February 22, 2005
Dr. Johnson on Expanding Democracy...
Dr. Paul Johnson, writing in Forbes.com has this to say about America bringing democracy to the Middle East:
- The European Union itself is the epitome of the Continent's pseudodemocracy. There power is distributed among masterful bureaucrats and permanent political elites. The resulting lack of freedom for individuals and businesses means that economic growth is almost nil and the future is bleak.
As for European intellectuals, who command so much power in the media, universities and opinion-forming circles, they have done everything they possibly could to abuse America's initiative in Iraq and to prevent the installation of freedom. Some make it clear that they would much prefer Iraq to be run by men like Saddam than by American-backed democrats. Of course, intellectuals pay lip service to free elections but in practice have a profound (if secret) hatred of democracy. They cannot believe that their votes should count for no more than the votes of "uneducated" people who run small businesses, work on farms and in factories and have never read Proust.
The intellectuals wanted the Iraqi elections to be defeated by terror. But now that the elections have actually taken place, they want the new government to fail. They want democracy to fail in Afghanistan as well so that they can smile smugly and say, "We told you so." For if democracy were to triumph everywhere, what role would there be for the intellectual critic?...
Just as the appalling 20th century was the age of the totalitarian state, the Gulag and Auschwitz, so the 21st may come to be seen as the age of government "of the people, by the people, for the people." If so, the U.S., by its courage and persistence, will be able to take primary credit. It has certainly led from the front, and it has shown that it knows how to use its position as the world's sole superpower with judgment, honor and unselfishness.
I think Abraham Lincoln would be proud of what George W. Bush and the U.S. forces have done. After the freeing of the slaves, what more logical and benevolent step could there be than to free millions of Arabs from the slavery of terror?
Hear hear!
Posted by rakhier at 11:12 AM | Comments (0)
Battle in Falluja...
One of group of talented military bloggers is RedSix (AKA Neil Prakash) a typical modern American officer (college grad now commanding an Armor platoon in Iraq). His web site is here. Here is an exerpt from his entry about the battle in November 12, 2004
- I watched SSG Terry pull back and turn down the street moving west. I was looking down the space between that first corner house we slept near during the night, and the house adjacent to it, to its south. There were only a few meters of space between the two houses. SSG Terry popped into view as he moved from north to south in their backyards and then he stopped. The front half of his tank was behind the second house, but I could still see him and SPC Dawes standing up in their holes. SSG Terry was so high up in his hole, it looked like his ass was resting on the hatch. Suddenly, I saw a head peek from the back corner of the first house. I bent down into the GPSE to get a better look. When I did, I saw a red laser beam fire from just 10 meters behind SSG Terry…right at the rear of his tank.
“RPG!!!”
“OH SHIT,” SGT P screamed.
BOOM.
The RPG exploded on SSG Terry’s tank. The back half of his tank disappeared in a cloud of white smoke. OH SHIT. OH SHIT. OH SHIT. OH SHIT. SSG TERRY’S DEAD. My stomach turned and I felt sick. I can’t even begin to describe the feeling you get when you see your family get shot at by direct fire and disappear in a flash. All of this happened in the blink of an eye; the RPG, my thoughts, the sickening feeling. We couldn’t shoot back because there were friendly forces in every direction. It seemed like nobody knew what was going on.
”RED 8, RED 8, THIS IS RED 6. YOU JUST GOT HIT WITH AN RPG! ARE YOU OK?” I know it seems silly to tell him that. But believe it or not, in the confusion of battle, especially on something as big as a tank, it’s hard to figure out what is going on and what the explosion might have been. And there were a lot of things exploding in Fallujah. Grenades, RPGs, land mines, AT-4s, MK-19, 25mm chain gun, TOW missiles, Javelins, Main Gun, CAS(close air support) like 2,000lbs bombs, 5,000 pound bombs, and JDAMs, to name a few things.
In my opinion this war in Iraq is the best documented war in history thanks in large part to the bloggers both in our military and some Iraqis.
Posted by rakhier at 10:57 AM | Comments (0)
February 17, 2005
My great lessons...
Inspired by these 16 Rules of Bob Parsons (which are good and worth the read) here are my rules:
- 95% of fiction is pure fact with just the names changed. Time and time again I've seen this come true. Examples? All over. "Exodus" by Leon Uris - based on a true story. The shadowy American who supposedly is ex-CIA and now ships guns all around the world - he was a real man who died in 2002. Nearly all books, especially first novels are based on the author's life or the life of people they knew really well.
- Democracy is the best form of government because the people are smarter than any one person or group. Any objective look at other forms of government leads to this conclusion. Democracy works, everything else suffers in comparison over any period time greater than 50 years.
- All people desire to live their own lives and make their own choices. Freedom is an inherent good for all humans, not just a few people. Freedom is a good for everyone, everywhere. Gee, do I sound like President Bush? Yes but we are not alone. America is built on this idea.
- The United States is the most complex society ever created, understanding our society is not easy and not the work of even a few years of study. Other societies are less understandable but that is not due to complexity as it is due to a culture of dishonesty and secrets.
BTW: I loved Mr. Parson's rule 8. Be quick to decide. Remember what the Union Civil War general, Tecumseh Sherman said: “A good plan violently executed today is far and away better than a perfect plan tomorrow.”
and Rule 2. Never give up. Almost nothing works the first time it’s attempted. Just because what you’re doing does not seem to be working, doesn’t mean it won’t work. It just means that it might not work the way you’re doing it. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it, and you wouldn’t have an opportunity.
