TOTALITARIANISM TODAY
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
Since when is "Strom" a dirty word?
Lew Rockwell chooses his contributors well, as now, search engines running "Jesse Jackson" will lead to his site. I love it. Read to find out more about the elite reaction to Senator Trent Lott's proud admissal that he voted for Strom Thurmond in the 1948 presidential bid.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
The discipline of economics needs you, Ram.
Ram drew my attention to this research paper, looking at the "commitment problems" plaguing the practice of politics, namely, that parties holding political power cannot make commitments to bind their future actions because there is no outside agency with the coercive capacity to enforce such arrangements. Daron Acemoglu wants to test what he describes as a "political Coase theorem". Surely spanking our leaders is not the solution? On the other hand, reducing their allowances might be much more effective.
I'd like to see itemized tax receipts forcing the government to let us know exactly where the money goes. Call it full disclosure for the masses. Government is the biggest racket out there-- if legislators hadn't written RICO, then they would surely be liable to punishment under its statutes.
Are Congressmen really surprised that businesses do not want their financial records to be scrutinized, or that the temptation exists to paint the general picture rosier than real? Didn't administration after administration do exactly that with Social Security? Let's apply Sarbanes-Oxley to the American government and see how much gets done. I'll see you at the Implementation Center.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
The economy: A bowl of fun if you aren't still holding those tech stocks.
Cait Murphy writes a good piece for Fortune on how high spending in the late 1990's left taxpayers in "a bad state". What better way to rememdy this problem than by making this bad state an even bigger state, asks Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, tongue-secured-in-cheek.
Maybe the US government deserves a place on Business 2.0's list of the "101 Dumbest Moments in Business" for 2002. Word on the street is that Bush will tap
Wall Street veteran William Donaldson, the founder of the former firm Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette,
to fill the vacancy left by Harvey Pitt's resignation for Chairman of the SEC.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
Lest we be tempted to forget the genius of communist scienctific method...
Books about venture capitalism in the new markets of former communist countries intrigue me, as it is full of risk and requires immense amounts of adaptation to local knowledge-- only the best can pull it off. Bill Thomas and Charles Sutherland's Red Tape: Adventure Capitalism in the New Russia reads like a hard-core farce. I love it, and can't help sharing an anecdote from it that I find particularly poignant. For a good book on organized crime in Russia, author Bill Thomas recommends Red Mafiya by Robert Friedman. Now for the anecdote.
In the 1930's, a Russian peasant agronomist named T.D. Lysenko declared that biology and genetics work according to the same laws that Marx ascribed to society. Lysenko said this meant that plants and animals would change characteristics with proper training, just like people change when they are educated in the wise ways of socialism. Needless to say, the Soviet leadership appreciated Lysenko's application of social engineering to the plant world, as its logic was impeccable.
So, in 1948, the Central Committee officially adopted Lysenko's views as dogma, and Soviet farmers were directed to "teach" their plants to grow differently. In the same year, the Kremlin announced to the rest of the world the invention of a new science, called "agrobiology", designed to revolutionize agriculture. One can only imagine the excitement of the Cubans.
The agrobiology revolution lasted until about 1950, when Khrushcev was forced to concede that the idea had been a catastrophic failure. However, by this time, it was too late to centrally-plan the salvation of Soviet agriculture, which was already being supplanted by food purchases from the West that today account for the biggest part of Russia' multibillion-dollar foreign debt. If you picture me laughing, you've got it.
Monday, December 9, 2002
The Powers that be.
A very thorough interview with Samantha Power, whose in-depth, personal look at genocide in her recent book (see archives)has yet to be beat. At one point in the interview, Powers discusses how history and popular media intersected on the issue of genocide:
"At no point was the occurrence of genocide the peculiar part. For me, that's going to be with us for a long time. It's been with us for a long time. That doesn't mean we should accept it. But that wasn't a puzzle. The puzzle was the American response to it [genocide]. I came back to this country in '95 and was struck by the Holocaust culture. It had been growing—I later learned—from the late ‘70s forward. The first five years of the 1990's there were more NY Times and Washington Post news stories in that five-year period than there had been in the previous 45 years combined about the Holocaust."
