tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60447552011-04-21T11:06:27.938-07:00A Good Samaritan WorldFor open borders, freedom from tyranny, solidarity with the world's less fortunate, and a humble but incorruptible devotion to truth.Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.comBlogger2381100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1098392800028898212004-10-21T13:36:00.000-07:002004-10-21T14:06:40.026-07:00THANKS POLIPUNDIT
I just got an assist from PoliPundit. Many thanks.
To match my new website, I'm switching to a different blogsite from now on.Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1098384943561484422004-10-21T11:43:00.000-07:002004-10-21T11:55:43.560-07:00NEGATIVE
I think we've had too much negativism in US politics in recent years. First there were the Clinton-haters in the 1990s. Now the Bush-haters are as bad or worse. It would be nice, if Kerry wins, to be noble and try to be more positive.
But I'm afraid that wouldn't be impossible. To talk about Kerry is to say something negative. Kerry just doesn't have any positive traits to talk Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1098316262343241702004-10-20T15:19:00.000-07:002004-10-20T16:51:02.343-07:00BUSH'S SECOND TERM
FOREIGN POLICY. This projection is based on a variable and a trend. The variable is strength. The trend is easing towards normalcy.
Strength involves not only action but the credible threat of action. A credible threat of action amplifies your actual resources, because you can get people to do what you want without actual using (expending) those resources. Those who Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1098228549579498372004-10-19T16:07:00.000-07:002004-10-19T16:29:09.580-07:00INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING
I've been watching a lot of polls lately, mostly on RealClearPolitics. It occurs to me: these would be so much more interesting if we had instant-runoff voting!
To explain: in instant-runoff voting, you get three choices for president, or senator, or whatever. This year, for example, the presidential candidates are
Republican Party George W. Bush
Democratic PartyNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1098227128476198072004-10-19T15:50:00.000-07:002004-10-19T16:05:28.476-07:00PAT BUCHANAN, ALLY OF CONVENIENCE
So Pat Buchanan is endorsing Bush despite his great misgivings.
If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1098226184207729682004-10-19T15:44:00.000-07:002004-10-19T15:49:44.206-07:00IN DEFENSE OF THE HANDLING OF THE IRAQ TRANSITION
Some people, like Pat Buchanan, think the war in Iraq was always bound to lead to an unwinnable quagmire. Buchanan writes:
In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1098147114972447652004-10-18T17:41:00.000-07:002004-10-18T17:51:54.973-07:00BUSH AND KERRY IN ROBERT KAPLAN'S WORLD
I haven't blogged for the past couple days because I've been working on an ambitious new column for my website. It contrasts Bush and Kerry's foreign policy in terms of the legend of Siddhartha. Let's call it the Buddhist case for George W. Bush. :)
In other news, Putin endorses Bush; or at any rate, he thinks it's "obvious" that terrorists in Iraq are Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097974730310221652004-10-16T17:41:00.000-07:002004-10-16T17:58:50.310-07:00REVERSE GENDER GAP
Kausfiles notes an interesting detail of some recent polls:
Newsweek plays down its likely-voter results** (showing a 6-pt Bush lead) and finds:
Bush has a clear advantage with women, who prefer him 49 percent to 43 percent. Kerry has a slight edge with men, 50 percent to 46 percent.
Which country did they poll again? ... If this Newsweek poll is accurate, something more Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097973689039796992004-10-16T17:25:00.000-07:002004-10-16T17:41:29.040-07:00IMMIGRATION CAUSES POVERTY
Robert Samuelson makes the case, statistically, that immigration is the main cause of the increase in poverty in the past few years. This is 1) good because the analysis is surely right and dispels Kerry's bogus middle-class declinism, but 2) bad because it seems that, as with Lou Dobbs' protectionism on CNN, an iniquitous position is being injected into the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097873952026297882004-10-15T13:54:00.000-07:002004-10-15T13:59:12.026-07:00KINDS OF LIBERTY
Tom is perfectly right that
There are two kinds of liberty: physical, and psychological. A person is physically liberated if she is unrestricted in her abilities to act. She is psychologically liberated if she has the capacity to change her opinions and desires. It is possible for someone to forcibly liberate someone in the physical sense. It is not possible to forcibly Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097873659986180302004-10-15T13:43:00.000-07:002004-10-15T13:54:19.986-07:00Tom has written a clever and interesting polemic about the war in Iraq. But it depends on the (obscene) idea that Iraqis somehow consented to Saddam's rule.
A woman may be in an abusive and oppressive marriage with a man who inhibits her freedoms to a significant degree, but she may also be in love with him, in spite of how he treats her, being psychologically bound to him.
This description Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097771295034802512004-10-14T09:22:00.000-07:002004-10-15T14:37:12.010-07:00IMMIGRATION: WHO'S MORE LIBERAL?
One of the most important questions about the debate, for all those people out there who believe that freedom of migration is a human right, that we should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of place of birth, that our iniquitous policies create a system of world apartheid that mocks our Declaration of Independence's claim that "all men are created Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097770418120332332004-10-14T09:05:00.000-07:002004-10-14T09:13:38.120-07:00NEW STUFF ON MY WEBSITE
I don't know whether this critique of my zig-zagging erstwhile hero, Andrew Sullivan, is any good or not. I wrote it in a few hours out in the courtyard on Tuesday night. I'll come back to it in a few days and make a judgment. But "Bringing Neoconservatism Home," from last May, is a gem. Please please please read it! :) In part it's a Bush campaign manifesto, but Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097725532428731542004-10-13T20:33:00.000-07:002004-10-13T20:45:32.430-07:00FIRST REACTION TO THE THIRD DEBATE
Bush is a good man. Kerry is a bad man. So Kerry plays hardball. Bush won't. Kerry wins. I am so depressed.
