in this argument. Many serious liberal thinkers based their conclusion on the idea that we can contain Iran.
Conservatives respond with a variety of rebuttals, including Iran isn't a rational actor. My concern is that Iran going nuclear will demolish, oddly because I'm so cyncial about international law and norms, the nonproliferation regime and that it will domino into a nuclear broader middle east.
The liberal idea is basically this: If we attack Iran we will without a doubt cause death and destruction. This death and destruction is higher and more certain than the death and destruction following directly from an Iranian bomb.
The conservative idea is this: Some death and destruction now is better than possible larger amounts later from either the Iranian bomb directly or other conflicts or consequences of proliferation in the Middle East or generally.
To look at this empirically:
The lead up to the Iraq War was largely based on the theory that Saddam had weapons and that there's no reason to believe he got rid of them. Empirically, and in hindsight, there was no reason to believe that he still had them. In this case, conservatives, and even people on the left, based their position on the war on the reasonable assumption that Saddam had no reason to get rid of his weapons and every reason to hide and keep them, so he must have them. This was wrong.
Chastened by this error, the intelligence community began focusing on provable, demonstrable facts. This lead to the 2007 NIE, which Alan likes to reference, saying that they believe Iran stopped development of its nuclear warhead program. While it sounds stupid, but provable facts aside, there is little, but not exactly zero, reason to believe Iran wants a peaceful nuclear program. Nobody really believes it, not because of provable facts but simply because of common sense based upon their actions.
What's odd, at least to me, is that both approaches have turned out to be wrong. I think intelligence is one of those messy businesses where you gather as many facts as you can, but you'll never have them all and sometimes you just have to use common sense and your gut. Sometimes the facts will back you up, sometimes they'll disprove you, but it's difficult to know.
Moving onto Afghanistan:
People who want to pull out fall into two stripes: Liberals who abhor death and destruction occurring now and want it to stop because we don't see any benefits currently. And conservatives who fear that Afghanistan is a wasteful use of our limited resources, which we need to harbor for future and potentially more important conflicts.
I realize that there are exceptions, but I do think this is generally this case.
Likewise on domestic policy:
With respect to the deficit, not only conservatives but many moderates are concerned about the ballooning deficit. Krugman and Yglesias are saying there is no evidence that the deficit is concerning the market. This demonstrates that short-term, empirical bias that I'm talking about. There is no evidence right now that the markets are spooked by the deficit. However, there are reasons to believe that the market won't react gradually, but all at once. To put it simply -- if the market reaction is a train, we might hear it until it is already on top of us. So, it might be wise to pick our heads up and look out, but Krugman and Yglesias are saying I don't hear anything, no reason to look up.
Similarly on health care:
Many on the left we're apoplectic and confused by concerns over death panels by the right. No such thing is in any version of the bill, they said. Conservatives are creating monster to scare themselves.
And this, I think, is one of the fundamental conceits of the left. The rational, intelligent, nuanced understanding of issues versus superstition and irrational reactions by the right. The left makes rational decisions based upon facts. The right looks to stories in old books. And they are partially correct, but they also have a huge blindspot. As I wrote before, they have their heads down and don't realize they aren't looking up.
Whether death panels were in any of the bills is almost irrelevant to conservatives. The issue is that when you start talking about lowering costs and government involvement, then there is a huge incentive to create something akin to death panels. Likewise, just because we don't see quantitative, incontrovertible evidence that the market is spooked by deficits at this moment doesn't mean we shouldn't worry because when it does get spooked it may be too late. Last time the market got spooked by debt, something called subprime, you might remember it, everything went to shit in a big hurry.
I think this myopia is a natural limitation of the human mind. We all create shortcuts to process the world around us. Conservatives look at big picture, long-term type things. They focus less on the details and facts of the present situation, and draw more lessons from history. Liberals are the opposite. This isn't to say that there aren't big picture liberals who are focused on history or detail-oriented conservatives, but that the biases are evident.
To provide an example -- Social Security.
Social security is one of those things that liberal say it's worked for decades and helped millions of people. Conservatives look at the same thing and say it's a pay-as-you-go system based on assumptions about demographics that aren't sustainable in perpetuity. They're both correct.
First, let's look at foreign policy. I once said that liberal realists are really pacifists in disguise. My theory is that liberal realists worry about causing death now. Conservative realists worry about ability to fight future wars. Two different time values, often same conclusion.