Monday, December 9, 2002
A few quotes on conscience.
In May of 1952, author Lillian Hellman explained in a letter to John S. West, chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, why she refused to answer questions about the political opinions or activities of anyone besides herself:
I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions.
More than a decade later, on March 31st, 1968, Martin Luther gave the Passion Sunday sermon at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. His memorable words:
Vanity asks the question-- is it popular? Conscience asks the question-- is it right?
Monday, December 9, 2002
Not up to the Postrel-tyzing.
Since Jo noted my blogging frenzy, I have to throw my two cents in about the photo of libertarian "babe" Virginia Postrel on her site. As for the "hushed reverence" young lib males show Postrel, "hushed" is fair if a holler might be called the equivalent of a whisper. Virginia Postrel is an intelligent woman with moderately good looks.
That said, there are multitudes that fit this description. Far from being extraordinary, Postrel is a model of middle-brow excellence, with demure cleavage-shot to boot. She is not an "egomaniac" for asking others what they think of her photos, but she isn't exactly a model individualist either. If she feels good about how she looks, she should flaunt it without the legitimation of a popular poll. She could send her shots to "Hot or Not" and get a more diverse pool of responses.
While Postrel's success and moderate good looks might be reason for admiration, you need to get your pantheon in order if you see it as a justification for adulation. The Sonic Youth song, "Kill Your Idols," should be applied metaphorically here to suggest that idolatry as a practice should be ended. An attitude of worship impedes rational discussion and discourse-- it pre-biases judgement and casts us upon the harsh, jagged cliffs of ritualesque sycophancy.
Monday, December 9, 2002
Will Ted Olsen get his torture warrants?
In what may be a landmark Supreme Court case to overturn the Miranda decision, the court heard arguments from Solicitor General Ted Olsen on December 4, 2002, who claimed our government has the right to coerce information from a witness, as long as the evidence obtained isn't used at trial against the witness. It also heard testimony on behalf of Ben Chavez, a California police sergeant, and Oliverio Martinez, a farm worker who, gravely injured in the course of an illegal drugs investigation, was continuously interrogated en route to the emergency room despite struggling in and out of consciousness and stating that he did not wish to speak. Mr. Martinez was never charged with any crime nor placed on trial.
At issue are the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights (whether Fifth Amendment protections apply to police conduct whenever police interact with the public, or only apply in the context of a criminal trial), in addition to bordering questions of qualified immunity, law enforcement behavior, and interrogation.
In the case, Chavez v. Martinez, the U.S. government supports a police officer who interrogated a man the police shot 5 times, once in the face. The injured man also demanded that the questioning stop, but the officer continued his interrogation until the injured man fell into unconsciousness.
At issue in this case are the following legal questions:
1. Is a police officer liable for damages in a civil action under 42 U. S. C. §1983 for taking a statement from a suspect in a manner considered “compelled” for the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination privilege?
2. Is a police officer liable in such an action for taking a statement without complying with the prophylactic rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966)?
3. Is a police officer liable in such an action for taking a statement in a manner that would render it inadmissible in a criminal trial under the procedural due process line of cases?
Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU National Legal Director includes this case among those worth watching after September 11th. He describes the legal question in Chavez v. Martinez as whether the Constitution prohibits coercive interrogation even if statements obtained as a result of that interrogation are never introduced in court. Though opinions on outcome vary, few legal scholars believe that this case will be an insignificant one.
Monday, December 9, 2002
Security spending.
According to Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington, the US government has spent a lot of taxpayer money to ensure the security of Israel.
