Dan Drezner’s “post”:http://volokh.com/2003_07_20_volokh_archive.html#105917081573152949 on the agreements and differences between Josh Marshall and Steven den Beste has stirred up quite a debate, including posts by “Kieran”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000297.html , “Kevin Drum”:http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001760.html and “Tim Dunlop”:http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/surfdomarchives/001388.php . My tuppence worth: Dan has identified some interesting points of agreement between Den Beste and Marshall, but I still don’t buy Dan’s arguments about the justifications for the war, or its likely consequences.
Posts by author:
Henry
“Randy Barnett”:http://volokh.com/2003_07_20_volokh_archive.html#105898768113978353 blogs to tell us about an “article”:http://www.msnbc.com/news/856672.asp#030723 he’s just written; it asks why the Left is living in its own “constructed reality,” where Bush didn’t lie, Al Gore is President, Bellesisles didn’t cook the books _und so weiter_. Fellow Volokh-blogger, Juan “chimes in”:http://volokh.com/2003_07_20_volokh_archive.html#105899198850087066 that he’s reminded of the Left’s contortions over fascism in the 1930’s. Readers (at least this one) wonder why they’re getting this sort of knockabout stuff from the Volokh Conspiracy, usually a reliable source for challenging and thought-provoking arguments.
Tyler Cowen has a “couple”:http://volokh.com/2003_07_20_volokh_archive.html#105888482984762773 of “posts”:http://volokh.com/2003_07_20_volokh_archive.html#105896942112479124 suggesting that there is a serious libertarian argument against initiatives like the US government ‘do-not-call’ list for telemarketers. His argument is that government shouldn’t be in the business of restraining peoples’ spontaneity.
(warning: lengthy argument follows)
One of the nicer things about trying to keep up a list of blogging academics, is that I’ve come across a whole bunch of blogging scientists. I’m a science junky, and love to read practitioners talk about how it’s done. Perhaps this is just discipline envy – we “political scientists” are often rather touchy about whether we’re actually scientists or not – but it probably has a lot more to do with my having read way too much science fiction over the last twenty years. Whatever. Anyway, to point you to a few particularly good science posts that I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks.
Chad Orzel, “here”:http://steelypips.org/principles/2003_07_06_principlearchive.php#105785171837597564 and “here”:http://www.steelypips.org/principles/2003_07_06_principlearchive.php#105766528719351705 on the discovery of a new type of subatomic particle. While you’re at it, check out his “index”:http://steelypips.org/principles/physposts.html of physics posts.
“Amity Wilczek”:http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/natureisprofligate/2003/07/13#a78 on how dung beetles navigate. This is a great blog on all manner of strange behavior in the animal kingdom.
“Cosma Shalizi”:http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/archives/000077.html on dumb research on mating behavior.
“John G. Cramer”:http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html who has an incredible list of essays on cosmology, the physics of warpdrives &c &c (OK: he’s not a blogger, but his “daughter”:http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/ is).
And (not a scientist, but debunking bad science nonetheless), “Belle Waring”:http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2003/07/just_not_so_sto.html on _ad hominid_ arguments.
“Larry Solum”:http://www.lsolum.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_lsolum_archive.html#105872492716074656 and “Dan Drezner”:http://drezner.blogspot.com/2003_07_13_drezner_archive.html#105845808164583615 are having a minor _contretemps_ that touches on one of my pet peeves; the lack of a one-stop-shop for working papers in political science. Drezner takes issue with a recent “Slate essay”:http://slate.msn.com/id/2085668/ by “Steven Johnson”:http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/movabletype/archives/000085.html which argues that Google is pushing academics towards writing (PDF-able) articles rather than books.