Kerry is constantly telling the public about Bush's bad ideas and incompetence. He says it with a smooth, calm, confident tone. Bush doesn't really hammer Kerry when he could. He's a nice guy. Bush seems like a Little League coach with all his Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097708824043340402004-10-13T14:40:00.000-07:002004-10-13T16:07:04.043-07:00FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Tech Central describes how we can create a democratic Iraq in the peaceful parts (most of the country) while isolating the no-go zones as "unorganized territories," abrogating the right to freedom of motion within the country for the time being. It's up to Allawi, of course: this is Iraqis' country and they should decide, though we have a say in whether a given strategy merits Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097458224037140912004-10-10T18:08:00.000-07:002004-10-10T18:30:24.036-07:00KERRY BLOWS IT ON ABORTION
I went to school at Notre Dame. I've sung a dedication to victims of a monument to the victims of the "abortion holocaust." My dad is (I think) a single-issue abortion voter. I knew a lot of people who went to anti-abortion protests in the Clinton era. I tried to avoid the topic. I'm a lazy pro-lifer. I can't figure the issue out. How can we know whether the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097456835515733422004-10-10T17:17:00.000-07:002004-10-10T18:07:15.516-07:00WHAT THE LEFT NO LONGER SAYS
I thought it might be worth linking to this essay from September 24, 2001 by Susan Sontag. It is remarkable in that it defies the political correctness of the 9/11 aftermath. She wrote:
The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097353339668577752004-10-09T13:59:00.000-07:002004-10-09T13:22:19.666-07:00MANY NEW POSTS ON MY WEBSITE
Well, "new" in that I just put them there, though most of them are actually between a few months and a few years old. Still, I'll advertise them a bit.
Some of them are posted in a fairly decent-looking blue-and-white format. Others are old web pages that I made in February with a hideous color scheme. Check out one just to see how hideous it is, then jump back.Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097299621830991082004-10-08T21:43:00.000-07:002004-10-08T22:27:01.830-07:00BUSH WINS DEBATE #2
My immediate reaction to the debate was that both of them did a good job and the debate was probably a draw. A good debate. Good questions. You got an idea of the differing political philosophies. Despite Andrew Sullivan's whining that small-government conservatism is dead, I think Bush talked about low taxes making the economy grow enough to reverberate. Of course, he Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097182561920974962004-10-07T13:55:00.000-07:002004-10-07T13:56:01.920-07:00ON FREEDOM
This paragraph from Tom's blog deserves a rebuttal.
Liberating the oppressed. Wow, that sure sounds like a great and noble idea. If you see injustice in the world, you fix it (or at least attempt to).
No, not always. We can't fix everything. You pick your battles.
It's such a simple and good concept, why is there any opposition to it at all? There isn't. Even Hitler saw Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097178917522407382004-10-07T13:42:00.000-07:002004-10-07T12:55:17.523-07:00Excellent article here on the liberal case for Bush. And this one on how false is Kerry's charges of a bad economy. (It's grown 5 percent over the past 12 months, the fastest growth in 20 years, faster than at any time in the Clinton administration.)
Here is the analogy of the 2004 to the 1864 election: Bush and Lincoln. I've heard tons of historical analogies about this election year. It's Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097101331216027382004-10-06T14:22:00.000-07:002004-10-06T15:38:24.123-07:00DEBATE ROUND-UP
My summary of the first two debates.
Thursday night: A man-behind-the-curtain moment. This guy is our strong leader, running the war on terror?
Last night: Ah, NOW we get it. Bush is the curtain. The man behind the curtain is Cheney. Much better.
Most pundits on the right seem to be taking it as a big Cheney win. PoliPundit comes down hardest on this side. Dick Morris Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097079472611615272004-10-06T08:51:00.000-07:002004-10-06T09:17:52.610-07:00WILL THE VEEP DEBATE MATTER THIS TIME?
Most commentators see a Cheney win. I think they're understating it. In the first debate, I thought Bush did okay, but people's memories and the spin war have a way of re-filtering afterwards and Bush's narrow loss turned into a blow-out. With Cheney-Edwards, I think the spin war will rumble the other direction. Key moments:
1. Cheney catches Edwards Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097017146740033762004-10-05T15:56:00.000-07:002004-10-05T15:59:06.740-07:00GLOBAL TEST (P.S.)
