Apr 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Take it from Madonna:"We as Americans are completely obsessed and wrapped up in a lot of the wrong values--looking good, having cash in the bank, being perceived as rich, famous and successful or just being famous... It's the most superficial part of the American dream and who would know better than me? The only thing that's going to bring you happiness is love and how you treat your fellow man and having compassion for one another." [Reuters, 4/24/03]
So why should anyone think she's any less shallow now that she's "sincere" than she was when she was cynical?
Apr 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Agence France Presse reports that scarf partisans [who advocate the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls] ... appeal in public to the doctrine of universal human rights, which are observed only in states such as France; on the other, in private, they use the traditional male dominance of their culture--including the threat of violence--to impose their views on others in the name of Holy Writ. ...in some giant housing projects surrounding Paris and other French cities, young Muslim women who dress in western clothing are deemed to be fair game, inviting--indeed, asking for--rape by gangs of Muslim youths. ...it is impossible to know whether the adoption of Islamic dress by women in western society is ever truly voluntary, and so long as such behavior persists, the presumption must be against it being so.
...Islamic extremists use secularism to impose theocracy: a tactic that calls to mind that of the communists of old, who appealed to freedom of speech with the long-term aim of extinguishing it altogether. The parallel is all the more exact, because just as Moscow financed the communists, the Saudis finance many of the Muslim extremists. France's headscarf problem illustrates the limited ability of abstract principle to decide practical political questions. There are good abstract arguments, appealing to human rights on both sides, for allowing and disallowing the wearing of the headscarf. But the question can only be decided sensibly based on the study of social realities. [Theodore Dalrymple, "France's Headscarf Problem," City Journal, 4/23/03]
Here once again is an example of conservatives' intellectually bankrupt approach to social problems. How is "the study of social realities" supposed to lead to a policy in the absence of principles? On what basis is one to judge whose claims have merit and whose claims don't? But "there are good arguments on both sides," and the conservative is too intellectually lazy or cowardly to weigh the arguments and decide which side (if either) is right. The implicit premise is: Anything can be proved on the basis of principles; principles will justify both sides of a contradiction. In such a case a rational person would conclude that his principles are incorrect--but the contemporary pragmatist simply chucks out principles altogether.
What's more, in this particular case it isn't all that hard to grasp the relevant principles--assuming one grasps the principle that the role of the state is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force. If schools were all private, as they should be, the government would clearly have no legitimate power to ban the wearing of headscarves at school. Even in public schools, whose rights are violated by this practice? If there's a disciplinary problem, shouldn't the instigators be punished? There is nothing inherently disruptive about wearing headscarves, any more than crosses or yarmulkes.
The issue around wearing headscarves in the exercise of a public function comes down to this: Public officials have a responsibility to uphold the law objectively. The state legitimately prohibits public officials from using the government to enforce or promote their religious beliefs, or from otherwise putting their own religious beliefs above the law. But it does not prohibit public officials from having religious beliefs: the law governs behavior, not ideas. In the case of headscarves (or crosses, or yarmulkes) there may be a legitimate legal issue as to where the display of one's own personal religious beliefs is inappropriate, but the principles themselves are clear.Apr 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the Sun's lead editorial yesterday:
Lower taxes, however, don't have to mean a lower quality of life in the city or the state. First of all, there is plenty of waste to be cut, no matter what the politicians say. And second, cutting taxes--especially in an overtaxed state like New York, which loses business and residents to nearby, lower-tax states--can spark growth, increasing government revenues in the medium term. [New York Sun, 4/25/03]
How about the much more fundamental issue that it's not the government's role to be doing all the things that it's doing, that the ones that provide value should be privatized and the rest abolished? It's not a matter of "waste," it's a matter of understanding and insisting on the proper role of government. But that would require defending one's proposals in terms of principles--which apparently even the Sun has become reluctant to do. Here's another one:
Robert L. Bartley, editor emeritus of the Wall Street Journal, reassesses the Scopes trial of 1925 and its legacy. In an evening of "Documentary, Dessert & Discussion," Mr. Bartley will discuss "Fundamentalists and Other Bogey Men." ..."Bryan had a point," said Mr. Bartley, a Minnesota native, outlining various aspects of the case. "And I don't think it's inappropriate for a legislature to decide how public moneys are spent. That includes the right to make mistakes." [New York Sun, 4/25/03]
What Bartley is saying is that the legislature has the authority to fund false teachings based on religion, and that the courts have no right to say anything about it. (Apparently the legislature's illegitimate power to fund education at all is never called into question.) Here once again is the conservatives' morally empty majoritarianism. And another:
Sir John Templeton will be honored by the William E. Simon Foundation as the third recipient of its annual Prize in Philanthropic Leadership. Sir John is a pioneering businessman who founded some of the world's most successful international investment funds....Through the Radnor, Pa.-based John Templeton Foundation, Sir John created the world's richest award, The Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research and Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, believing an award should be given on par at least with Nobel Prizes. Mother Teresa received the first prize; other laureates have included Reverend Billy Graham, Russian Alexander Solzhenitsyn, author of "Gulag Archipelago," and Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. The 2003 year Templeton Prize went to Holmes Rolston III, a professor of philosophy at Colorado State University who helped establish the field of environmental ethics.... [New York Sun, 4/25/03]
But then, it's really not a surprise to learn that conservatives are mystics and altruists, is it?Apr 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, while far from endorsing an Iranian-style theocracy, has avoided ruling out an Islamic government. "Why cannot an Islamic form of government that has as its basis the faith of Islam not also be democratic?" he asked in an interview with the Dubai-based station al-Arabiya on Thursday. "Just because one is in an Arab country or one is practicing the Muslim faith, to suggest that, therefore, you are denied the benefits of democracy, I think is a false choice. Democracy can coexist with any faith," Mr. Powell said in a separate interview with the U.S.-funded Radio Sawa. [Washington Times, 4/26/03]
Separation of church and state? "That's just our culture; other cultures can make other choices."
