You Will Obey Here's an article on Neocon media imperialism by Michael Tomasky for The American Prospect, explaining the rhetoric framing dissenting Americans as "bad Americans." Unrelated, this week's Savage Love is the most entertaining it's been in a while. Heck, why not make this an entirely ecclectic post: Check out Zoe's Press Release on a Call to Action over the DEA's removal of hemp food from shelves April 21, contested in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Friday, March 28, 2003 10:39 a.m.
War Costs Even I have to hand it to Virginia Postrel for making some of the soundest arguments for war. From today's NYT's "Economic Scene":
Three economists at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business recently compared the costs of the Iraq war with the costs of an alternative strategy of containment. (Their paper is available at http://gsbwww .uchicago.edu/fac/steven.davis/research.) They wrote the essay "to clarify our thinking about the war and to address some views that are widely held but not carefully scrutinized," said Steven J. Davis, who worked with Kevin M. Murphy and Robert H. Topel on the estimates.
They use a generous estimate of $125 billion for the direct costs of the war and peg the cost of containment at $13 billion a year for troops and equipment.
Assuming a 3 percent chance that the Iraqi regime "morphs from malign to benign in any given year," an estimate based on the persistence of other "contained" repressive regimes, containment would last 33 years, they estimated. "The most apt comparison is probably to North Korea," Professor Davis said, noting that the regime continued "in essentially the same form" even after Kim Il Sung died in 1994.
"This dwarfs any reasonable estimate of U.S. war costs," they concluded
Friday, March 28, 2003 09:57 a.m.
CSS-Free
It turns out, the Linux/Open Source documentary, Revolution OS, was released on DVD without CSS -- the anti-piracy scrambling device. While it's a good PR move, anti-IP advocates should pick their battles. Free-market approaches to combat piracy, like CSS, are signifigantly less damaging than government mandated ones.
Thursday, March 27, 2003 09:24 p.m.
Is it Real?
Speaking of secrets and lies, it's even tougher in childhood. They've got myths like the toothfairy, and the mythalized like Iraq, to sort out. French newspapers for schoolchildren are publishing graphic images of the war. I don't know how I feel about this.
Wednesday's eight-page Le Petit Quotidien (The Little Daily), aimed at readers seven to 10 years old, showed a front page picture of smoke billowing over Baghdad and explained inside how to understand the pictures they saw on television.
Mon Quotidien, an eight-pager for the 10-14 year group, ran shots of an American prisoner of war, a mushroom cloud over Baghdad, blood on a hospital floor and a wounded G.I. under the headline: "Can you look at everything?"
Thursday, March 27, 2003 08:53 p.m. Bad Reputation
I finished with Sissela Bok's book the other evening. I'm not exactly sure what to think of it, and I'm definately not convinced.
She's arguing against dishonesty, and despite her cunning; never quite makes it out of the world of hap-hap-happy into reality.
If you're a moron, there's no temptation to submit to. You probably will experience getting "caught in a lie," and learn from such a mistake. If you are smart though, and have a quick memory; it's easy to tell tales and keep them straight. So why not?
Maybe the aggregate of all lies, white or otherwise, makes the world a less pleasant place. It also makes the world a more interesting one. Besides, who is to tell what it true and what isn't? Like the Russians nostalgic for Stalin (as I posted a few weeks back,) all you can every trust is what you see with your own eyes. No books, no conversations; nothing can ever be fully verified. How can one stay honest if he doesn't know the truth? Life isn't exact or scientific, despite our wishes to make it so.
So that leads me to the ethical question of whether or not the cost of lying exceeds the benefit. Lies work as saftey nets. The problem liars have is, they can never truely feel appreciated. The facade gets all the criticism, but it gets all the compliments too. There is an incentive to be honest, it is a desire for honest love
Al Jazeera: Off the Market
Al Jazeera is banned from broadcasting news updates on the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ floors. Al Jazeera had been reporting from the floor for the past five years. No comment why the Arab-language network was banned, only speculation that is because of the footage aired this week of American POWs. I'm sure an Arab newspaper has had its share of restrictions, too bad the US can't set a good example of a free press.
Also, here's Blair barking at Al Jazeera for footage of dead British soldiers
Wednesday, March 26, 2003 05:43 p.m. If You Can't Keep Up; Keep Out
I'm starting to think maybe leaflets should be distributed to the protestors themselves over how to argue their case more wisely. Cathy Young's Reason article makes me cringe as she notes that Kim Gandy the president of NOW made the statement, "Yes, Saddam Hussein is a maniacal tyrant, cruel and vicious ... But where are these brave opponents of tyranny when the threat is here at home?" Shame on Gandy and other Code Pink members, including by far, some of the least educated anti-war voices. Christina Hoff Sommers cracks her whip in WSJ on that "small group of chronically offended gender feminists" who have hijaked punditry on gender issues, and basically made it even more difficult for those of us with vaginas who actually know what we are talking about. But let us not forget that in a sea of deluded and vague, incoherent and irrational, unqualified and loud females involved in politics and political theory, there have been three gems -- and no, I don't mean Alina, Zoe, and me.