Something which I should have mentioned previously. Below our main blogroll is a list of academic bloggers, which has been transplanted over from my old blog (I owe the original idea for the list to “Jacob Levy”:http://jacobtlevy.blogspot.com/ ). This is a fairly non-exclusive list; i.e., if you think that you should be on it, you’re probably right. And not only that, if you email me, and you qualify, I’ll put you on it (you can email one of my fellow bloggers if you prefer, but it may take a bit longer to get you up). The qualifications are fairly straightforward. First, if you either have an academic position at a university type institution, or are a Ph.D. student or equivalent at same, you qualify. Second, if you have a Ph.D., but are pursuing another career due to the miserable state of the job market, or more interesting opportunities elsewhere, and keep a blog that sort-of relates to your field of specialization, you qualify unless you’re Jerry Pournelle. Third, if you don’t qualify under the formal criteria, but think that you provide a venue for specialized academic discussion, email us to say why you should be included, and we may put you in (note, however, that we will tend to be highly selective in this last category; so don’t feel insulted or upset if we decide against including you).
Finally, we do want to keep some minimal criteria for non-offensive content; we’re unlikely to link to you if you use your blog to propagate views that I and/or my fellow bloggers find downright revolting. Which isn’t to say at all that you need to agree with us; conservatives, right-libertarians etc, are all very welcome. But if you’re a racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic, and/or you think that all Jews or Arabs ought to be forcibly expelled, or similar, we would prefer that you continue to practice your right to free speech without a link from us.
Update: The Crooked Timber Academic blogroll is no longer being updated. Instead, you should go to “http://www.academicblogs.net”:http://www.academicblogs.net, which has subsumed the old CT blogroll.
“Friedrich Blowhard”:http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/000909.html#000909 has discovered public choice economics a la Buchanan and Tullock, and decided that he quite likes it.
bq. What a gas to see a group of smart people take many of my private musings of the past decade and set them out with more clarity than I ever gave them. I actually read a webpage outlining some of the notions of public choice while literally laughing out loud to see that I wasn’t the only lunatic in the insane asylum.
Friedrich is especially impressed with public choice’s description of how government tends to get captured by special interest groups, who gorge themselves at the expense of the public purse. He also suggests that public choice provides some interesting alternatives to the current political system.
Something which I should have mentioned previously. Below our main blogroll is a list of academic bloggers, which has been transplanted over from my old blog. This is a fairly non-exclusive list; i.e., if you think that you should be on it, you’re probably right. And not only that, if you email me, and you qualify, I’ll put you on it (you can email one of my fellow bloggers if you prefer, but it may take a bit longer to get you up). The qualifications are fairly straightforward. You should either _a_ have an academic position at a university type institution, or _b_ be a Ph.D. student or equivalent at same. And _c_, you shouldn’t be using your blogs to propagate views that I and/or my fellow bloggers find downright revolting. Which isn’t to say at all that you need to agree with us; conservatives, right-libertarians etc, are all very welcome. But if you’re a racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic, or you think that all Jews or Arabs ought to be forcibly expelled, or similar, we would prefer if you continue to practice your right to free speech without a link from us.
“The Economist”:http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1923421 gives us a rather longwinded editorial today, explaining why it was right to support the war, even if it turns out that George and Tony indeed were telling porkies. The piece makes some (apparently) good arguments. First, Saddam had repeatedly failed to comply with UN sanctions, and had lied about what he was up to. The UN needed to carry through if its threats were to be considered credible. Second, any delay in following through on the threat would possibly have led to divisions among the allies. Third, America and its allies are doing their best to make the country and the region more peaceful and less threatening.
So why is the _Economist_ wrong? Let’s take each of their arguments in turn.
Two strikingly similar mischaracterizations of opposition to the war today, from different sources. The “NYT”:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/international/worldspecial/17BLAI.html?hp quotes an unnamed British official as saying of Iraq and Afghanistan:
bq. There is this myth that these countries don’t want freedom, and that Saddam or the Taliban are popular, but then it becomes apparent that they were not at all popular after they fall.