It’s not a crazy point of view, by the way. In Europe, large majorities would nod with approval at the idea of a “global test” for military action. In Israel, to have to submit to a “global test” would be understood as a national death sentence. We’re somewhere in between. It’s an appealing notion in a way—it rings of the brotherhood of man. Let Kerry say it. Let the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097016891522969102004-10-05T15:46:00.000-07:002004-10-05T15:54:51.523-07:00YES, THE “GLOBAL TEST” DOES CHARACTERIZE KERRY’S FOREIGN POLICY
It’s true that one may explain away Kerry’s “global test” remark by referring to the “context,” i.e. to other things he said in the debate. Bush is perceived as a strong president, so Kerry frequently imitates him. Thus, if you look at the context of the global test remark, there are plenty of Bush-isms to offset the bow to Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097016348469998902004-10-05T15:45:00.000-07:002004-10-05T15:45:48.470-07:00KERRY VINDICATES ZELL
Zell Miller’s fiery speech to the Republican National Convention was criticized by the likes of Andrew Sullivan as misleading and dishonest. Zell claimed that Kerry would let “Paris decide when America needs defending” and that, if Kerry had had his way, our military would be “Armed with what? Spitballs?” Critics claimed that Zell was misleading people, or even “lying,” Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1097016268719313762004-10-05T15:37:00.000-07:002004-10-05T15:44:28.720-07:00LIBERTARIANISM, LIBERATION, SOVEREIGNTY AND BORDERS
Libertarians believe in “peace,” but not in sacred non-violence like Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi’s pacifism, which bears a close kinship to the attitude towards violence that seems to pervade the New Testament, seems to be a form of anarchism since it eschews violence in a principled and absolute way without, seemingly, providing any loopholes or Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096813374954504732004-10-03T06:53:00.000-07:002004-10-03T07:22:54.953-07:00HOME OF THE BRAVE NO LONGER
The latest Newsweek poll shows Bush sinking. Presumably it's because Kerry conveyed the impression that, since we're losing in Iraq anyway, we may as well vote for the guy who specializes in losing wars. Meanwhile, I'm not sure whether this post from Iraq the Model can be characterized as hopeful, but it does help to clarify that this really is barbarism vs. Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096761588271413702004-10-02T16:46:00.000-07:002004-10-02T16:59:48.270-07:00CHECK OUT MY WEBSITE
I just started a new website at Geocities. But since (1) being incognito might be of use at some point in the future, and (2) nathan-smith.com was taken, I decided to realize my life-long dream of writing under the pseudonym of "Lancelot Finn." So my website is www.lancelotfinn.com. :) The look, title, etc., may change, and suggestions are welcome.
I was just kidding Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096745510054412272004-10-02T13:23:00.000-07:002004-10-02T16:46:07.700-07:00Slate agrees that Kerry ducked the "die for a mistake" question:
It doesn't add up. Kerry said tonight that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror. He said the WMD intelligence was wrong. He added, "Two-thirds of [Iraq] was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening." The Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096730787866271952004-10-02T07:50:00.000-07:002004-10-02T13:03:53.616-07:00THE LAST MAN TO DIE FOR A MISTAKE
When Kerry said "no" to Jim Lehrer's question about whether soldiers in Iraq are "dying for a mistake," his answer was so transparently contradictory to everything else he said in the debate that, while certainly false, I don't think it even qualifies as deceit. A "yes" would grab headlines and be endlessly quoted and replayed to Kerry's disadvantage. "Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096728529947987022004-10-02T07:05:00.000-07:002004-10-02T07:48:49.946-07:00IN DEFENSE OF FLIP-FLOPPING
Urgent Memo to Republican Spin Machine
The "flip-flopper" charge is backfiring, and not just because John Kerry looked "presidential" the other night. The charge is misconceived. Clinton was a flip-flopper. After the Republicans stormed into Congress in 2004, he swung drastically to the right, getting advice from conservative consultant Dick Morris (who explain Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096700600083223662004-10-01T23:50:00.000-07:002004-10-02T00:03:20.083-07:00DROP FLIP-FLOPPER. SAY LIBERAL.
This post-debate spin is driving me crazy. Why can't the Republicans regain their footing? It shouldn't be that hard.
Quit talking about flip-flopping. Two reasons. 1) Everybody's heard it. It's had its impact, it's old. And Kerry seems persuasive and firm last night, so it's less convincing now. But more importantly, 2) the flip-flopping implies that Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096655535231477732004-10-01T11:15:00.000-07:002004-10-01T11:32:15.230-07:00CONSTITUENCIES
There are two kinds of people: people who win debates, and people who lose debates.
People who lose debates go to state colleges or don't go. Maybe they major in business and make good money, maybe they hang out and work as truckdrivers or 7-11 clerks. They live mostly in the heartland. They go to church and believe in God. They love their country because someone told them toNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096647414246356252004-10-01T08:55:00.000-07:002004-10-01T09:16:54.246-07:00FACT CHECKING
Paul Krugman wanted the press to do nothing but pick apart errors (which, by definition, are made only Republicans). The Washington Post does a decent job in this round-up (except for the part about Republicans, they fault Kerry a little, too). But they leave out the biggest, fattest, juiciest Kerry whopper of all: Kerry's claim that he can get allies to join us in Iraq. This FTNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096639799342225052004-10-01T07:05:00.000-07:002004-10-01T07:09:59.343-07:00A DIFFERENT TAKE
Hugh Hewitt's claim that Bush won, though predictable, is more persuasive than you'd think. Read it to counter-balance the general verdict. (My posts on debate further down. Keep scrolling.)Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096639218703756652004-10-01T06:41:00.000-07:002004-10-01T07:00:18.703-07:00THE DOUBLE STANDARDS OF ANTI-PROLIFERATION
There's a moral problem with the traditional practice of preventing nuclear proliferation, which Kerry sees as the chief task of national security. It doesn't sit well with Kant's notion that to believe in a moral law, we must consistently will that it be binding on all mankind. Anti-proliferation is one rule for us, another one for them.
To Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096638027400854592004-10-01T06:37:00.000-07:002004-10-01T06:40:27.400-07:00POLLING
A controversy about polling techniques has become hot political news. Gallup has been coming up with numbers that report a much larger Bush lead than other polls do, and has thereby so frustrated the left that MoveOn ran an ad against them in the New York Times.