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion, which, if divided by today's population, comes to more than $5,700 per person. Some might argue that this spending has increased security neither at home nor in the Middle East. But such arguments are probably pointless, as I don't think Congress considers the issue to be one up for debate.
Monday, December 9, 2002
You know it's bad when Europeans have to start fighting over alcohol.
Those of us from Transylvania knew that eventually a little fight between the Romanian and Hungarian governments might come to a head, but little did we realize the extent to which this might become a bar-room brawl. Anything for tradition.
Apparently, Romanian alcohol producers are trying to block
Budapest's request for the European Union to grant it exclusive rights to produce palinka, a fruit-distilled spirit. Romanians, who make a brandy with a nearly identical name, want guarantees that they will also be
allowed to market their product within the European Union. Eugene Tomuic believes the significance of this dispute lies in its "raising the question of protecting traditional products made in EU candidate countries as they inch closer to membership".
Lest I sound too much like the godforsaken Juliet, I qualify my "What's in a name?" with "A rose by any other name would taste as sweet. So palinka would, were it not palinka called, retain that dear perfection which it owes without that title." All this talk whets my appetite for a little taste of the family tuica, a palinka-like brandy. Pardon me while I go seek my love in other quarters.
Monday, December 9, 2002
Back in the EU: A technocrat's paradise.
As evidence of how out-of-touch the EU technocracy is from its constituents, the EU recently agreed a hard-hitting ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship of major events such as Formula One racing. I remember the day when Europeans used to mock Americans for their decreased smoking rights. Governments are quick to jump on the legislative band-wagon. This is not a good sign for the social freedoms that many European countries still enjoy over America (i.e. personal liberties).
Other creative movements in the technocrat's paradise include the setting up of a European ethics observatory. It goes without saying that everyday life is an "ethics observatory", and allocation of EU funds to this project might make the true "business" of observing ethics a bureaucratic hum-bug. But, according to Francesco Perez-Trejo from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation,
"There is no question about whether an observatory should exist. It is a need rather than an option....It will help organisations to move forward. A function could be network building and strengthening, and based on that, a number of information needs will arise."
With European unemployment at 8.4%, however, the political reasons for creating more government jobs are self-evident. What better way to satisfy Eurocrats than by putting together a new watch-and-wait bureaucracy that guarantees job stability so long as different standards of ethics exist in society?
Sunday, December 8, 2002
"Coming to This" by Mark Strand
We have done what we wanted.
We have discarded dreams, preferring the heavy industry
of each other, and we have welcomed grief
and called ruin the impossible habit to break.
And now we are here.
The dinner is ready and we cannot eat.
The meat sits in the white lake of its dish.
The wine waits.
Coming to this
has its rewards: nothing is promised, nothing is taken away.
We have no heart or saving grace,
no place to go, no reason to remain.
Sunday, December 8, 2002
A crash course on Bulgaria.
Now that Bulgaria has been invited to join NATO, it might serve us well to know more about this new military ally. Called "the land of disenchantment" by The World Press Review, Bulgaria certainly lacks economic bragging-ground.
While food prices are approximately half of those in the EU, the average monthly wage still stands at US$114—far behind all other EU aspirants, including even Romania, which “boasts” an average monthly income of US$170. Bulgaria has the highest mortality rate in the former Eastern Bloc. Unemployment has soared to 17 percent (30 percent according to the labor unions), despite the toddling zero-interest credit program designed to help people set up small businesses.
International observers tend to blame the failure of the Bulgarian economy on ineffective leadership. In the 2001 elections, Bulgarians voted King Simeon II into power. Scholars have argued that this move was intended to increase Western respect for both the Bulgarian government and their elusive claim to "European-ness". The significance of the Bulgarian Executive was demonstrated after NATO requested permission for its warplanes to pass through Bulgarian airspace, and deliberations on this issue "took place neither in the Council of Ministers nor in the Narodno Sabranie (National Assembly, or parliament) but at a special session of the Consultative National Security Council, a body chaired by President Petar Stoyanov". Unfortunately, human sex trafficking continues to be a tremendous problem for Bulgarian law enforcement, many of whom make up for their meager paychecks by accepting bribes from various organized crime syndicates. Is it fair to say that Bulgaria is Europe's own little L.A.?
