Totalitarianism Today

TOTALITARIANISM TODAY

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Stop ethnically-intimidating me.

Susan Jones of CNS News wrote about a bill passed by the Pennsylvania legislature that may make it illegal for preachers to quote Bible passages condemning homosexuality, according to a group that opposes the measure. The bill, passed by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Tuesday night, is now on its way to Gov. Mark Schweiker, who says he will sign it.

The measure amends the state's Ethnic Intimidation Act (did Milosevic write this?) to include "sexual orientation, gender or gender identity." The pro-family Urban Family Council worries that the bill will be enforced too liberally. William Devlin, the group's president, is advising pastors and churches across Pennsylvania to "obtain some very good liability insurance and contact an attorney if the pastor intends to continue faithfully preaching the Word."

According to Devlin, "This bill is so broad that if you have an attender at your church who feels offended or intimidated by what is said from the pulpit, you and your church leadership will be receiving certified letters inviting you to either a deposition or a court appearance." I'm moving to Pennsylvania so that I can sue the next person who says, "You're Romanian? Oh, you mean, a gypsy?" Strangely enough, however, this person will (if prior experience holds) not likely be a preacher from a pulpit-- it will be your average American Joe with a college degree and a widescreen TV. Go figure.

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

What women don't want, and how it relates to libertarian men.

The lady has a point.

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Smallpox vaccines: A way to measure your patriotism? Then roll up your sleeves....

A friend on the Hill tells me that an official announcement of new smallpox policy should be made latter this week. According to HAS, the recommendation will be that the military and health professionals get mandatory vaccines but the final decision as to whether or not to give the vaccines to the military will be up to the Pentagon while the final decision as to whether or not to vaccinate health care professionals will be made by local officials.

Roland Watson and Charles Bremmer state:

Mr Bush is expected to publish the details in the next few days after months of agonising. One to three people in the initial wave of one million recipients are likely to die from side-effects of the vaccine, according to estimates by health experts, and dozens of others will contract life-threatening illnesses. However, Mr Bush has been persuaded that the risks from a bioterrorism attack on US soil are too dangerous to ignore. If there were an outbreak of the highly contagious disease, some 30 per cent of those affected would die and many survivors would be left blind or disfigured, health experts say.

But those in the field are not as sure about the President's cost-benefit calculations. Representatives of nurses and firefighters said they would "strongly object to mandatory inoculations". Since their line of work would make them first to recieve the smallpox vaccines, one might assume that their opinions matter. But no opinions matter when the "national security" is at stake.

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Hanukah music for the masses.

Adam Sandler's "Hanukah Song" is a tough anthem to beat, but for those who need a little musical inspiration to celebrate Hanukah this year, Yo La Tengo is playing a Hanukah series which includes pals like Jeaneane Garafalo. Worth checking out if you are in the right place at the right time.

Monday, December 2, 2002

Kissinger's conflicts of interest

Chris Hitchens's latest on Henry Kissinger marvels at the supreme irony of Bush's decision to appoint Kissinger to chair the inquiry into the intelligence failure that did not prevent the catastrophes of(or even forsee) Sept. 11th of 2001. As usual, Hitchens' investigative style, characterized by an inordinate attention to detail, makes a strong case for keeping Kissinger in a Beverly Hills retirement home instead of the policy-making world. It is a truism to say that Hitchens' research on the "crimes of Henry Kissinger" revised US Cold War history. And Hitchens isn't done with Kissinger yet.

Kissinger's "consulting" firm, Kissinger Associates, is a privately held concern that does not publish a client list and that compels its clients to sign confidentiality agreements. Nonetheless, it has been established that Kissinger's business dealings with, say, the Chinese Communist leadership have closely matched his public pronouncements on such things as the massacre of Chinese students. Given the strong ties between himself, his partners Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft, and the oil oligarchies of the Gulf, it must be time for at least a full disclosure of his interests in the region. This thought does not seem to have occurred to the president or to the other friends of Prince Bandar and Prince Bandar's wife, who helped in the evacuation of the Bin Laden family from American soil, without an interrogation, in the week after Sept. 11.