And “Instapundit”:http://www.instapundit.com/archives/010537.php quotes at length from a New York Post “article”:http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/774.htm that says:
bq. This chorus [a mixture of Arab and Western newspapers, and _Time_ magazine] wants us to believe that most Iraqis regret the ancien regime, and are ready to kill and die to expel their liberators. Sorry, guys, this is not the case. … ONE fact is that a visitor to Iraq these days never finds anyone who wants Saddam back.
Now I don’t know whether this is a flash in the pan, or a new talking-point in the making, but either way it’s bogus. It implies that opponents of the war believed that Iraqis were happy with Saddam, and that Afghans liked the Taliban – thus, their criticisms of what’s happening now can safely be ignored. The fact that no-one outside the lunatic fringe (and perhaps a couple of Arab newspapers) actually makes this claim is irrelevant. When your opponents have arguments that you can’t answer, you don’t try to answer them – instead you construct a straw man and start clobbering the bejesus out of that, in the hope of confusing innocent bystanders.
Critics aren’t arguing that the Iraqi people are begging Saddam to return, at least not the ones that I’m reading. They’re dissecting the deceptive claims that were made by Bush et al. in the run-up to the war. They’re looking closely at the lurching disaster that is post-war Iraq – a far cry from the smooth and easy transition to democracy that the administration seemed to be promising. They’re asking about the lasting damage that the US has done to its relationship with its allies. And I’m not hearing much in the way of a convincing response from the pro-war crowd.
These aren’t good times for traditional socialists. What with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and its satellites, China’s evolution towards bog-standard market authoritarianism, and the dismal record of the few remaining true-blue Communist regimes (Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar etc), there aren’t all that many active examples of state socialism out there to inspire the masses. But there is one political organization that has remained true to the cause through thick and thin, providing its members with extensive social benefits in return for unquestioning obedience. Friends, comrades, I give you the US Armed Forces.
“Ezra Klein”:http://www.notgeniuses.com/archives/000277.html has come across a rather wonderful site, detailing the “Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair”:http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html, in which kids do “science” projects to “prove” the truth of Creationism. I feel a little guilty linking to this – I’m sneering, basically – but how could you NOT sneer a little. It outdoes _The Onion_. I do feel a little sorry for the kids though.
Ezra quotes the most offensive science project, which seeks to show that women are designed by God for homemaking, but there’s plenty more goodness where that came from. Some personal favorites.
Update – oops. Looks like this one is a phony. It’s a pretty good one though. Guess it says something about my gullibility when it comes to extreme Bible-thumping lunacy – I have difficulty in telling the real stuff from the fake.
And “on top form”:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/opinion/15KRUG.html.
bq. More than half of the U.S. Army’s combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn’t have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn’t supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods? How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn’t an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.
Check out Nicholas Kristof’s “piece”:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/opinion/15KRIS.html for extra _schadenfreude_, if _schadenfreude_ is your thing; mine is weary disgust.
bq. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired spooks, issued an open letter to President Bush yesterday reflecting the view of many in the intel community that the central culprit is Vice President Dick Cheney. The open letter called for Mr. Cheney’s resignation.
I went to see _Pirates of the Caribbean_ last night, and really can’t recommend it highly enough. It’s as much fun as movies can get. Johnny Depp is a revelation as Captain Jack Sparrow, moving like a fey, drunken “Keith Richards”:http://romanticmovies.about.com/library/weekly/aa062903a.htm who hasn’t gotten his land-legs; Geoffrey Rush is nearly as good. The plot is hokum of course, something about cursed Aztec treasure and blood sacrifice, but you don’t notice while you’re watching; you just go along for the ride.
“Kevin Drum”:http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001630.html complains about the writing style in an _Esquire_ piece on Wesley Clark. The offending quote:
bq. Look into his eyes. They’re not eyes so much as scanning devices—not quite predatory, no, but sort of an odd combination of jittery and calm, of patient and imploring, alert and exhausted, set back there in the hollows and shadows of his lean, handsome, deliberate face.