The issue in question is whether to control for the party affiliation of respondents or not. When Gallup and others have Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096636698913071862004-10-01T06:02:00.000-07:002004-10-01T06:18:18.913-07:00BUSH GIVES US THE WRONG REASONS
I won't vote for Bush for the reasons he gave. Bush insists, over and over again, that he's consistent. But Bush has actually zig-zagged considerably. He has changed, and learned. Above all, Bush is a convert to the transformative power of liberty. That's what inspires me about him.
I won't vote against Kerry for the reasons Bush gave. Kerry shook the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096635773249604792004-10-01T05:42:00.000-07:002004-10-01T06:02:53.250-07:00"FANTASY WORLD OF SPIN"
For what it's worth, if anybody's living in a fantasy world of spin, it's John Kerry. Only that's not quite the right word. He's fallen asleep in a politically correct and somewhat out-of-date textbook.
Allies on Iraq is Exhibit #1. France and Germany have made it clear that they will not commit more troops to Iraq. Other nations have contributed, admittedly not muchNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096634422862908932004-10-01T05:18:00.000-07:002004-10-01T05:40:22.863-07:00SMASH THE REDS!
A post I was writing about North Korea has new relevance after the debates.
It seems that Nato was thinking of “hitting” North Korea, or at any rate, of being able to. He points out that:
Nathanael has very concisely made my point for me. Right now with the imbroglio in Iraq, it is very hard for us to present a credible threat to North Korea - our ground forces are publicly Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096633087145092922004-10-01T04:53:00.000-07:002004-10-01T05:18:07.146-07:00KERRY WINS THE DEBATE
It's painful for a Bush supporter to admit it, but in the debate-as-debate, Kerry overwhelmed Bush. There was one moment when Bush played right into Kerry's hands. On the issue of certainty. Bush was insisting, yet again, that you have to be consistent, without adding anything new. Kerry replied that certainty when you're wrong can get you into trouble. Yeah. No, Mr. Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096549673082219462004-09-30T05:35:00.000-07:002004-09-30T06:07:53.083-07:00My colleague Patrick Basham argues that the "upcoming Iraqi election foretells stillborn democracy." Basham claims that
the interim government has proven unpopular and illegitimate in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis. Members of the interim government are viewed, as were their predecessors in the failed Governing Council, as puppets of the Bush administration.
I'm not sure where Basham gets his Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096497014908834052004-09-29T15:25:00.000-07:002004-09-29T15:30:14.906-07:00EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS
Ukraine's election on Oct. 31 is a critical moment in post-Soviet history, argues Anders Aslund.
The good news is that incumbent President Leonid Kuchma is not even attempting to run for reelection. After suspicions of his involvement in the murder of a journalist in 2000, his popularity rating plummeted and has now stabilized at 7 percent. The bad news is that the big Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096496738723553902004-09-29T13:42:00.000-07:002004-09-29T15:25:38.723-07:00WILL THE DEMOCRATS LEARN THEIR LESSON?
It looks like the Democrats are headed for their biggest defeat in thirty years. Think about it. In 1980, 1984 and 1988, they lost the White House but held Congress. They lost Congress in 1994 but held the White House for another six years. In 2000, they lost the White House and Congress but won the popular vote in the presidential election. And they Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096412594784030432004-09-28T15:42:00.000-07:002004-09-28T16:03:14.786-07:00THE ILLIBERAL CANDIDATE
In arguing against the war in Iraq, one may say 1) that it shouldn't have been fought at all, 2) that it was fought "incompetently."
Kerry wants to do both. In this speech, he declares:
Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan… the President rushed to a new war in Iraq. That was the wrong choice.
Instead of listening to the uniformed military, his own State Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1096378256910927442004-09-28T05:10:00.000-07:002004-09-28T06:40:15.770-07:00THE ART OF NEGOTIATION
Nato writes:
I never suggested we "hit" North Korea. That this apparently springs immediately to Nathanael's mind as the first choice consequence of focusing on the problem would signal a seriously limited imagination, if he really meant it that way.