Kissinger Associates earned Congressional attention in November 1991 when the Committee on Foreign Relations authorized a subpoena for all documents to Kissinger Associates and related entities in conjunction with all documents pertaining to BCCI, and for its client lists. Apparently, international economist Alan Stoga and a retired Brazilian Ambassador working as a consultant to Kissinger Associates, Sergio Correa da Costa, explored finding ways to link BCCI's global network of banks with the services being offered by Kissinger Associates. Discussions between representatives of BCCI and representatives of Kissinger Associates took place over an 18 month period concerning the possibility of merging the capabilities of BCCI and Kissinger Associates on various, mostly unspecified, projects. Following BCCI's indictment, discussions continued as to whether Kissinger Associates could help BCCI respond to the ramifications of that indictment.

More interesting to current affairs, however, is a statement made by Chairman of the Banking Committee Henry B. Gonzalez, a Congressman from Texas in the House of Representatives on May 2, 1991. Gonzalez states:

Henry Kissinger was a paid member of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Consulting Board for International Policy. Mr. Kissinger held this position during the height of the biggest banking scandal in United States history--$4 billion in unreported loans to Iraq by the Atlanta branch of BNL. This week I will reveal some new information regarding Mr. Kissinger and his relationship with BNL. I will also include in the Record a detailed list of Mr. Brent Scowcroft's stock holdings.

Far from a random accusation, there is much evidence to back claims of Kissinger and Scowcrowft's involvement with Saddam during the early 1990's. Perhaps "conflict of interests" is too mild a word here. Alan Stoga, the aforementioned Kissinger Associates executive, met Mr. Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in June 1989, at which point Saddam expressed his desire to increase trade with the US. "Many Kissinger Associates clients received US export licenses for exports to Iraq. Several were also the beneficiaries of BNL loans to Iraq," said Mr. Gonzalez.

Kissinger's conflicts of interest, especially those concerning his relations with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, are not over yet. Bush and corp. would do much better to find a less fradulent figure for chair the inquiry. Kissinger lacks the integrity and truth-telling reputation needed to make such an inquiry seem authentic. The most exhaustive compilation of data on Kissinger Associates is managed by John Horne. I recommend it as a titillating substitute for the bah-bah that characterizes current media.

Monday, December 2, 2002

Good anti-war-on-terrorism piece.

Seamus Milne aptly reminds us of why this war cannot be won.

Monday, December 2, 2002

Total Information Awareness and The Smoking Man (aka Why Alina's mom does not want her to post to this web-log from her computer anymore).

A recent editorial for the Philadelphia Enquirer notes the Orwellian nature of the Total Information Awareness program. The privacy of Americans will be the first lamb to the slaughter.

In its recent poll on core freedoms, the National Constitution Center found nearly two out of every three Americans think banks and credit card companies are the biggest threat to their privacy. The Poindexter idea to link their data with government's is a citizens' nightmare. It should be scuttled.

Cato Institute consitutional scholar Robert Levy also expresses concern over the I.F.P. in his article for National Review. He seems to believe (quite rightly, I might add) that the Patriot Act, rushed through a crisis-conscious Congress after Sept. 11th, opened the door for infringement of privacy, in addition to numerous other woes. Levy casts a skeptical eye on the USA Patriot Act's executivization of post-Sept. 11th government action and authority.

Ordinarily, advance judicial authorization of executive actions, followed by judicial review to assure that officials haven't misbehaved, shields us from excessive concentrations of power in a single branch of government. Under the PATRIOT Act, however, the executive branch has overwhelming if not exclusive power. Judicial checks and balances are conspicuously absent.

Levy poses the dilemma for balancing civil liberties and security concerns in this fashion:

In the post-9/11 environment, no rational person believes that civil liberties are inviolable. After all, government's primary obligation is to secure the lives of American citizens. But when government begins to chip away at our liberties, we must insist that it jump through a couple of hoops. First, government must offer compelling evidence that its new and intrusive programs will make us safer. Second, government must convince us that there is no less invasive means of attaining the same ends. In too many instances, those dual burdens have not been met.