There exists a tacit subsidy to the political woman's intellect because we are a minority. Truth is, many of the women employed in politics are far underqualified than their male counterparts. I'm not really sure why this happens; if it's because policy wonks want someone to look at, or female employeers directly request to add more women at their workplace so they feel more comfortable, or maybe several other reasons I'll come up with at a later time. We're experiencing a new misogyny and facilitating it. Pardon, not "we," but "them." Their existance hurts mine.
For-profit sectors, as opposed to think-tanks and the government, want to hire the one who's best suited for the job. If they've only experienced unqualified women who have glided their way through their careers, I'm going to be discriminated against. Forget the fact I haven't been to a mall in two years, or that I couldn't care less about celebrities, or that I have an economics degree -- I am a female. Like, totally.
On several interviews for finance jobs I was asked directly if it would bother me to be the only woman on the floor.
Well, hmm, that could only mean ... lunchbreak gang bangs?
Chalk up all my intellectual weaknesses to my ripe old age of 22, not my gender. I'm not good for a girl, I'm good.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003 03:03 p.m.
MOAB is My Washpot
eXile says the MOAB is "not a big deal. Just about the most lo-tech weapon you could imagine"
Wednesday, March 26, 2003 01:55 p.m.
Economics of Warfare
Slate's Dismal Scientist Robert Shapiro answers some questions on the war's impact on the economy. Since November, the dollar has fallen 7% against other currencies. Foreigners (especially Middle Easterners) are taken their funds out of US currency.
A favorite of mine, Alan Reynolds has a Cato Daily Dispatch on The Economics of Warefare, a continuation of an excellent op-ed he wrote last fall. He defines what "uncertainty" regarding the war is driving the market, explains oil speculations, and ends with this, "That leaves me in the strange position of agreeing with those who say this is a good opportunity to buy stocks on the cheap, even though I believe the probable costs of war have been seriously underestimated and that the promised benefits are apt to prove illusive."
Tuesday, March 25, 2003 07:58 p.m. War and Afterthoughts
I’ll tell you exactly what I did the day of 9-11 and until 72 hours afterward. I locked myself in my closet-sized dormitory and cried hysterically like I didn’t know was possible. I didn’t eat, I didn’t sleep; I just stared at the TV screen, driving myself to a near hallucinatory state.
While the evening of March 19, 2003 has by no means fired emotions as intense as that unfortunate day; it is another shot to my stoicism. The distance between my life and current events, the ersatz veneer news and television drapes over the truth; is gone again at a historic milestone. September 11th violated Americans, but this turn of events makes us feel like a jilted paramours. I do not feel raped, but cheated. I am disgusted by this deceit and I am angry.
Jilted rather than victimized, we should take this opportunity to fight back using whatever methods we see fit. Take to the streets, blog; but by all means get the message across that you are at least skeptical if not appalled by US intervention in Iraq. If you are not feeling this, then you are not paying attention.
Iraq is our scapegoat for 9-11, although the evidence of even the slightest involvement in that event is hearsay. Our actions today can prevent as tremendous a blow from occurring on our soil ever again. If you believe, as I do, that US involvement in Iraq is far more likely to induce devastating consequences than positive effects, this issue is too grave to ignore.
Early in the morning, the day after war was declared, I met up with a team of about one hundred people at Eastern Market. We were directed to the metro without any clue of our destination. Arriving at the Rosslyn stop, we walked to the Key Bridge connecting Arlington, Virginia and Georgetown. Thirty of the activists stepped onto the bridge, holding hands and holding up traffic. In minutes, a coalition of cyclists met up at the Washington end of the bridge.
Disruptive, yes. Irreverent, yes. Irrelevant – Not at all.
Whether or not you agree with the action of “direct action,” it is still a viable method of spreading a message. It is agreed that this method should employed gingerly, but by fair account, the day after bombs were dropped was a time to do it.
Curiosity was the driving force of my participation, but undoubtably it was rage that got me out of bed at 5 am. I hate to think that anyone went about his business as usual that day. Whether you support the war or not, the beginning of it was a reminder to us all, of the unthinkable evil plaguing the Middle East.
Before you brush aside the protesters as just a bunch of tie-dyed, clueless hippies; take a look at one of the most outspoken activists this week, Daniel Ellsberg. The 71 year old Harvard Economics PhD was a distinguished defense analyst working with RAND, the Pentagon, and the State Department. In 1971 he leaked TThe Pentagon Papers; a massive document illustrating the extend American leaders were deceiving the public with involvement in Vietnam. He narrowly escaped life-imprisonment.
