Via Kai von Fintel, I see there’s a new blog Language Log being run by four very talented linguists. I was very pleased to see that Geoff Pullum, author of my favourite academic book, agrees with me about the learned/said controversy that erupted here soon after CT opened.
From the monthly archives:
September 2003
As Terry at Nitpicker reveals, Robert Novak and Matt Drudge are stepping up to the plate to smear Wesley Clark on factually untrue grounds. This is really awful.
Clark was a three-star lieutenant general who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department’s wishes, and may have contributed to Clark’s failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other’s military caps was distributed throughout Europe.
Matt Drudge has this photo front and center at his page right now, with the caption “GENERAL CLARK WORE BOSNIAN WAR CRIMINAL’S MILITARY CAP”.
How could Wesley Clark smile for a photo and exchange gifts with an indicted war criminal? Well, he didn’t. Here’s the chronology:
Aug. 26, 1994: Clark and Mladic meet, and the photo (sorry, the “shocking” photo) is taken.
July 6- July 21, 1995: Bosnian Serbs under the command of Mladic begin their assault on the safe area of Srebrenica, killing or expelling 15,000 Bosnian Muslims. Many surrender, after being falsely promised prisoner of war status, and are slaughtered in mass graves.
November 14, 1995: For the Srebrenica massacre, Mladic is indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity.
Novak is seriously distorting the facts to make his claim. To say that Clark took this photo and exchanged gifts with an indicted war criminal is just not true. It’s like blasting the producers of the “Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out” Nintendo game for using a convicted rapist as their spokesperson. When they made the game, he wasn’t a convicted rapist.
Then there’s this, from Novak’s column:
Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East “think tank” in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization.
Novak is wrong. A quick Google search reveals the appearance of such organizations, such as the B’Nai Brith Canada Institute for International Affairs, the Inter-University Consortium for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies, the Canadian-Arab Federation, the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
This is a shameful column, and it’s only going to get worse. I know this is an old point, but it’s worth making again: Al Gore is not the President because no one fought hard enough against garbage like this. No one else is going to do it but us.
Robert Novak’s email is: novakevans@aol.com
Matt Drudge’s email is: drudge@drudgereport.com
The letter to the editor at the Sun-Times address is: letters@suntimes.com
Anyone who’s at all interested in the relationship between law and the Internet has heard of Michael Froomkin; he’s done seminal work on “ICANN”:http://www.discourse.net/archives/2003/09/rose_burawoy_political_scientist.html and “privacy regulation”:http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.pdf. He’s also run “ICANNWatch”:http://www.icannwatch.org for the last few years. And now he’s started a blog at “www.discourse.net”:http://www.discourse.net/. Early posts include “one”:http://www.discourse.net/archives/2003/09/virtual_worlds_real_rules.html on law in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games and a wonderful “discursus”:http://www.discourse.net/archives/2003/09/rose_burawoy_political_scientist.html on his grandmother and John Ashcroft. One for your blogrolls.
I’ve been working for a while on a paper that argues for a “sufficientarian” criterion for the problem of global justice. Sufficientarianism (horrible word) is the notion that what matters, normatively speaking, is not the the pattern of distribution of whatever currency we think is important (welfare, resources, capabilities, whatever…) but that everyone gets beyond a certain threshold. Not that inequality of income, say, ceases to be important because once we focus on the dimension in which we want people to achieve sufficiency it often turns out that distributive patterns impact on their ability to meet the relevant threshold.
Following yesterday’s news about Jupiter, CNN turns its attentions to Munich:
You can see all 5.5 liters in the photo. Thus we continue our culinary theme today at CT. Coming soon, Cooking with Crooked Timber — “To each according to his kneads, from each according to his Mille-Feuilles.”
Josh Chafetz cooks from the Volokh Cookbook. (“All ingredients available from your market and don’t you forget it.”) Bam! Oxbloggers suddenly guests on Volokh. Coincidence? I think not. Expect Drezner [and his Ed! — Ed.] to show up soon with the cucumbers. Unsurprisingly, Crooked Timber’s smoked salmon socialism is ignored by this new right-wing Axis of Entrées, despite its manifestly higher quality in all respects. As the appetizers are served, Andrew Sullivan is denied entry and is seen outside the window yelling “Rhodes Scholars! Mega-losers! Curriculum-vitae fetishists!“
Chris’s post below notes some disturbing ways in which Amazon seems to be backing out of the academic bookselling business. This would really be too bad if it happened, because online booksellers have been a boon for people wanting access to academic books but without access to New York quality bookstores. So just to make people feel a little better about Amazon’s business plans, you can, in America at least, get a Journal of Philosophy subscription through Amazon. I was rather surprised by this, and it’s a kind of involvement with academic publishing that I hadn’t expected at all from Amazon.