If administration critics have a single overriding concern about policies adopted in the wake of 9/11, it is this: The president and the attorney general have concentrated too much unchecked authority in the hands of the executive branch - compromising the doctrine of separation of powers, which has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. Those persons who would unhesitatingly tradeoff civil liberties in return for national security proclaim that concentrated power is necessary for Americans to remain free. Yet there's an obvious corollary that's too often missed:Unless Americans remain free, they will never be secure.

Need I say more?

Monday, December 2, 2002

The Department of Homeland Security as a continuation of the 1990's "merger mania".

The Homeland Security Bill combines 22 existing agencies and 170,000 federal employees to create a new government department with at least a $35 billion annual budget request. The possibilities are stupendous. An article for the New York Daily News mentions Stephen Moore's warning about past policy proposals which led to the creation of behemoths like the Education Department:

"If there is a problem in America, create a new government program or government agency to deal with it," says Moore. "And we've seen over the last 30 years that when we created the Department of Energy, that certainly didn't solve the energy crisis. We created the Education Department. That didn't solve the education problem." Indeed, you could arguethese departments compounded rather than solved problems.

Oftentimes, these reorganizations do assist in managing the large amounts of data and information flow. What they do NOT do, however, is fix the problems that led to system failure in the first place. The most obvious of these problems is the inability of government agencies to function in an effective, end-directed manner which makes efficient and successful use of financial resources. Granted, a product like "national security" is more complicated than the nuts-and-bolts of a Honda. In fact, in an absolute sense, it might even be an impossible product to produce, given its rapidly-evolving nature and highly ambiguous form. As the article points out:

The urge to merge can be hard to resist. A successful merger promises increased market share, supposed economies of scale and... synergy. Sounds terrific, but far too often the risks of merging far outweigh the potential benefits. Companies fail to clearly define goals. Corporate cultures clash. New layers of bureaucracy choke off innovation.

Monday, December 2, 2002

Mail-order East-European or Russian brides might make a bad bargain.

Newtopia's Colin Shea ventures into postcommunist sexual politics in an article about the rise of HIV infection in East and Central Europe. Needless to say, in states where the government covers some degree of health care costs, irresponsible sexual behavior and/or drug use can quickly become a "public problem", as public monies are used to resolve it. Shea writes:

"At the end of 2001, UNICEF estimated that there were at least one million cases of HIV infection in eastern Europe. Many other credible estimates indicate that there are at least a million people infected with HIV in Russia alone. Growth curves are dramatic and worrying. Certain countries - particularly Estonia, Latvia and Russia - display geometrically increasing rates of infection. Infections are highly concentrated in the heavily overlapping populations of intravenous drug users and sex industry workers: in the three countries mentioned previously, over 90% of new infections are among IV drug users. Countries such as Kazakhstan are still far behind, but catching up quickly."

Governments in the region have used various methods in an attempt to quell the potential disaster of an AIDS epidemic.

Over half of the Czech Republic�s IV drug-using population participates in one of the 82 nationwide needle-swapping programs. 24.000 of the nation�s prostitutes have been administered HIV tests by the National AIDS Program, and shelters are available for those suffering from the disease. Poland swallowed its Catholic pride early on and initiated nationwide HIV/ hepatitis-testing and needle-distribution programs for addicts. The most dramatic proof of the effectiveness of these programs is Lithuania, which implemented a nationwide, comprehensive testing, treatment and needle-distribution program with guaranteed anonymity in 1995. HIV infection rates in neighboring Estonia are over 50 times higher, and almost 20 times higher in Latvia.

So, not-so-gentle-men, looks like Lithuania is your best bet. Of course, you could also surprise yourself by getting a life instead of purchasing a wife. A woman never forgives the man who buys her, as this reveals his shoddy perceptions of women. Why sign your name to a dotted line that should, at best, evoke shame?

Monday, December 2, 2002

Opening lines of Sir Walter Raleigh's "The Lie"

Go, soul, the body's guest, Upon a thankless errand: Fear not to touch the best, The Truth shall be thy warrant."

