by Chris Bertram on October 10, 2004
Matt Yglesias had “some sensible comments”:http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/09/the_new_phillis.html the other day concerning Paul Berman’s philistine reaction to The Motorcycle Diaries. As a film, I thought it was OK, though I looked at my watch from time to time. There’s a real question, though, about how to portray Guevara and I’ve strugged with writing something about this for a week. I haven’t reached a satisfactory conclusion, just assembled some provisional thoughts partly inspired by Hegel and partly by Alasdair Macintyre.
Hagiography should be out, but so should the sort of reaction that just carpingly lists bad things he did or unwise decisions he made. One reaction to that type of braying criticism is “Hegel’s discussion of critics of Alexander in the Philosophy of History”:http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hi/history3.htm (scroll down to § 34). But Hegel’s remarks are inappropriate for Guevara because of the way in which he points to Alexander’s success in the conquest of Asia. Lack of success and damaging facts should not necessarily be enough to deprive a hero of heroic status: Achilles was flawed, and Achilles was cruel, and Achilles failed, but we still respond to him.
And then there’s the question of sympathetic identification with the cause. In his essay “How not to write about Lenin”, Alasdair Macintyre argues:
bq. For those who intend to write about Lenin there are at least two prerequisites. The first is a sense of scale. One dare not approach greatness of a certain dimension without a sense of one’s own limitations. A Liliputian who sets out to write Gulliver’s biography had best take care. Above all he dare not be patronizing…..The second prerequisite is a sense of tragedy which will enable the historian to feel both the greatness and the tragedy of the October Revolution. Those for whom the whole project of the revolutionary liberation of mankind from exploitation and alienation is an absurb fantasy disqualify themselves from writing about Communism in the same way that those who find the notion of the supernatural redemption of the world from sin disqualify themselves from writing ecclesiastical history.
Guevara wasn’t Lenin, just as he wasn’t Alexander, but he did personify a historical moment and he did turn his back on a comfortable future as a communist bureaucrat to pursue the goal of the revolutionary liberation of humanity. Thersites from Des Moines (or wherever) can carp all he wants — and much of the carping will consist in a recitation of facts — but criticism that isn’t appropriately informed by a sense of grandeur, tragedy, heroism and tragic failure just misses the mark.
by Brian on October 10, 2004
This is very weird. I was filling in the details on my latest “DS-156”:https://evisaforms.state.gov/ds156.asp?lang=1 form, a form the State Department quite helpfully makes available electronically. When I went to fill in question 35, “Has Your U.S. Visa Ever Been Cancelled or Revoked?” on my defeault Firefox browser, it automatically marked “Yes” whatever I clicked. Needless to say, this is _not_ the answer I wanted to communicate to the State Department. So I tried opening up the form in IE, and the problem goes away, i.e. it is possible to mark “No”. Nothing in the source code for the page suggests why there should be a problem here, at least to my untrained eyes. It’s just odd.
by Henry Farrell on October 10, 2004
Jacques Derrida has died; Jack Balkin has a good and nuanced appreciation “here”:http://balkin.blogspot.com/2004/10/jacques-derrida.html, while the New York Times has a somewhat cooler summation of his life “here”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/obituaries/10derrida.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5094&en=b96653950919a03c&hp&ex=1097380800&partner=homepage.
Update: “Scott McLemee”:http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=fue3ubrlcl0uaqyb8raw5nnupyo3tl44 has the best short summation of Derrida’s intellectual life and influence that I’ve seen so far.
by Daniel on October 9, 2004
I’m trying to build up a small archive of articles that explain important things about financial markets in clear language to an educated liberal audience. This article in the Guardian by Edmond Warner is worth ten minutes of your time.
by Ted on October 8, 2004
A. Friday fun link: Back in the day, after the death of Suck but before the rise of the Poor Man, Modern Humorist was arguably the most consistently funny site on the web. They had a fake preview for Radiohead’s Kid A that’s still on my list.
B. Friday not-so-fun links: Eric Alterman and Paul McLeary’s column on the torture provisions in H.B 10.
Congressman Markey’s amendment (which would have stripped out the torture provisions) did not come up for a vote. An amendment to substitute the Senate version of the bill came up last night. As Katherine notes:
The Senate version of the bill has a stronger national intelligence director with budgetary and personnel authority, strengthens anti-nuclear programs, and generally follows the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations much more closely than the House bill. It does not contain the anti-immigration or torture-outsourcing legalization provisions of the House bill. It passed the Senate by a 96-2 vote. All members of the 9/11 commission support the Senate version, as does the 9/11 Families Steering committee.