With most nations in the world, our relations are rich and varied, consisting of trade, aid, tourism, scientific exchangesNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095980316316954922004-09-23T15:47:00.000-07:002004-09-23T15:58:36.316-07:00SULLIVAN ON BUSH’S SECOND TERM
This is Andrew Sullivan’s preview of four more years under Bush:
BUSH'S SECOND TERM: I don't have much of an idea about what it would look like, what it would do or even who'd be in it. In my informal chats in DC since I got back, no one else does either. I assume Powell and Rumsfeld are gone; but I can't say I have a clue who would replace them. Rice? Hadley? Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095979611726038502004-09-23T15:44:00.000-07:002004-09-23T15:46:51.726-07:00IRAQ’S ABE LINCOLN
Allawi is not shaken by violence in Iraq. A confident NYT interview here; here he thanks American and describes his plan. A moving passage:
For the skeptics who do not understand the Iraqi people, they do not realize how decades of torture and repression feed our desire for freedom. At every step of the political process to date the courage and resilience of the Iraqi Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095979337020699252004-09-23T15:40:00.000-07:002004-09-23T15:42:17.020-07:00NO DRAFT
If the war necessitated a draft (as Kerry is now hinting) that would be another reason for me to reverse my position on it. “Streiff” of redstate.org does the math on why this is unlikely. But one thing he doesn’t address: will the war make it harder to recruit? Or will it draw more people to join, for adventure and liberty? Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095979219096287572004-09-23T14:53:00.000-07:002004-09-23T15:40:19.096-07:00BLOOD FOR OIL
I like to say that the blood-for-oil argument refutes itself—that is, any attempt to articulate the theory makes it falsity transparent. But my old prof Jeffrey Sachs’ version seems logically tenable:
September 11 was a dramatic confirmation that the stability of Saudi oil was in jeopardy. The regime was unstable and perhaps even a lethal threat to the US. The only quantitativelyNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095893699810974402004-09-22T15:49:00.000-07:002004-09-23T06:32:02.733-07:00BUSH QUIXOTE
Bush’s speeches always inspire me. At the UN yesterday, he declared
we gather at a time of tremendous opportunity for the U.N. and for all peaceful nations. For decades, the circle of liberty and security and development has been expanding in our world. This progress has brought unity to Europe, self-government to Latin America and Asia, and new hope to Africa. Now we have the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095891199673725852004-09-22T15:08:00.000-07:002004-09-22T15:13:19.673-07:00RIVERBEND, STILL BLOGGING
I was pleased to discover, via a link from Healing Iraq, that Iraqi blogger Riverbend is still writing. I had gotten mixed up about her url and thought she’d quit. Riverbend is probably the best writer among all the Iraqi bloggers I’ve read. She’s also the only woman, and the only one opposed to the war and the occupation, to balance out pro-American bloggers Iraq theNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095890896546913812004-09-22T15:06:00.000-07:002004-09-22T15:08:16.546-07:00WHAT ABOUT NORTH KOREA?
Nato thinks the real threat is North Korea, not Iraq:
Considering that the threats from North Korea that were intensifying then and remain today still unresolved, this does appear to be a collossal misallocation of resources.
North Korea’s bad. But we can’t hit them because they would nuke Seoul, or Tokyo, and kill millions. Right?
Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095890773308258072004-09-22T14:37:00.000-07:002004-09-22T15:06:13.316-07:00RESOLUTION
I had a writing seminar today at which I (1) found out I’m allowed to have a blog here (at the risk of getting fired if it leads to bad publicity for the Cato Institute), and (2) became ashamed of the low standard of writing I’ve let myself to post on this blog. So: going forward, no more essays, all posts under 200 words (minus blockquotes), everything short and pithy. (For longer Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095720692880456452004-09-20T14:33:00.000-07:002004-09-21T12:20:42.243-07:00MORE IRAQ
Two great pieces from Mark Steyn. He skewers Kerry here as an "anti-war anti-hero." I like this:
In his testimony to Congress in 1971, Kerry asserted a scale of routine war crimes unparalleled in American history -- his ''band of brothers'' (as he now calls them) ''personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.'' Almost Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1095378774504412602004-09-16T15:10:00.000-07:002004-09-16T16:52:54.506-07:00REVISITING IRAQ
I used to be so exasperated by the Iraq war critics' bad or non-existent reasoning that I stopped giving them the time of day. When I come across them I groan and click somewhere else. But maybe that's too complacent. After the bloodshed of late, a lot of them probably think war supporters are just avoiding the subject because it's too embarassing. Here's Josh Marshall from Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1094854548753052662004-09-10T14:09:00.000-07:002004-09-10T15:15:48.753-07:00CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
I was depressed but not much moved when the Financial Times (among others) reported that Bush is unpopular around the world:
In 30 nations, many staunch allies of the US, the public favoured Mr Kerry over President George W. Bush by a two-to-one margin, according to the poll conducted by GlobeScan, a public opinion group, and the University of Maryland. Only Poland, Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1094770564779667402004-09-09T14:44:00.000-07:002004-09-09T15:56:04.780-07:00A BRIEF APOLOGIA (FOR THE MYSTERY OF THE INCARNATION)
Tom likes what I wrote about freedom ("I agree!" his blog exclaims) but has more questions:
There's actually only one rule, and it's such a simple rule, yet it makes so little sense that many people have a hard time following it: believe that Jesus is the son of God. What does belief in Christ's divinity give you except a pass into Heaven? Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1094683860578578482004-09-08T15:07:00.000-07:002004-09-08T15:51:00.576-07:00ON FREEDOM
Nato remarks on his blog:
It would seem the Christian "deal" runs something like: "You have the free choice between believing in Jesus and going to heaven or not believing, and spending eternity in torment. Choose any old way you want, and no pressure."
Now, I understand that it's not docrinaire to put it that way, but it certainly seems to amount to that often. I would feel the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1094681198708734672004-09-08T14:45:00.000-07:002004-09-08T15:06:38.706-07:00BUSH AND UNEMPLOYMENT
I suggested in a post a while back that the Bush administration may, because of its close ties to business, tend to pursue policies that increase unemployment, without realizing that it's doing so; and this because a bit of unemployment is useful for business, since it makes it easier to hire workers, and makes the threat of firing more effective as a disciplinary device. Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1094218092825057752004-09-03T06:06:00.000-07:002004-09-03T06:28:12.826-07:00BRAVO!
Some of the Republican Convention rubbed me the wrong way. I got the nasty-nationalism vibe from it a bit too often. But I was anticipating a pleasant performance from Bush because of the following so-called gaffe, reported as follows by Sullivan.