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

Julian brings up qualia

I miss philosophy, as I miss Cameron, Roderick, Dr. Jolley, and the whole idiosyncratic Auburn University philosophy department. Julian reminded me of this with his recent post on qualia-- a philosophical concept that dear Cameron will some day obliterate. Politely, of course-- no pokers here.

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

Gag me gently with a pitchfork

According to Vanity Fair's description of the article, "Rich, Jaded, and Lost in L.A.", , this is a modern coming-of-age story. The author, Nancy Jo Sales, follows attractive, well-connected, and unbelievably ridiculous college-age kids-- Kelly, Marc, and Matt-- around Beverly Hills as they "live the fast life" and seek "a reality of their own", or maybe a sickness to call home. Sales chronicles their conversations, stepping in only to paint cheap, background pastiche about the goods, gadgets, brands, and beauty that prop up the ennui engendered by this group of kids. Talking about Osama bin Laden, Marc includes him as "one of us"-- meaning, a spoiled, rich kid. Marc goes on to say, "He's completely unhinged-- that's why people need to hug their children. It's funny what jealousy will drive people to do, don't you think? He was upset because he didn't get his piece of the pie..."

Marc will have to pardon my lack of empathy here. What piece of the pie does Marc not have? What piece of the pie was Osama denied? Isn't the real issue not one of jealousy, but one of heightened expectation, combined with the belief that the world owes you something. Marc's pithy excuse for thinking reminds me of the poor, pitiful starlets who complain about their lives being open to public consumption in the tabloid press. Clearly, choosing the pie of stardom and fame bears corresponding costs-- if you want people to be interested in you, or to desire you, then be prepared to deal with exactly that.

Even more disturbing that Marc, however, is the female presence in this tale-- a dim-witted blond named Kelly, whose spirits are always lifted by a shopping trip to Fred Segal. Kelly says, quite seriously:

"I have a hard time reconciling Gucci and poverty. It's, like, white woman's burden...You know what actually helped me through the white woman's burden was Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged....I love Ayn Rand. Well, I mean, you need certain people to keep the economy going."

How can I express my disgust at the fact that young, rich, irresponsible, spoiled kids are using Rand as an excuse to exorcise a guilt they would do better to feel-- and learn from? Why does their thrill at discovering "the virtues of selfishness" strike me as inauthentic and perverse?

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Alabama Scholars Association hosts Autherine Lucy Foster.

The Alabama Scholars Association hosted Autherine Lucy Foster, the first black student at the University of Alabama, who studied there prior to her suspension and then expulsion "for her own protection" from egg-throwing mobs of whites opposed to integration. Those in the audience included Dr. James Hood, one of the two black students to attend the UA in 1963. The appearance represented the first meeting between Dr. Hood and Mrs. Foster.

According to The Crimson White, the speech was a moving event. Foster galvanized the audience of more than 400 (crammed into an auditorium which seated only 275) with her hope and optimism.

"Even without an idea for a change, a positive thinker will find himself believing things will change if only he had a chance," Foster said. "Deep thoughts take shape and become ideas; ideas are the possibility of a situation." Non-deep thinkers may see certain ideas as too simple and incapable of becoming realities. Any actions under any circumstances provide experience, Foster said.

"Experience will also bring with it visions of new opportunities one would never have envisioned if one had not ventured to act," Foster said. "Once one has his vision, one must find out what it will take to bring the vision to life." Knowledge, which comes from those who are older, can make the vision come to life, Foster said. "Beyond the realm of formal education, there is the school of life," Foster said.

Foster believes that experience provides us with innumerable opportunities to learn and challenge ourselves. But the will to do so precedes the positive effects of education. As my third-grade teacher used to say, "Throwing seeds on unwilling soil won't bring a good harvest."

"Knowledge with power and influence is nothing without determination," Foster said. "The acquiring of knowledge requires, to some degree, determination." Determination is the means by which obstacles are overcome and success is achieved. It has been an influential part in the lives of many people who have changed society, such as Orville and Wilbur Wright, Madame C.J. Walker and Martin Luther King Jr., Foster said.