But why then insist on democracy? That's just our culture too; why not let other cultures make other choices?
But not having democracy is tyrannical, Powell might say. Well, not having a separation of church and state is tyrannical too. If you're not willing to pass moral judgments on other people's cultures, then don't--but then you have nothing to say. If we're going to insist on democracy in the name of preventing tyranny, then we should at least be honest about the fact that we are passing a moral judgment on what kind of government we're willing to tolerate in that society--and then we should be consistent in doing so.
Freedom cannot coexist with any faith--most faiths to one extent or another oppose essential elements of freedom, and all faiths oppose the basis of freedom: the absolutism of reason. Powell seems to think that as long as there is "democracy" then the government can choose to do whatever it wants. But this is not freedom; it is the tyranny of the majority. If he believes that, he is not fit to be serving as a government official in a free country.
Rumsfeld is much better on this:
"This much is certain," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "A vocal minority clamoring to transform Iraq in Iran's image will not be permitted to do so. We will not allow the Iraqi people's democratic transition to be hijacked by those who might wish to install another form of dictatorship."
Let's remember, too, that George Bush the elder is the one who first brought us Colin Powell--and both of them are the ones who stopped short of taking out Saddam Hussein the first time. I completely agree with Chip Joyce on this:
What the first George Bush did in 1991--stop short of taking out the Iraqi government and inciting a Shi'ite revolution and then betraying it--was hideous. His foreign policy was as bad as, and I think arguably worse than, President Clinton's. He made Saddam Hussein a hero who inspired jihad against the West. ... [He] had the CIA tell these terrified people: revolt and we'll back you up. They revolted and no one backed them up. Thousands were massacred and thousands more were tortured and imprisoned as a direct result of this betrayal. [About the War, 4/23/03]
And for the sake of what? In order to preserve an international coalition for the purpose of contriving "peace" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And we know how well that worked out.
For further reading: Bush Should Fire Colin Powell
Apr 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Michael Kinsley, in his typically vacillating fashion, comes out (or seems to come out) in favor of charging for the use of roads:
When I worked for the Economist magazine 14 years ago, congestion charges were a hobbyhorse of that free-market publication. They were considered the epitome of hard-nosed business thinking about public problems. But the London plan was put in place by Mayor Ken Livingstone, a hate-figure known as "Red Ken" among British conservatives. As a consequence, the congestion charge is often attacked by conservative politicians and publications as Big Government at its worst....The main objection is that charging for something that used to be free is unfair to those who can't afford it or who find it a burden. [Michael Kinsley, Slate.com, 4/24/03]
You call this an argument? Who gives anybody the right to demand that their wants be fulfilled free of charge?
This is the government charging money for the very purpose of making an activity cost more than most people are willing to spend. You can see it as making people buy something--the right to drive in the middle of town--that used to be free. Or you can see it as allowing citizens to buy something--an easy commute--that formerly was unobtainable at any price....You can decide for yourself if you'd rather have $8 or an easy commute. You cannot decide that you'd rather give up your share of the congestion charge revenue and have your old crowded commute back. That option has been closed off. Democracy is good for decisions that must be made collectively. But it is not as good as letting each of us decide for ourselves, where possible....This deal is collective or not at all. It still strikes most citizens as a bad deal. But with a bit of marketing, that could change.
The absurdity of the discussion results from the premise that roads are and should be public property and subject to collective decision-making. In a proper society, roads would belong to private owners, who would have the right to set the terms for the use of their property, and society as a whole would have no say.
(Incidentally, Kinsley in the same article also favors--or seems to favor--allowing for compensation of transplant donors: "We think it's terrible that he has to make that choice, but we're not offering a third alternative. We're just forcing him to take what he thinks is the worst of the current two." Hey, Michael, isn't there a principle under here?)Apr 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In the days after U.S. forces captured Saddam's powerbase in Tikrit, a dozen Turkish Special Forces troops were dispatched south from Turkey. Their target: the northern oil city of Kirkuk, now controlled by the U.S. 173rd Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade. Using the pretext of accompanying humanitarian aid the elite soldiers passed through the northern city of Arbil on Tuesday. They wore civilian clothes, their vehicles lagging behind a legitimate aid convoy. They'd hoped to pass unnoticed. But at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Kirkuk they ran into trouble. "We were waiting for them," says a U.S. paratroop officer. The Turkish Special Forces team put up no resistance though a mean arsenal was discovered in their cars, including a variety of AK-47s, M4s, grenades, body armor and night vision goggles. "They did not come here with a pure heart," says U.S. brigade commander Col. Bill Mayville. "Their objective is to create an environment that can be used by Turkey to send a large peacekeeping force into Kirkuk." [Time, 4/24/03]