Looking at the context of president Bush's remarks yesterday on the Today Show does not undo the weird gaffe. Here's the conversation:
Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1094167250557499502004-09-02T15:52:00.000-07:002004-09-02T16:20:50.556-07:00THE WRATH OF ZELL MILLER
I'm a sucker for speeches. When someone gets up there and states their beliefs passionately, I tend to go along with it at first. John Edwards got me-- until I thought about it, and realized I didn't agree with him much. Same with Zell Miller. I would have cheered in Madison Square Garden, like the Republicans, but then had doubts afterwards.
Still, I appreciated Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1094165507477651132004-09-02T15:29:00.000-07:002004-09-02T15:52:11.303-07:00TOM AND SOCIAL MORALITY
Tom doesn't really dispute my claim that "all morality is social" is consistent with the prohibition of suicide because all action has social implications. He merely says:
A person keeps their body in good working order for the benefit of the person chiefly, and society collaterally.
Fine, then the "collateral" harm to suicide is sufficient basis for the suicide Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1093561254382841882004-08-26T14:59:00.000-07:002004-08-26T16:00:54.383-07:00COGNITION AND DUALISM
Are Nato and I converging? Probably not, but I was interested to hear him mention that "it's true thoughts are immaterial." What? I thought Tom and Nato were both materialists, and that materialism rules out anything immaterial. The attempt to abolish metaphysics was part of what seemed so naive. If Nato is willing to believe in immaterial entities of some sort, the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1093557594832215972004-08-26T14:49:00.000-07:002004-08-26T14:59:54.833-07:00SOCIAL MORALITY AND SUICIDE
Tom suggests that my recent claim that all morality is social is incompatible with Christianity:
Let's use as an example a homeless person, with no family, no friends, no job, no debtors, and in all regards of no significance to anybody. If this person commits suicide, it will go un-noticed, and will effect no one. Does that mean that suicide in this case is not Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1093477651997008542004-08-25T14:27:00.000-07:002004-08-25T16:47:31.996-07:00THE QUEST FOR A CHRISTIAN RES PUBLICA
First, a word of thanks to Nato for this helpful correction:
First, I want to mention that I think Nathanael meant “Foundationalism” instead of “fundamentalism.”
Yes, the epistemological position I was describing is "foundationalism," not "fundamentalism"-- and I was just thinking how unfortunate it was that the term for the position that we "just know" Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1093440530095718002004-08-25T05:47:00.000-07:002004-08-25T06:28:50.096-07:00FREE WILL AND CHOICE
What prompt interlocutors I have! Tom objects to my refutation of (what I took to be) his utilitarianism by pointing out that
He attacks my *individual* morality by adding other agents to the equation, when the absence of other agents was clearly stipulated in my post. Does Nathanael perhaps think that morality has no meaning except in a social environment?
Okay, I Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1093387626915982702004-08-24T14:28:00.000-07:002004-08-24T15:47:06.916-07:00MORE ON MORALITY AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT
Well, I'm sorry to have dismayed Nato and Tom on the issue of materialism and moral philosophy. I mentioned a feeling of "poor sportsmanship" in my last entry about this, and afterwards I realized another reason why: to say that morality is impossible to justify in materialist terms sounds ad hominem, as if I'm saying "if you don't believe in God, you have Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1093034918585841812004-08-20T12:03:00.000-07:002004-08-20T14:23:52.293-07:00OF MORALITY: CHRISTIANITY AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT
Nato takes up my challenge to offer an account of "state-of-the-art ethics" compared to which "Christianity is passe." Well, sort of. He writes:
Meanwhile, modern ethical philosophers have some excellent offerings on how to get from raw self-interest all the way to pursuing common goods at (at least superficially) personal disadvantage. Baier, Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1093028530475965632004-08-20T11:45:00.000-07:002004-08-20T12:02:10.476-07:00THE CRISIS OF JOURNALISM
I've been wanting to write something like this for a while now. But I couldn't do it as well. This is an amazingly cogent summary of the mainstream media's peculiar ideology:
This collective view emerged as a rather well-intentioned product of an age of wild hope, ill-informed academic speculation, and youthful optimism about the world. Nurtured in the great European Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1092950143772718762004-08-19T13:29:00.000-07:002004-08-19T14:15:43.773-07:00THE BUSH ECONOMY
It is often cried out that the Bush administration favors the wealthy, increases inequality, or even incites class warfare, but this is rarely backed up by statistics. In an econ course I took in college on poverty, inequality and welfare, we saw tables showing that inequality increased steadily from 1968 until the late 1990s, but that this reversed around 1999 and inequality Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1092866163662370032004-08-18T14:34:00.000-07:002004-08-18T14:56:03.663-07:00STATE-OF-THE-ART ETHICS
Nato withdraws his attack on tradition--
In the end, though, I’m forced to moderate a bit - it may not be obvious that appeals to tradition cut no ice. If the ice is very thin and there’s no reason available to apply, then one can, I suppose, appeal to it directly. Further, tradition has within it all sorts or reason that is not necessarily visible to the naked eye, so Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1092758189346123422004-08-17T07:52:00.000-07:002004-08-17T13:52:53.636-07:00IN DEFENSE OF TRADITION
Nato makes such an alarming statement on his blog that I had to respond.
Appeals to 'tradition' should OBVIOUSLY cut ZERO ice.