"Vision, education and determination form the hallmark of success," Foster said. These three tools maneuver to determine the uncertain days of the future, she said. "One must look beyond and see what beauty can form from the unexpected," Foster said. One must not stray from a course when confronted with the unexpected but strive onward to overcome those unforeseen aspects, Foster said.

Foster did not approach the subject of the events of the 1950s, which were explained in depth during her introduction by David Beito, associate history professor and president of the Alabama Scholars Association. She answered questions from the audience after her speech, which did refer to the events. "When you get here at the University, you just thank the Lord," Foster said. "I asked the Lord if I should try to go down there and do this by myself. He didn't say no."

Foster recalls her political science professor at the University, Charles Farris, and his surprising attempt to have her re-enrolled after her expulsion in 1956. "I thought well of him afterward because I didn't know he would be the person to speak favorably on my behalf," Foster said. "It was he who pleaded my case and tried to get the student body to let me back in." Foster said even when one feels beaten, the person should get back up and not stop until success is achieved.

"If you think it is going to be a flowering bed of ease, stay in your seat," Foster said. "Each time I was going to quit, something kept me moving." Foster said she relies on God to lift her up, but her audience Wednesday evening impacted her as well. "You help me stay up when you give me the type of reception I've gotten tonight," Foster said.

I can't help thinking that it is the integrity and academic valor of professors like David Beito, whose work and dedication made this event possible, which continues to inspire and motivate young people like me to stand for something in this often-complacent world. What we do and what we believe and what we strive for DOES matter-- it is the sum of who we are and who we would like to become. I am grateful to Dr. Beito for his consistently subtle reminders of this.

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

What to do when your photo evokes more interest than your politics?

Why, place it dead-center and hope for the best, of course. To her credit, Ilana Mercer's latest is more interesting than her usual, predictable column. For example, she rightly criticizes the "neoconservative Jewish lobby" for playing "terrorism tag-along" by attempting to hitch the Israeli struggle to the fight against global terror. (Ilana uses the phrase "Jewish struggle", which begs the more important question of whether or not this is a truly "jewish" struggle so much as an "Israeli" one.) At this point, I will let her speak for herself because her perspective is both fascinating and passionately-held.

This terrorism tag-along diminishes half a century of defensive wars, fought for survival. Even if Israel and the U.S. are indeed at war with the same enemies, Israel has been warding them off for decades and should not stoop to tailor life-and-death self-defense to the broader unholy neoconservative agenda.

Israeli leadership, moreover - and this is Sharon's instinct - must defend the right of an ethnically homogenous people to live free of aggression. Instead, her lobbyists persistently pretend Israel's a pluralistic melting pot, made in the image of the U.S., the kind neocon globalists want to see replicated worldwide.

My beef or bacon or meat, if you will, comes with the contention that Israeli democracy is a regional shining star on the political roadmap.

"The neocon attempts to compare an ethnically specific Jewish state to the multicultural toilet that the U.S. is becoming" make professor Gottfried bristle. Israel's ethnic coherence has not prevented the integration of "a large Palestinian minority, who in Israel proper exercise the rights of citizens," he notes. Gottfried also observes that the absence of pluralism has not precluded the establishment in Israel of "parliamentary opposition parties, a free press and the rule of law" - unique in the neighborhood.

I am not so pro-democracy that I believe it successfully whitewashes the dirty stuff beneath the veneer. Images, no matter how nicely-airbrushed or fashionably-posed, are no substitute for reality-- and certainly no basis for a fair argument. The fact that Israel is a democracy and still manages to conduct some of the disheartening, dehumanizing citizenship distinctions that it does even suggests rethinking this commitment to democracy that allows so many Americans to overlook the evils done under the guise of free elections.

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Why maintain a preference for free markets when the economy lacks manly vigor?