Sunday, December 8, 2002
Victim impact testimony on trial.
Susan Hirsch, a survivor of the embassy bombings, explains the limits of victim-impact testimony. A controversial legal practice, which has gained its prominence through use in certain capital cases, victim impact testimony functions as follows:
In the penalty phase of a capital trial, victims and their families inform the jury about the impact of the crime on their lives, so as to influence whether that impact, along with other factors—such as the gravity of the crime and the threat posed by the defendant—is sufficient to warrant the death penalty. To some extent jurors weigh the crime’s impact on victims against mitigating factors—e.g., abusive childhood experiences, lack of education, or indoctrination—introduced by the defendant. Part of the justification for impact testimony is that each victim’s “uniqueness as an individual human being” should have as much place in the penalty phase as the defendant’s unique qualities.
The majority opinion in Payne v. Tennessee, a Supreme Court case which established the constitutionality of victim-impact evidence in capital murder cases, emphasized the jury’s need to appreciate the human consequences of the crime. Over the past few decades the victims’ rights movement has lobbied hard for impact evidence to be considered at all phases of criminal prosecution; many jurisdictions now allow oral and written statements from victims, particularly at sentencing.
Hirsch explains in footnote that Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), affirmed the constitutionality of victim impact statements in penalty phases. Hirsch considers the Payne decision a "startling example of the expansion of the victims’ rights movement into all areas of a murder trial and of the volatility of the Court, which only a few years before had stood firm against impact evidence in capital cases". For more on this topic, Hirsch suggests the following: Susan Bandes, “Empathy, Narrative, and Victim Impact Statements,” University of Chicago Law Review 63 (1996): 361; Martha Minow, “Surviving Victim Talk,” UCLA Law Review 40 (1993); and Austin Sarat, When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001).
Sunday, December 8, 2002
Stephen Holmes: Foreign affairs' Sherlock.
For those unfamiliar with his work, Stephen Holmes is a professor at NYU law school who specializes in Russian law and history, as well as "transition" (though he would never refer to it as such). He is also the editor of the East European Journal of Constitutional Law, part of my monthly repertoire and an excellent keyhole from which the gauge the legal changes in East and Central Europe, as well as the former states of the Soviet Union. In "Looking Away", he reviews Samantha Powers' A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide and David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals. As with any review, the interesting part is observing how Holmes relates the two. His response?
Taken together, they help unravel one of the deepest mysteries of American policy towards Iraq: namely, why dissent inside the US has been so tame and equivocal.
Auspicious.
Sunday, December 8, 2002
Thinking long term.
Sunday, December 8, 2002
I've got your rapture right here, and it ain't Jesse Jackson.
Right now, The Rapture couldn't up my level of commitment with a ring. Testament of faith in this band. Though they are labeled as "post-punk disco", I think they have a Gang of Four flair. Even my mother secretly likes them. Try "House of Jealous Lovers" without delay. And stock up on the ozone-friendly hairspray.
Sunday, December 8, 2002
Berkman Center releases report on internet censorship in China.
Ben Edelman and Professor Zittrain of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law school released a list of blocked internet sites in China, as part of their ongoing effort to chronicle loss of media and internet freedom around the world. According to Edelman, the reasons and methodolgy for this study are as follows:
As in our prior testing of Saudi Arabia, there exists no publicly available master listof blocked sites. To assemble something approaching such a list, we have found ways to remotely test "twenty questions" style, asking about thousands of individual URLs, whether based upon a domain name or an IP address.
The China report details the results of their testing over 200,000 websites in the past eight months, out of which nearly 20,000 were found to be inaccessible.
