Various things have caught my eye around the blogosphere. First up, Chris Brooke ran with a suggestion of mine concerning our latter-day Widmerpool (and splendid work he has done too). Chris also reacts to Melanie Phillips’s response to the Blair speech. Marc Mulholland comments on the latest degenerate hackery from Christopher Hitchens. Brian Leiter posts moral philosopher Jeff McMahan’s essay on the the injustice of the Iraq war (rtf). Finally, Damian Counsell has disturbing news on the racism in the campaign around a change to Switzerland’s nationality law.
As regards the allegedly ‘disturbing news’ on racism in Switzerland, what Counsell writes is that “Even if you, your father, and your grandfather spent their entire lives in Switzerland you do not automatically qualify for Swiss citizenship.”
What’s so ‘disturbing’ about that? Similar rules apply to Israel and no reasonable person would call Israel a ‘racist’ country – unless it is deemed racist to wish to retain your cultural and ethnic identity and to prevent your country from being balkanised. The Swiss, quite sensibly, want to remain the way they are – a civilised, peaceful and egalitarian European country. And if their citizenship rules help stave off the entry of the misogynist Muslim barbarians at the gates, so much the better.
Three cheers to them!
As regards the allegedly ‘disturbing news’ on racism in Switzerland, what Counsell writes is that “Even if you, your father, and your grandfather spent their entire lives in Switzerland you do not automatically qualify for Swiss citizenship.”
What’s so ‘disturbing’ about that? Similar rules apply to Israel and no reasonable person would call Israel a ‘racist’ country – unless it is deemed racist to wish to retain your cultural and ethnic identity and to prevent your country from being balkanised. The Swiss, quite sensibly, want to remain the way they are – a civilised, peaceful and egalitarian European country. And if their citizenship rules help stave off the entry of the misogynist Muslim barbarians at the gates, so much the better.
Three cheers to them!
The main point made at CT and PooterGeek is not directly about the law, but the poster used to promote it.
Incidentally, your contention that “no reasonable person would call Israel a ‘racist’ country” is clearly untrue, unless you’re using an extremely self-serving definition of “reasonable”.
For some odd reason I am disappointed but not surprised by McMahan’s mediocre essay.
The shortness and inaccuracy of his dismissal of the invasion on humanitarian grounds stands out -
‘The reason why the Iraq war cannot be justified as an instance of humanitarian intervention is not just that at the time the persecution of the Iraqi people failed even to approximate the scale necessary to justify the resort to war (a failure of proportionality); it is also, and more importantly, that there was no indication that the people whom the US claimed to be saving actually welcomed American intervention. For humanitarian intervention to be justified, it must be consistent with the will of the supposed beneficiaries. People who suffer under tyrannical regimes often resist the overthrow of their government by a foreign army.’
‘it is also, and more importantly, that there was no indication that the people whom the US claimed to be saving actually welcomed American intervention.’
That is either inaccurate or disingenuous.
Both pre and post war polls clearly indicate that a majority of Iraqis approve of the removal of Saddam’s regime via force.
‘The reason why the Iraq war cannot be justified as an instance of humanitarian intervention is not just that at the time the persecution of the Iraqi people failed even to approximate the scale necessary to justify the resort to war (a failure of proportionality);’
McMahan himself pretty much concedes that the invasion as opposed to the occupation meets the criteria of proportionality.
‘It was possible that if, after the rapid and relatively bloodless initial military success, the US had acted quickly to restore and rebuild the country and had immediately involved Iraqis from all sectors of the country in the work of running the country, it could have earned the gratitude and respect of the people and thereby have achieved a retroactive justification of sorts for the war. Instead the Bush administration squandered its opportunity by allowing and perhaps even encouraging corruption, venality, brutality, and even torture, with the consequence that there is now armed opposition to the US presence in virtually every Sunni and Shiite town in the country.’
Maybe McMahan thinks the failed occupation had to follow an invasion? Oh wait he clearly states the opposite.
Ok, maybe taken as a whole the invasion and the occupation have caused a disproportionate amount of suffering. That wouldn’t mean the invasion was unjustified but the invasion plus the occupation has been unjustified.
But at a bare minimum you would think McMahan would make some attempt to support that claim other than just making the claim. Even if it is the less important factor.