Entering this debate is treading the finest of lines between what divided Keynes and Hayek in their postwar economic policy models and ideas. Always the optimist about liberal democracy, Keynes' pessimism proved nowhere more pesky than in his fear of letting markets do the dirty work of rooting out failing businesses and unsustainable employment policies. Hayek, on the other hand, never rose to the ocassion of Keynesian optimism. Instead, he dealt with the personal concerns channelled by Hitler's national socialism by elucidating the dangers of market internventions as opposed to market failure-- not two sides of the same coin, as the former creates and solidifies new political and economic power bases closely tied to those of the ruling regimes while the latter often unleashes competing political and economic power bases.

I've always appreciated Hayek's work much more than I appreciated Keynes', partly because Hayek acknowledged towards the second half of his life that economic history and the study of more "social" sciences took precedence over econometrics and methodology in a context where ideology (post World War II) shaped political incentives for market behavior and intervention. Keynes never learned this lesson, best personified in the approach of present-day economist/economic-historian Robert Higgs, whose work on the relations between wars, governments, and economic ideology cannot be over-emphasized. Markets provide specific goods which cater to the needs and interests of particular individuals or groups, as exemplified in the development of gay retirement homes. Free markets also prevent the focused accumulation of power in the hands of a political elite or a blessed few. Markets give and take good fortune. Unfortunately, all the political temptations which made Keynesianism so sexy in the early 20th century-- namely, the econometric focus that fits so well with empirical constructs preferred by statisticians of "national economies", as well as the ever-voluptuous aggregate approach-- exist in the contemporary period, raising the risks of succuumbing to micro-macro-managing temptations.

Monday, November 25, 2002

The constitutional come-hither of an expat

In an article for the Moscow Times, Chris Floyd criticizes the America's regime-change since September 11th. I remain beguiled.

"A country whose leader has the power to imprison any citizen, on his order alone, and hold them indefinitely, in military custody, without access to the courts, without a lawyer, without any charges, their fate determined solely by the leader's arbitrary whim -- that country is a tyranny, not a democracy, not a republic, not a union of free citizens.

So if the wars never cease raging, the laws will no longer speak. Or rather, they will speak only to ratify the will of the authoritarian regime. Just this week, a "special" appeals court -- a secret panel operating outside the ordinary judicial system -- upheld the right of the state to invade the privacy of any citizen through expanded wiretap and surveillance powers, Reuters reports. These invasions no longer need meet the already-lax standards previously required for domestic surveillance, but can now proceed virtually at the whim of the federal forces, even without any direct connection to suspected terrorist or espionage activity.

The "special" court is a three-judge board made up of appointees from the Reagan-Bush administration, chosen for this secret duty by that obedient Roman, William Rehnquist. It overturned a lower-court ruling that curbed surveillance powers after documenting 75 cases of their abuse by federal agents in both the Clinton and Bush II administrations. However, Attorney General John Ashcroft -- whose agents will carry out most of the secret investigations -- said this week that the government will not "overstep its legal bounds" with the new, broader powers. And indeed, with a "silent" high court and a supine legislature willing to lend an air of legitimacy to any action of the ruling junta -- hijacking a presidential election, imprisoning citizens without charge, waging aggressive war -- no doubt Ashcroft is right. There are no longer any "legal bounds" to overstep."

Monday, November 25, 2002

From Friedrich Schiller's On the Aesthetic Education of Man

"The reflective man concieves of virtue, truth, happiness; but the man of action will only exercise virtues, only apprehend truths, only enjoy happy days. To lead back these latter to the former-- to achieve instead of moral practices, morality, instead of things known, knowledge, instead of happy experiences, happiness, is the business of physical and ethical education; to make Beauty from beautiful objects is the task of aesthetic education."