In France in 1789, some people came to power who thought that tradition should OBVIOUSLY cut ZERO ice. Six years later French society had been torn apart in an orgy of bloodshed. Twenty-five years later the orgy of bloodshed had spilled over Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1092690680013802312004-08-16T14:04:00.000-07:002004-08-16T14:11:20.013-07:00BUSH LIED
No, just kidding, but... The worst point of Bush's record is certainly the deficit. He said we could afford the tax cut because there was a surplus. I never liked that argument, and history hasn't been kind to it. Unfortunately, Kerry puts Bush to shame when it comes to fuzzy math:
Even with that generous accounting, the Kerry spending promises add up to an extraordinary amount ofNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1092690172168285692004-08-16T14:02:00.000-07:002004-08-16T14:02:52.166-07:00I DONATED
$25 to the Bush campaign. And proud of it. (Yeah, not much, but I'm poor.)Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1092689437034416852004-08-16T13:31:00.000-07:002004-08-16T15:04:29.073-07:00THE POTTYMOUTH LEFT
Tom links to this piece of anti-Bush bile. It's times like this that I'm glad I have a blog. Reading a piece like this is like being beaten with a club. A blog gives you a chance to offer a little token resistance, so you feel less violated. Just a few points.
A favorite moment for many featured John McCain growing apoplectic as Donald Rumsfeld and an entire tableful of Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1092351089603080302004-08-12T15:36:00.000-07:002004-08-12T15:51:29.603-07:00MORE REPLIES TO TOM REASONER
Tom also pans the DNC, and, while calling his responses "more cooled-off" than mine, he is if anything more depressed, because he has the misfortune of feeling great antipathy towards George W. Bush:
But as I cooled off, I realized that even if Kerry does not deserve to be president, it would not be right to condone Bush's unilateralism and narrow-minded view of Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1092350157857267322004-08-12T14:58:00.000-07:002004-08-12T15:35:57.856-07:00REPLIES TO TOM REASONER
Pardon the long hiatus: I've been between jobs, relaxing out in the suburbs. Did you miss me?
A few remarks on what's going on at Tom Reasoner's blog. Most recently, he has a post about morality. He makes what I think is the sound (though I believe quite controversial-- does he think so?) point that we cannot think about morality without addressing the issue of the endNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-109119985993502402004-07-30T07:56:00.000-07:002004-07-30T08:04:19.936-07:00Will The Economist endorse George Bush? They sure weren't very impressed with Kerry's speech!
Mr Kerry ended his acceptance speech with this optimistic line: “The hope is there. The sun is rising. Our best days are yet to come.” But a cynic might have put it like this: Mr Bush is out there, his will to defeat the challenger is rising, and the toughest days are yet to come.
An indication, Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091197612958352802004-07-30T07:22:00.000-07:002004-07-30T07:26:52.956-07:00BuzzMachine thinks that:
What bothers me about the speech -- besides the John-John moment with the silly salute -- is its American defensiveness. He leads with making America "respected in the world." As far as I am concerned, this should not be a primary goal of an administration; at most, it is a fringe benefit. We should do what we need to do and if the world respects that, fine; if France Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091196502740815652004-07-30T07:03:00.000-07:002004-07-30T07:08:22.740-07:00I WAS RIGHT
The Weekly Standard gives details on how Kerry is echoing Bush. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Nice to see our great president is getting (tacit) respect from somebody.Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091195683275095622004-07-30T06:10:00.000-07:002004-07-30T13:42:32.843-07:00I WAS WRONG
After watching the Kerry speech last night, maybe I was wrong when I insisted that (contrary to popular belief) America is on the right track...
What the Democrats did this week, I think, is to position themselves as the proper heirs to the Bush legacy. At the heart of this strategy, I'm satisfied that they neutralized the war issue, thanks in particular to Edwards. Edwards spoke Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091158689909131072004-07-29T20:13:00.000-07:002004-07-29T20:38:09.910-07:00THE TRUE COST OF THE WAR
I was just watching Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, and it hit me what the true cost of the war in Iraq will turn out to be.
War creates strong, big government. It inspires patriotism, unity, comradeship. Obedience, loyalty and security are emphasized; freethinking, diversity, playfulness, good relaxed fun are eclipsed. War encouragesNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091117756421076852004-07-29T09:05:00.000-07:002004-07-29T14:12:02.403-07:00JUST BASIC DECENCY
Saddam Hussein was a murderer and an evil dictator and any genuine leftist has little choice but support his overthrow. Because he is a good, decent human being, Edwards offers robust support (in his speech to the DNC last night) for Operation Iraqi Freedom:
EDWARDS: John understands personally about fighting in a war. And he knows what our brave men and women are going Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091116171772328542004-07-29T08:41:00.000-07:002004-07-29T08:49:31.773-07:00AGAINST NEGATIVE POLITICS
Edwards' plea for decency in politics is much-needed and very welcome, but he forgets that so much of the negativity is coming from his side.
EDWARDS: But what have we seen? Relentless negative attacks against John. So in the weeks ahead, we know what's coming, don't we?
AUDIENCE: Yes.
EDWARDS: ... more negative attacks -- aren't you sick of it?
AUDIENCE: Yes.
Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091114286506152462004-07-29T07:57:00.000-07:002004-07-29T08:18:06.506-07:00WHAT BINDS US TOGETHER
"Love seeketh not itself to please
Nor for itself hath any care
But for another gives its ease
And builds a Heaven in Hell's despair."
So sang a little Clod of Clay
Trodden beneath the Cattle's Feet
But a Pebble of the Brook
Warbled out these meters meet.