Posted by rakhier at 12:51 PM | Comments (0)
February 16, 2005
Prof. Bainbridge Questions Social Security Reform
Professor Bainbridge on his blog has great questions about the need to reform Social Security.
- Would we achieve significant actuarial improvements in the health of the Social Security system by (a) changing the method by which the benefits is calculated from being based on wages to one based on prices (see Tyler Cowen's post for details) and (b) increasing the retirement age? Social security was designed for an era in which most folks would live to receive benefits for months rather than years. Why not deal with that problem directly? (Glenn Reynolds has a solution that goes somewhat in the other direction.)
- If we can achieve significant savings and ensure the health of the system with the changes mentioned in # 1, is there a non-ideological reason for introducing private accounts? Even proponents of private accounts concede that the transition costs will require trillions of dollars of government borrowing. Do we conservatives really want revenge on FDR and the New Deal at that price? Personally, speaking as a small government fiscal conservative kind of guy, I'd give up personal accounts if any money thereby saved was spent on deficit reduction or, better yet, an income tax rate cut.
- Why aren't conservatives talking about other entitlement programs, such as Medicare, which reportedly is scheduled to go broke long before Social Security does?
I personally don't see how one can justify spending trillions of dollars just because it "would be better" if we moved to more of an "ownership society". Yes I agree it would be better but NOT at that price.
Posted by rakhier at 11:35 AM | Comments (0)
February 15, 2005
Jeff Jarvis on who the Press works for...
Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine attacks correctly the notion that the Press knows more and needs to control the stories that get published - especially when these stories might be about important news media executives speaking at Davos ---
- The head isn't the journalists. The head isn't the politicians. The head is the people.
We work for the public. We serve the public. The public is our boss. Remember?
If you don't believe the public is capable of that -- if you don't believe in the wisdom of the crowd -- then (I've said it before and, be warned, I'll say it again) you don't believe in democracy or free markets or reformed religion or art. If you think you're smarter and better than the people, you set yourself up for a fall -- especially today, when the people own the press.
I believe this absolutely. Which is why I'm in favor of democracy.
Posted by rakhier at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)
Volokh - Bloggers are a Persuasion Bunch
This mini-essay by Eugene Volokh is a must read on why Bloggers are not and cannot be called a "lynch mob" ---
- Now I realize that "lynch mob" is figurative, and hyperbole at that. Still, figurative references and analogies (even hyperbolic ones) only make sense to the extent that the analogy is apt -- to the extent that the figurative usage, while literally false, reflects a deeper truth.
The trouble is that here the analogy is extremely weak. What's wrong with lynch mobs? It's that the mob itself has the power to kill. They could be completely wrong, and entirely unpersuasive to reasonable people or to the rest of the public. Yet by their physical power, they can impose their will without regard to the law.
But bloggers, or critics generally, have power only to the extent that they are persuasive. Jordan's resignation didn't come because he was afraid that bloggers will fire him. They can't fire him. I assume that to the extent the bloggers' speech led him to resign, it did so by persuading the public that he wasn't trustworthy.
So Jordan's critics (bloggers or not) aren't a lynch mob: If they're a mob, they're at most a "persuasion mob." What's more, since they're generally a very small group, they're really a "persuasion bunch."
Maybe if a persuasion bunch tries to persuade people by using factual falsehoods, they could be faulted on those grounds (though that too has little to do with lynch mobs). But I've seen no evidence that their criticisms were factually unfounded, or that Jordan quit because of any factual errors in the criticisms. (Plus presumably releasing the video of the panel would have been the best way to fight the factual errors.)
We should love persuasion bunches, who operate through peaceful persuasion, while hating lynch mobs, who operate through violence and coercion. What's more, journalists -- to the extent that they love the First Amendment's premise that broad public debate helps discover the truth, and improve society -- ought to love persuasion bunches, too. When the only power you wield is the power to speak, and persuade others through the force of your arguments (and not through the force of your guns, clubs, or fists), that's just fine. Come to think of it, isn't that the power that opinion journalists themselves wield?
In any of event, figurative usages and analogies are good when they help us engage in clear thinking. Unsound analogies lead to muddled thinking -- and, come to think of it, they usually flow from muddled thinking, too.
Hear hear!
Posted by rakhier at 09:56 AM | Comments (0)
The Double Standard
This essay by Roger Kimball in the New Criterion blog is a brilliant analysis of the current situation.
The U.N. is an institution that is "good" and can basically do no wrong. Even when it is involved in the biggest corruption scandel in world history - who cares? Even when it is revealed that in 5 of the 10 U.N. peace-keeping missions the staff and military there are engaged in pedophilia, rape, and organized prostitution - big whoop.
The U.N. gets a free pass no matter what it does or how badly it performs it's "job". By contrast, some institutions are "evil" and they get attacked no matter what they do - good or bad, right or wrong. The U.S. and Israel are always wrong, always evil, always doing the world harm.
This is an idiotic view and yet, that is the conventional wisdom from a large number of supposedly intelligent people.
Posted by rakhier at 09:47 AM | Comments (0)
February 14, 2005
I'm back...
Well, I'm back online. My old hosting company died without telling me. I had to switch but now I'm back.
Posted by rakhier at 06:32 PM | Comments (0)