Especially when McMahan himself claims that the pre-war situation was so horrible ‘allowing thousands of its citizens to die from the effects of economic sanctions’ and ‘the continuing imposition of devastating economic sanctions that had kept many of those who had managed to survive the war in deepest misery ever since.’
Is it so obvious that the post war situation has been so much worse than the pre-war situation? How many thousands or 100s of thousands does McMahan believed died from the sanctions? Why are the deaths of the thousands or tens of thousands who have died since the invasion so much greater than those pre-war deaths. How much greater is the misery of now than the deepest misery of then? How much is infinity + 1?
But perhaps the sanctions were unjustified?
Well if that is the case, aside from being on or already having fallen down the slippery slope that, leads to the moral place where no realistic coercion would be justified in stopping a vicious madman from obtaining WMD, you would again think that McMahan would feel the need to elaborate on and support this view.
I could go on. I could wonder if McMahan realizes his levels of evidence and requirements regarding divining the wills of captive peoples would be sure to doom the most helpless peoples to the least help.
Since we seem to largely be taking utilitarian stroll, I could wonder how we know that an occupation that has not yet ended has resulted in net gain of misery that is much greater than the misery of the pre-existing status quo. Like adding one to infinity this is another neat trick.
But what would be the point? I am just an irrational Republican, so what do I know?
It’s fairly obvious that Christina B is trolling, but : -
“The Swiss, quite sensibly, want to remain the way they are – a civilised, peaceful and egalitarian European country”
..with 22% of the permanent population not citizens. But they’re there, and there seems no realistic drive to expel them. And their presence doesn’t, to her mind, hamper the peacefulness, civilisation or egalitarianism.. hang on, was that “egalitarianism”?
“Similar rules apply to Israel and no reasonable person would call Israel a ‘racist’ country – unless it is deemed racist to wish to retain your cultural and ethnic identity and to prevent your country from being balkanised.”
Is it possible to justify race-based citizenship and retain a liberal political order? I’m no expert, but I suspect the answer is no. Switzerland and Israel both need to be regarded as racist countries to the extent that citizenship in either is dependent on race.
Perhaps someone can offer a historical example to the contrary, but I find it hard to imagine that the rule of law can long be maintained in a country that refuses citizenship to a group based on their race. Fair enforcement of the law for the excluded race is unlikely if citizenship implies full legal protection and that race is denied it.
But perhaps the sanctions were unjustified?
Well if that is the case, aside from being on or already having fallen down the slippery slope that, leads to the moral place where no realistic coercion would be justified in stopping a vicious madman from obtaining WMD, you would again think that McMahan would feel the need to elaborate on and support this view.
Sanctions are used to pressure governments to change their policies/practicies. That’s the dictionary definition: an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication and the real meaning of ‘sanctions’.
The way it was done with Iraq: sanctions along with the “regime change” policy - is absurd. You can’t force a government to “yield to adjudication” while simultaniously announcing your intention to destroy it regardless of its actions.
You can’t really call it ‘sanctions’.
Switzerland and Israel both need to be regarded as racist countries to the extent that citizenship in either is dependent on race.
Hey, wait a minute, citizenship in Switzerland is not dependent on race or ethnicity.
The reason why the Iraq war cannot be justified as an instance of humanitarian intervention is not just that at the time the persecution of the Iraqi people failed even to approximate the scale necessary to justify the resort to war (a failure of proportionality);’
Also, for those with short memories, that never was its stated justification at the time. Blair of course dropped in some fine words like you know, as a side effect the people of Iraq will be better off, but even he didn’t seek to claim that WMD were not the reason.
Honourable pro-war people may truthfully claim that their intentions were humanitarian, but they cannot say the same for Bush and Blair. A humanitarian justification was never on the table from Bush/Blair.
Also, pro-war people often claim that you can’t oppose the war without also opposing the overthrow of Saddam, because the former, they claim, in practice implied the latter. (I disagree with that - I think the Iraqi people should have been given a chance, the sanctions should have been lifted.)
But I think we may usefully invert this, and say that you couldn’t have supported that-war-at-that-moment-in-history without supporting the [i]attempt[/i] at a long-term military occupation, and the brutal repression and collective punishment of rebel areas that ensued … because the one, realistically, implied the other. More than that: the latter (the long-term occupation) encapsulates pretty much the whole reason for the war.