"Love seeketh only self to please
To bind another to its delight
Joys in another's loss of ease
And builds a Hell in Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091113043296569572004-07-29T07:07:00.000-07:002004-07-29T14:06:55.230-07:00SALVADOR ALLENDE FOR VICE-PRESIDENT?
John Edward is a fascinating political phenomenon. In what is alleged to be prickly, anti-socialist America, a populist is making waves with dreamy rhetoric suggestive of a secular utopia presided over by a beneficent paternalistic state!
Salvador Allende was the first democratically elected Marxist president, a noble and gentle soul who came to power in Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091109766340891502004-07-29T07:01:00.000-07:002004-07-29T07:02:46.340-07:00A FIRST LADY FROM MOZAMBIQUE?
Did you know Theresa Heinz Kerry was from Mozambique? I found out on Tuesday night. Cool! Would she be our first-ever foreign first lady?Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1091109682695531032004-07-29T06:16:00.000-07:002004-07-29T13:51:49.970-07:00FOREIGN AID AND IRAQ
One way to think about the Iraq war was pioneering a new model of foreign aid. This NYT column (hat tip: Andrew Beath) describes the problem with the old foreign aid:
Wealthy nations and international organizations, including the World Bank, spend more than $55 billion annually to better the lot of the world's 2.7 billion poor people. Yet they have scant evidence that the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090974588448211082004-07-27T16:49:00.000-07:002004-07-29T13:59:08.186-07:00RIGHT AND LEFT
I got an e-mail today that said:
"i love debating with people like you. i can't believe people can be as passionately right as I am left. damn!"
To tell the truth, I'm not actually comfortable with this characterization. "Right" and "left" have been re-defined so much by the Iraq war that I feel like a fraud when I join in using the terms this way. Quite literally, I don't knowNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090972156473812092004-07-27T15:36:00.000-07:002004-07-27T16:49:16.473-07:00"CRUSADERS"
I've been reading a history of the Crusades lately, and one passage struck me as having reverberations of relevance:
The disillusion in Europe that followed the fiasco of the Second Crusade obliged the Latins in the Holy Land to reach the kind of accommodation with the infidel that would have seemed sacrilegious to the previous generation of crusaders. This was also the consequence Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090967778440797972004-07-27T15:22:00.000-07:002004-07-27T15:36:18.440-07:00A BUSH REBOUND?
This poll, link via Mickey Kaus, was a pleasant surprise! What most warmed my heart is the evidence that character assassination against Bush is failing. More people view Bush as honest (46%), and fewer Kerry (40%), than a month ago (40% Bush, 52% Kerry). Good. The worst reason that Bush could lose the election is a (false) belief on the part of the public that he lied about Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090966450602678822004-07-27T14:56:00.000-07:002004-07-27T15:20:08.163-07:00THE PLOT THICKENS
Lest anyone think the Sudan crisis is simple (government bad, blacks good, US-UN should intervene, save lives, stop genocide) The Economist provides a useful reminder of complexity. First, the rebels are not blameless:
The peace talks between the Khartoum government and Darfur’s main rebel groups broke up last week after the rebels accused the government of breaching a Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090895665362155452004-07-26T19:03:00.000-07:002004-07-26T19:34:25.363-07:00WHY BOB DYLAN IS A REPUBLICAN
I love Bob Dylan, and in particular one of the songs that the Democrats played tonight at the convention. "Blowing in the Wind" is the classic anti-war song... or is it? I was conflicted about liking the song, until I took another look at the lyrics:
How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes and how many seas must a white dove sail
Before Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090893724977658562004-07-26T18:24:00.000-07:002004-07-26T19:02:04.976-07:00BLOGGING THE CONVENTION
Best part-- the music, oh yeah!!! "Georgia, Georgia... on my mind..." And much more. "Johnny B. Good." I'm lovin' it...
The bad part... well, that will take longer.
"BUSH LIED"
No, I don't think Carter ever said those words. But he did everything but. This is just plain untenable. Every investigaton says the same thing. The CIA thought he had WMDs. So did the Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090874985327787002004-07-26T13:33:00.000-07:002004-07-26T13:49:45.326-07:00VOTING AND TRUTH
Nato and I have been engaged in a dispute about the teaching of evolution in schools, which he argues should be imposed by the state regardless of the popular will because "we don't get to vote on what truth is." In reaction to an earlier post of mine, he writes:
the truth or falsity of evolution is apparently not at issue. Nathan says that to override the popular will on an Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090873098792665282004-07-26T13:03:00.000-07:002004-07-26T13:18:18.793-07:00A COMPROMISE ON GAY MARRIAGE
A gay conservative Andrew Sullivan reader sent in an interesting letter a little while back (can't find it now, sorry) in which he said that he didn't support gay marriage because marriage is only for the protection of children. This principle, it seems to me, represents the best available compromise between those who insist on a "civil right" to gay marriage and theNathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090870584075483282004-07-26T12:35:00.000-07:002004-07-26T12:36:24.076-07:00Don't miss Tom Reasoner's hilarious parody of this blog. :)Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6044755.post-1090867135423261782004-07-26T11:10:00.000-07:002004-07-26T11:38:55.423-07:00AGAINST ACADEMIA
I found this argument in Tech Central long overdue. Arnold Kling argues that large-scale state subisidies to college and universities are not justified. More specifically, he argues that:
- the large income gap between college and high school graduates probably owes mostly to signalling (you don't become more talented, employers merely see that you are more talented) and to Nathanaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07207539771295416417noreply@blogger.com0