If there starts being competitive distribution of academic journals, this could really put downward pressure on prices. (Of course, I get all of these journals for free through my department, but not everyone has jobs which allow them access to all the journals they want, and this kind of development could be good news for them.)
Technical standards are dull stuff for the most part; engineers or techies talking to other engineers or techies about the appropriate ways to implement this or that. While the politics of standard-setting is interesting in its own right^1^, it usually isn’t a very _political_ kind of politics. Here comes a prominent exception.
Via “Cory”:http://boingboing.net/2003_09_01_archive.html#106401808835764965 at BoingBoing: the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) has issued a “call to arms”:http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/IEEE/ over voting machine standards. According to the EFF, various vested interests are trying to push through a weak standard for voting machines in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). If the EFF is right, this isn’t just an argument over technical issues; it has potentially serious consequences for politics and vote-fraud.
So what exactly is going on here?
The funny thing is, it’s kind of true about the robot ship death crash, though I wouldn’t have put it that way myself. Or maybe the skateboard generation is also gaining influence over CNN’s subeditors.
A blog calling itself “the unofficial Bush-Cheney campaign blog” has followed much of the right-wing media (like here and here) in reporting some comments Bruce Springsteen recently made at a concert in Washington. Under the heading “More Signs the Left Is Just Losing It” is the following: “At his Fed-Ex Field concert last weekend, Bruce Springsteen said Bush “ought to be impeached and started chanting, ‘Impeach, impeach.’ But the call was not picked up by the multitude, some of whom even began to boo.”
The obvious comeback is: they weren’t saying “boo” they were saying “Bruce”.
But whatever they were saying (most reports didn’t hear anything), and whether or not the comments reflected Bruce’s true views, they were obviously a joke. He was laughing when he said it!
For over two decades, Bruce has introduced his sax player Clarence Clemons as (among other things) “the next President of the United States”. He even did this at a concert in 1999, with Al Gore in the audience. I wasn’t in Washington, but here’s a report of Bruce’s introduction of Clarence (taken from a usenet group):
Bruce said, “It’s time, it’s time to impeach the president and get someone in there who knows what the f*ck they’re doing! – Clarence ‘Big Man’ Clemons!” After the applause, Bruce continued joking, “impeach him! Throw him out! Dick Cheney too!” as Clarence and Bruce were making the baseball ‘you’re out!’ hand gestures.
Often, Bruce has serious points to make in concert. For example, when introducing “Born in the U.S.A.” over the past year, he often used a variation of this line, which he said on March 6, 2003: “I wrote this song back in the early 80s about the Vietnam War. I hope I don’t have to write it again. I’m gonna send it out tonight as a prayer for peace, for the safety of our sons and daughters and the innocent Iraqi civilians.” That was no joke.
And they say liberals have no sense of humor.
Forbes magazine has published their list of the 400 richest people in America. Together, their net worth is up 10% from last year, to $995 billion. The accompanying article begins: “Up from the ashes. After two years of declining values, the rich finally got richer.”
Finally.
Dan Drezner has a new “piece”:http://techcentralstation.com/091903D.html up in Tech Central Station. He suggests in passing that the EU, which used to be considered a trade liberalizer, is now an economic and political mess.
bq. Policy processes that generate illogical macroeconomic rules, incoherent foreign policies, insane agriculture subsidies, and interminable constitutional proposals have not showered Brussels with economic glory.
Fair enough. But what about US ‘policy processes’ under the Republicans?
* Illogical macroeconomic rules. “Check”:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/14TAXES.html?pagewanted=print&position=
* Incoherent foreign policies. “Check”:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0301.html#0907031101pm.
* Insane agricultural subsidies. “Check”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1978525.stm.
* Interminable constitutional proposals. “Check”:http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2106343.
In theory, the EU should find it much easier than the US to make a mess of things. It’s composed of fifteen argumentative sovereign states, each with its own turf to defend. But appearances deceive: US Republicans to be labouring under no comparative disadvantage at all. They’re screwing things up with quite extraordinary vigour and gusto. Kudos. I seem to remember that once upon a time, people thought that the Republicans too would be trade liberalizers. Word on the street is that they’re not only protectionists, they’re “incompetent protectionists”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31768-2003Sep18.html. Anyway, I’d take eurosclerosis any day of the week, if the alternative were the shambling monstrosity that is Bush’s macro-economic policy.