"We are out here tonight, supporting our troops, by telling the President to bring them home--we're telling him not to send our troops to die from chemical weapons in the desert, in this reckless and unnecessary war, which will decrease the security of American citizens enormously. A heavy rain is coming down now, and the police are surrounding us, telling us that they will arrest us, that we don't have a permit to be here, just as the U.S. doesn't have a permit from the UN to bomb Iraq. This war is blatantly aggressive and illegal, from the perspective of the UN charter, to which we are a signatory. Thus it is illegal from the perspective of the Constitution of the United States, which holds all treaties we sign to be the supreme law of the land.
"Aggressive war is not patriotic. It flies in the face of everything our Constitution stands for. I cannot think of a better place for patriotic Americans like us to be, than out here in front of the White House, putting our bodies in the way of this war, nonviolently. I expect one way or another to be arrested tonight, which seems right on this particular night. It's a good night for a patriotic American who opposes this war to be in jail.”
Remarkably he escaped arrest that day. On Friday, again, he demonstrated at the same place and spent the night in jail.
Ellsberg is no crank. He is a man of courage and integrity; accepting great risks to fight for what is true. But for every Ellsberg there is a Ramsey Clark, and for every Ramsey Clark there are millions of misinformed “activists” standing behind him, sullying the anti-war platform left and right. Unfortunately, it is Clark’s project ANSWER that gets every permit it requests and therefore the most attention. Its only rival in size and scope is Not in Our Name, also a neo-Communist organization’s front. By the way, I hear they hate each other. God bless competition.
Undoubtably there is strength in numbers, and to appropriately send out a message against this war, we must set aside some ideological differences to unite. The anti-war movement has to be retrofitted to accommodate the wide variety of dissenting viewpoints. That is why neither ANSWER, nor Not in Our Name is acceptable as a organizing body.
Win Without War is a group with the potential to make a difference. They are actively seeking to attract the kinds of people that would feel alienated at a traditional protest. Two weeks ago, they staged a Peter, Paul, and Mary concert at the Lincoln Memorial. Most of the attendees were suburban families with small children – not the sort you’ll find picketing the White House, but perhaps holding similar political sentiments.
Still, perusing the list of coalitions involved with Win Without War shows it’s largely an organization of mainstream Democrats. While their plan how to “win without war” lists nothing egregiously offensive to free-market ears, they place some sentimental value on the UN – a bureaucracy libertarians and conservatives will be happy to see dismantled. Also, Win Without War is aligning itself with yet another anti-war organization, the largely Green, United for Peace and Justice. United for Peace and Justice gets its information from a think-tank with a name calling for eye-rolling, the Center for Economic and Social Rights.
That is why dissenting viewpoints that are poorly represented in anti-war coalitions should make themselves a presence in the movement. If there are no conservative or libertarian voices to suggest nationalizing heath care and preserving social security are unrelated to the Iraq issue; how can we expect others to omit these concerns from their platforms?
Then again, are libertarians and conservatives inherently anti-activist? It seems the people sharing my political affinity are decidedly passive no matter their level of disgust with the current administration. Libertarians that won’t miss an event with fancy cocktails and girls to hit on, shy away from actions that might actually move us closer to that free-market utopia in the sky, albeit if by only infinitesimal steps. Perhaps this shows how one’s understanding of public choice can be perverted to justify apathy.
It is almost futile to suggest coordinating a libertarian coalition to join Win Without War or United for Peace and Justice. While such a coalition could certainly counter any statist or objectionable logic of current anti-war campaigns, and streamline their goals to maximize the greatest amount of participants; who’s going to join in? I can name two libertarian “activist” groups in existence. Both have websites that haven’t been updated in several months, and their activities were hardly ever more than a handful of free-market friends having some fun.
Rather than condescendingly participating in the anti-war movement or “crashing” their events, we anti-war conservatives and libertarians should take part as individuals. If we should feel the civic duty to do as best we can to prevent further international wreckage, we must be confident enough to unite alone with those with opposing views on other points.
The War in Iraq signifies a libertarian need to amicably divorce from the neo-cons. Despite their relative concurrence on economic matters, they are adversaries where it matters the most. Neo-cons are certainly gravely dangerous to us as the sycophants and propagandists of the Bush doctrine. Lefties are, if only this, intuitive and skeptical enough to reject the rationale for this war.
Libertarianism will never flourish if it is self-contained, but we must chose are alliances wisely, and make it known such alliances are temporal. The neo-cons are no friends to liberty if they patronize us when we speak out against their kind of bureaucracy. They are not the Daddy-All-Knowing party by default of their tidier clothes. They will never accept us and they will never learn from us. However, the left is an untapped resource of many people – intelligent, technologically savvy, and damn well coordinated – eager to learn if we are willing to teach. They are open to ideas, so long were a driven to impart these ideas.
There is room for a libertarian message in the anti-war movement. We just aren’t taking the left up on their offer. Maybe it’s public choice, or maybe we lack passion; but it’s hard to believe so many intelligent people are willing to take a great injury from the state, and turn the other cheek.