But we can look at two current conflicts and see some of this. As I've said before, you can take the view many liberals have that if Iran gets the bomb, then Iran gets the bomb. Some on the left believe this based upon the logic of "who are we to say who gets the bomb?" I'm less interested in this argument. Many serious liberal thinkers based their conclusion on the idea that we can contain Iran.
Conservatives respond with a variety of rebuttals, including Iran isn't a rational actor. My concern is that Iran going nuclear will demolish, oddly because I'm so cyncial about international law and norms, the nonproliferation regime and that it will domino into a nuclear broader middle east.
The liberal idea is basically this: If we attack Iran we will without a doubt cause death and destruction. This death and destruction is higher and more certain than the death and destruction following directly from an Iranian bomb.
The conservative idea is this: Some death and destruction now is better than possible larger amounts later from either the Iranian bomb directly or other conflicts or consequences of proliferation in the Middle East or generally.
To look at this empirically:
The lead up to the Iraq War was largely based on the theory that Saddam had weapons and that there's no reason to believe he got rid of them. Empirically, and in hindsight, there was no reason to believe that he still had them. In this case, conservatives, and even people on the left, based their position on the war on the reasonable assumption that Saddam had no reason to get rid of his weapons and every reason to hide and keep them, so he must have them. This was wrong.
Chastened by this error, the intelligence community began focusing on provable, demonstrable facts. This lead to the 2007 NIE, which Alan likes to reference, saying that they believe Iran stopped development of its nuclear warhead program. While it sounds stupid, but provable facts aside, there is little, but not exactly zero, reason to believe Iran wants a peaceful nuclear program. Nobody really believes it, not because of provable facts but simply because of common sense based upon their actions.
What's odd, at least to me, is that both approaches have turned out to be wrong. I think intelligence is one of those messy businesses where you gather as many facts as you can, but you'll never have them all and sometimes you just have to use common sense and your gut. Sometimes the facts will back you up, sometimes they'll disprove you, but it's difficult to know.
Moving onto Afghanistan:
People who want to pull out fall into two stripes: Liberals who abhor death and destruction occurring now and want it to stop because we don't see any benefits currently. And conservatives who fear that Afghanistan is a wasteful use of our limited resources, which we need to harbor for future and potentially more important conflicts.
I realize that there are exceptions, but I do think this is generally this case.
Likewise on domestic policy:
With respect to the deficit, not only conservatives but many moderates are concerned about the ballooning deficit. Krugman and Yglesias are saying there is no evidence that the deficit is concerning the market. This demonstrates that short-term, empirical bias that I'm talking about. There is no evidence right now that the markets are spooked by the deficit. However, there are reasons to believe that the market won't react gradually, but all at once. To put it simply -- if the market reaction is a train, we might hear it until it is already on top of us. So, it might be wise to pick our heads up and look out, but Krugman and Yglesias are saying I don't hear anything, no reason to look up.
Similarly on health care:
Many on the left we're apoplectic and confused by concerns over death panels by the right. No such thing is in any version of the bill, they said. Conservatives are creating monster to scare themselves.
And this, I think, is one of the fundamental conceits of the left. The rational, intelligent, nuanced understanding of issues versus superstition and irrational reactions by the right. The left makes rational decisions based upon facts. The right looks to stories in old books. And they are partially correct, but they also have a huge blindspot. As I wrote before, they have their heads down and don't realize they aren't looking up.
Whether death panels were in any of the bills is almost irrelevant to conservatives. The issue is that when you start talking about lowering costs and government involvement, then there is a huge incentive to create something akin to death panels. Likewise, just because we don't see quantitative, incontrovertible evidence that the market is spooked by deficits at this moment doesn't mean we shouldn't worry because when it does get spooked it may be too late. Last time the market got spooked by debt, something called subprime, you might remember it, everything went to shit in a big hurry.
I think this myopia is a natural limitation of the human mind. We all create shortcuts to process the world around us. Conservatives look at big picture, long-term type things. They focus less on the details and facts of the present situation, and draw more lessons from history. Liberals are the opposite. This isn't to say that there aren't big picture liberals who are focused on history or detail-oriented conservatives, but that the biases are evident.
To provide an example -- Social Security.
Social security is one of those things that liberal say it's worked for decades and helped millions of people. Conservatives look at the same thing and say it's a pay-as-you-go system based on assumptions about demographics that aren't sustainable in perpetuity. They're both correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