Jack O’Toole catches Andrew Sullivan assuming that his readers are too lazy or dumb to click a link.
Here’s Andrew Sullivan this morning on Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark:
Reading this essay by Wesley Clark, I have to say I’m not reassured that he has what it takes to wage a war on terror. If he had been president, the war in Afghanistan would probably not have taken place, let alone the war against Saddam. [Emph. added]
And what did Gen. Clark actually say in his essay about the war in Afghanistan?
Instead of cutting NATO out, we should have prosecuted the Afghan campaign with NATO, as we did in Kosovo. Of course, it would have been difficult to involve our allies early on, when we ourselves didn’t know what we wanted to do, or how to achieve it. The dialogue and discussions would have been vexing. But in the end, we could have kept NATO involved without surrendering to others the design of the campaign. We could have simply phased the operation and turned over what had begun as a U.S.-only effort to a NATO mission, under U.S. leadership. [Emph. added]
Winston Churchill famously said that the truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.
It seems that much of the right, from George Will (here and here) to Andrew Sullivan to Rush Limbaugh, feels the same way about the Bush presidency.
UPDATE: Ogged points out:
But he’s not lying this time. His point, which he spends the bulk of his post arguing, is that “with NATO” is “probably” the same as “not at all.” That’s likely wrong: Clark doesn’t rule out going alone, he merely expresses his preference—but it’s not a lie.
Ehhhh… I see his point, but I dunno. Andrew is arguing that Clark wanted to hand over operational control, and sacrifice our ability to choose targets and tactics. Here’s Andrew:
Can you imagine having to get every special ops target in Afghanistan approved by 19 different countries, including those who opposed any action against the Taliban? Can you even begin to imagine constructing a case for any action in Iraq under similar auspices? It simply wouldn’t have happened.
Yes, that certainly sounds bad, but it bears no relation to the essay he’s talking about:
In the end, we could have kept NATO involved without surrendering to others the design of the campaign. We could have simply phased the operation and turned over what had begun as a U.S.-only effort to a NATO mission, under U.S. leadership.
Both Andrew and Clark are speaking in hypotheticals, so the word “lie” is maybe a little harsh. Nonetheless, Clark has the facts on his side, and Andrew doesn’t. NATO was distinctly on our side in Afghanistan- they had called upon the common defense clause for the first time in history. (NATO is, of course, heavily involved in the current effort of policing Afganistan.) And who was it, again, that “opposed any action against the Taliban”?
European reaction to the US and British attacks on Afghanistan has so far been positive. France, Germany, Italy and Russia have all stated their support for the alliance…
In France, President Jacques Chirac has said that he will make French troops available to the alliance. Speaking in a televised address, President Chirac said that France had opened its airspace to the US military aircraft and French ships are providing logistical support to US naval forces in the Indian Ocean. However, the French President was adamant that this was as far as French participation would go.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi put his country on a state of alert following the strikes. However, he said that he supported the attack. “Italy is on the side of the United States and of all those who are committed to the fight against terrorism,” he said. He also pledged material help and troops if needed.
The German government has said that it supports “without reservation” the US-led attacks on “terrorist targets in Afghanistan”. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that Germany will contribute to the action if they are asked and in line with their abilities.
Russia has also pledged its support for the attacks saying that international terrorism should face justice. A foreign ministry statement read on television said that the Taliban regime had become an “international centre of terrorism and extremism”. The statement concluded, “It is time for decisive action with this evil”.
Sullivan’s take seems ludicrous if you read the link or just remember the events of two years ago.
I just got spam for generic Viagra that began with this salutation:
ego jackknife blest lachesis piotr catholicism cavemen calcify bedfast bile creedal introduction
I’d imagine that it’s a device to get through the fearsome AOL spam guards, but it’s almost beautiful in its way.
Roger Scruton has a “piece on Donald Davidson’s importance”:http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-09-20&id=3523 in the latest _Spectator_ .
UPDATE: Scruton’s piece is sort of OK, but I wouldn’t have bothered linking had I come across “this fascinating interview of Davidson”:http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/interview.html by Ernest LePore first (via “Brian Leiter’s site”:http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/bleiter/).