And as a hard-bitten cynical young Chomskyite, I think that that’s even harder to disprove than the admittedly tough-to-challenge claim that nothing short of an invasion could topple Saddam.
could have toppled, rather.
Robin Green,
Perhaps Chomsky disagrees with you -
http://www.newagebd.com/oct5th03
/311003/inat.html
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se
/webnews/wed/an/Qcuba-us-chomsky.RUJF_DOU.html
I admit not much context, though something seems deliciously right about that lack of context.
The number of people who do not accept that the occupation had to follow the general tone it has followed does not include Professor McMahan.
So you might be right but he isn’t accurate or convincing.
You have reminded me of A.N. Wilson’s remark that C.P. Snow’s Strangers and Brothers series was like A Dance to the Music of Time written by Widmerpool.
Citizenship in Germany is dependent on race. All the so-called Volga Germans who flooded into Germany post-1989 were allowed in because of their German blood while Turkes born in Berlin rarely had citizenship.
The Germans essentially denied citizenship by disallowing dual citizenship.
When I lived there, the Germans used to say that Israel was the only other country with a similar policy. Don’t know if that’s actually true.
Certainly, the Israelis allow dual citizenship and are far more generous to refugees than the Swiss.
This being CT though, Israel bashing is mandatory even if it’s a discussion about the xenophobic Swiss.
he Florida Myth: Spinning tales about 2000 to boost black turnout. (Tuesday, September 28)
Yes, the political urban legend that black voters in Florida were harassed and intimidated on Election Day four years ago is making a comeback. Only yesterday Jimmy Carter, fresh from blessing Hugo Chavez’s dubious victory in Venezuela, moaned that in 2000 “several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities” in Florida, and that this year more black than (Republican) Hispanic felons are being disqualified to vote—as if all felons weren’t supposed to be barred, regardless of race.
Democrats and their acolytes are raising this myth from the dead to scare up black turnout and lay the groundwork for challenges in court if John Kerry loses. So, before Dan Rather concludes this is another scoop, let’s all remember the fraud that didn’t happen in 2000. In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.
Headed by a fiercely partisan Democrat, Mary Frances Berry, the Commission was very critical of Florida election officials (many of whom were Democrats). For example, “Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote.” But the report found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to disenfranchise voters.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division conducted a separate investigation of these charges and also came up empty. In a May 2002 letter to Democratic Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, who at the time headed the Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General Ralph Boyd wrote, “The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigations that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election.”
Peter Kirsanow, a Republican member of the Civil Rights Commission, told us in an interview that “the press has tried to spin what happened in Florida into something sinister. But there’s a disconnect between what was actually found [in these various investigations] and how it’s been portrayed.” Senator Corzine’s letter references the New York Times, where heavy-breathing columnists are trying to link a routine investigation of voter fraud in an Orlando mayoral election with a statewide effort by Governor Jeb Bush to intimidate blacks into staying home in November. Elsewhere, the NAACP and People for the American Way have issued a report claiming that “intimidation” led to racially motivated voter disenfranchisement in Florida. These and other left-wing groups are planning to dispatch 5,000 lawyers nationwide on Election Day in the name of “voter protection,” presumably to prevent a “repeat” of something that didn’t happen the first time.
Another prong of the attack on the legitimacy of the Florida outcome, at least as it pertains to the notion the black voters were intentionally disenfranchised, is the number of black voters whose ballots were spoiled. The Civil Rights Commission concluded that blacks were more likely to spoil their votes than whites by a factor of 10 to 1. Other investigations put that ratio closer to 3 to 1. In any case, the numbers are educated guesses extrapolated from sample precincts because ballots don’t record the race of the voter. But the idea that racial animus rather than all-around incompetence produced higher spoilage rates for blacks, or accounted for their misplacement on the infamously inaccurate “felon purge list,” is fanciful at best. In Florida, as in many other states, the manner in which elections are conducted, including all of the essentials of the voting process, is determined at the county level. Which leaves the “stolen election” crowd with these inconvenient facts: In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent. And as for the “felon purge list,” the Miami Herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review