Monday, November 25, 2002

NATO articles worth reading

1. Jeffrey Tayler's "The Next Threat To NATO", where he argues against allowing the Baltics into the alliance.
2. The official NATO archive of the Prague Summit, including transcripts, videos, etc.
3. Petition for bringing NATO to Hague for war crimes.
4. Federation of American Scientists' documents on NATO expansion.
5. "Putin, Bush satisfied with summit results" from Radio Free Europe
6. Radio Free Europe's summit archive.
7. Bush makes Romanians happy, according to Western expat press in Bucharest.
8. Central European Ambassadors Discuss NATO Expansion with Scholars at the Hoover Institution in the summer of 2001.
9. Dimitrina Petrova's article on the high costs of "humanitarian intervention".
10. Role of American Military Power's (RAMP) NATO expansion round two documents and links.
11. "Lessons of International Law From NATO's Armed Intervention Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" by Natalino Ronzitti.
12. "State sovereignty vs. Humanitarian intervention: The NATO-Kosovo conflict" by Carman Neustaedter.
13. "Refighting Kosovo: A Kosovar's perspective" by Fatmir Zajmi in Central Europe Review.
14. "War Crimes Tribunal Judge Says NATO's Targeting of Population Is Illegal" from Truth in Media.
15. What the prosecutors have said about the contended criminality of NATO action in Kosovo and the Balkans.
16. "From Hegemony to Ambivalence: NATO's Transformation and European Stability" by Marco Cesa.
17. "Formulating a joint Japanese and US Security Concept in the aftermath of September 11" by Taizo Yakushiji, in which he argues that increased military cooperation and preparedness will do little to increase post-Sept. 11th security if a security strategy remains elusive.
18. "A European Defense Identity: What Does it mean for America?" by Peter Gooderham of the British Embassy.
19. Bush and NATO on Fox News' "The Beltway Boys".

Monday, November 25, 2002

Is this what you want to hear me say?

When my cell phone rings, I bite my lip and prepare to respond with the now-typical, "Hey. Long time no hear... Yes, I guess I'm glad Romania got into NATO. Now perhaps the whole organization can implode from the pressure of its own conflicting security visions. Bitter? No, of course not! Why do you ask?" No matter how much I consider the issue of ascession (maybe "acension" is the more appropriate term), I am divided. For those of you who are hibernating, NATO officially invited Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to join its ranks last weekend in at the Prague Summit.

My family and friends in Romania consistently express their thrill about this invitation. And many of them see my skepticism as a result of having spent too much time in philosophy departments or reading Romanian writers like Emil Cioran, who cautions against every form of optimism. The Romanian in me scowls and sighs--"Wake up, guys. Since when have all these Western promises protected you before? The enemy is the idealism within!" But the American Alina asserts herself confidently, "Don't be ridiculous. Of COURSE this is a great thing for Romania! We need them to wage the war on Iraq and they need us to boost investor confidence and re-legitimize the Iliescu-Nastase regime. Tit for tat. As simple as that."

Monday, November 25, 2002

Libya leaves the Arab League.

According to Peter C. Valenti, Kaddafi has finally lived up to his revolutionary promise by doing the drastic-- removing Libya from the Arab League. It seems that commentators in the Arab press have connected this to Libya�s dissatisfaction with the A-League's inaction over the Palestinian issue and the Iraqi crisis.

Sunday, November 24, 2002

A thank-you

To Lance M. Brown for adding me to the blog-roll on his exciting web-site. If you aren't familiar with Brown's work, then Boston Public: The case against schools" is a must-read.

Sunday, November 24, 2002

Goldberg just doesn't do it for me.

According to Jonah Goldberg, we are freer now than we have ever been. Although I appreciate his optimism, I'm not sure he can make the same arguments so astutely developed by Julian Simon to support a similar view of the early 1990's. Statements like "Capitalism between consenting adults is a basic human right" oversimplify the economic specifics inherent in free market comparisons. And Jonah's talk of "basic human rights" seems misplaced, or at least, careless. According to him, we have a basic human right to capitalism-- a right which regulations do not violate in essence but only in inconvenience in exercise.

Many of these regulations exist because we are so free. Cars are regulated because it's so easy ?economically speaking ?to own a car in this country that millions of people buy them. This creates problems for communities and so communities democratically try to deal with the problems that are created by so many cars. I may not like all of the solutions, but it's foolish to think you would want to live in a society that was so poor or otherwise deprived that there was no need to license and register cars because there were so few of them. Grandpa didn't need all that paperwork in part because, in his day, there weren't enough people buying cars to make it necessary.

He weaves a lovely tale, which helps to cover his lack of clear argumentation. For example, why does inhibiting exercise not limit essence? How has this battle played out in the courts? Where has the Rehnquist court taken the ball? Goldberg would do well to learn from Ram's thought-provoking style of discourse and his incessant supplying of evidence for his views.

Goldberg's political writing feels more like a one-night stand than committed, well-considered argument. It reveals a lack of engagement on more than just the level of artifice and appearances. Needless to say, it leaves me cold and bored.

Sunday, November 24, 2002

William Saletan's cocksure foreign policy comes at the expense of reason.

William Saletan of Slate thinks all the talk about war being a "last resort" is just an excuse for letting Saddam play on the human-rights heartstrings of the world. He stresses that the Bush administration's emphasis on war as a last resort diminishes US credibility and perception of might. According to Saletan:

"The 'final opportunity' isn't really final. As long as there's another hoop to jump through�a debate in the Security Council, a vote in the U.S. Congress, a last-ditch peace mission by Scott Ritter or Jimmy Carter or Kofi Annan�Saddam can keep feinting and stringing us along. That's what he's done for more than a decade. He never gets serious until we cock the gun or pull the trigger.

In his book The Threatening Storm, Ken Pollack, a former CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer in the Clinton administration, recounts Saddam's history of exploiting procedural delays and capitulating only under fire. It took force to drive Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991. At the outset of the U.N. inspections, he "felt no obligation to comply except under threat of force," writes Pollack. Missile strikes and troop mobilizations were necessary to halt Saddam's adventurism several times: in 1993, after he tried to kill George H.W. Bush; in 1994, when he threatened to reinvade Kuwait; and in 1995, when he tried to crush the Kurds. Saddam drove inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 by making their job impossible, and he didn't let them return until this year, when George W. Bush made clear that that the alternative was an American invasion.

At every turn, Saddam used intervening deliberations to hint at conciliation and sow discord in the Security Council. He learned "that there were issues on which Security Council opinion was divided and that by pressing on those issues, he could deepen the rifts among the members," Pollack writes. In 1997, he lulled France, Russia, and China away from the U.S.-British alliance against him. Early in 1998, he used Annan's peace overture to thwart American and British military strikes. That fall, he pulled off another 11th-hour escape: "With American and British planes in the air and headed toward Iraq," Saddam's right-hand man "appeared on CNN and announced that Iraq would allow inspectors back in. Secretary-General Annan immediately accepted the overture," and the United States had to call off the attack. "Naturally, Saddam reneged right away."

This is Saddam's genius. As long as war isn't the next resort�as long as there's some vote, consultation, or authorization that has to take place before the bombs begin to fall�he'll wait until that moment and fake compliance in order to kill the momentum against him. After he reneges and a new countdown begins, he pulls the same stunt. It's Zeno's paradox: The war never begins, because Saddam keeps intervening halfway between where you are and where you're threatening to go."

Saletan feels strongly about this-- so strongly, in fact, that he has written another article saying pretty much the same thing. Obviously, I think Saletan is jumping the gun. War is only a credibly deterrent for state behavior if it is used sparingly and reasonably. The arbitrary designation of Iraq as a member of the "axis of evil"-- which has little to do with terrorism or Osama bin Laden-- doesn't make the reasonableness of using war immediately clear. If a majority of other states believe we have rushed to war, they will defend themselves instinctively against the US, who will then be characterized as an arbitrary imperial power prepared to use force (like the bully on the playground) to get its way. A bully's promise is never really taken seriously, and eventually, the rest of the kids isolate the bully-- which would be damaging to the US economy. Power is a sexy mistress that should be courted carefully.

Sunday, November 24, 2002

FDA does something of merit?

The FDA has warned Applied Digital Solutions Inc. about improperly marketing the chip for medical uses. The VeriChip is a scannable device implanted under the skin and encrypted with personal information such as medical records and emergency contacts. The maker has it proves useful for finding missing persons or speeding up medical diagnoses. My skin crawls at the prospect.