This amendment failed on a near party-line vote. Eight Republicans voted for the amendment, 212 against. If I understand correctly, the bill is likely to pass with the torture provisions intact, but there’s still hope for the conference committee. If I’m right, I’ll post the members of the committee as soon as I know them. If I’m wrong about any of this (which I might be), I’ll correct as soon as possible.
It’s times like these when Mickey Kaus’s whizzy “I’m a Democrat who hates Democrats!” act looks a lot less cute.
UPDATE: Katherine notes that the House is still going to vote on the Hostettler amendment, which tones down the language on outsorucing torture without eliminating it. Among other things, it instructs the Department of State to “seek diplomatic assurances” that a suspect not be tortured. This would probably make the deportation of Arar retrospectively legal (ANOTHER UPDATE: maybe not), as Syria assured us that he would not be tortured.
Markey is asking his colleagues to vote no on both the Hostettler amendment and final passage.
by Brian on October 8, 2004
I hope Lynne Cheney is being misreported by the “Los Angeles Times”:http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-history8oct08,1,7344885.story?coll=la-news-learning
bq. At the time, Lynne Cheney, the wife of now-Vice President Cheney, led a vociferous campaign complaining that the [National Standards for History] were not positive enough about America’s achievements and paid too little attention to figures such as Gen. Robert E. Lee, Paul Revere and Thomas Edison …
bq. Cheney led the charge on the original UCLA draft. In a widely read opinion piece published in 1994, she complained that “We are a better people than the National Standards indicate, and our children deserve to know it.” The standards contained repeated references to the Ku Klux Klan and to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the anti-Communist demagogue of the 1950s, she said. And she noted that Harriet Tubman, the escaped slave who helped run the Underground Railroad, was mentioned six times. But Revere, Lee, the Wright brothers and other prominent figures went unmentioned, she said.
Harriet Tubman is a genuine American hero, someone who immeasurably improved the lives of more Americans than you or I could dream of. Highlighting her work, and the work of the Underground Railroad, is highlighting what is best about America and Americans. Robert Lee was a military commander of a treasonous rebellion that killed and terrorised more Americans than any other enemy in history. And according to the LA Times, Cheney thinks that the way to make American history books make America look _better_ is by less Tubman and more Lee?! I’m not overly sympathetic to the idea we should teach feel-good versions of history, but if that’s your plan shouldn’t you at least focus on things that kids can actually feel good about?
As I said, I hope this is the LA Times’s misreporting (damn you liberal media!) rather than something Cheney actually believes.
by Henry Farrell on October 8, 2004
Following up on Montagu’s post about the EU’s accession negotiations in Turkey, the _Economist_ “touches on an issue”:http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3261579 that I’ve been wondering about for the last few days.
[click to continue…]
by Montagu Norman on October 8, 2004
The news that the EU Commission has recommended opening accession negotiations with Turkey can scarcely have come as a surprise. Over the past year, the Turkish government has made it clear that it will not let any of the longstanding obstacles – Cyprus, the role of the military, penal code reform – stand in the way of its case for admission. The remaining obstacle is the EU Summit in December. Based on the past behavior of the EU, the most likely outcome of the Summit is inglorious muddling through, with negotations opening subject to some sort of backdoor being left open for a withdrawal on the EU side. But the nature of the process is such that the moment to use the backdoor will probably never come. And by the time the negotation process is finished in 2015 or so, the EU (assuming it survives more immediate challenges like the constitution) will have moved beyond the point where a single-country veto is feasible.
[click to continue…]
by John Q on October 8, 2004
After a campaign that’s been long by local (but not US) standards, Australia will hold its Federal election tomorrow. The polls are close but generally favour the incumbent conservative government.
Whatever the outcome, I expect it will be treated in the international press as something of a referendum on the Iraq war – Australia was the third country to join the Coalition of the Willing, after the US and UK, while the Labor opposition has consistently opposed the war. I can’t complain too much about this, since I predicted at the start of the campaign that the war, and also the Free Trade Agreement with the US, would be major issues. In fact, the FTA has been ignored completely, and the war has played only a minor role in the campaign. The election has been fought almost entirely on domestic policy, with both sides promising lots of increases in public expenditure.
[click to continue…]
by Eszter Hargittai on October 7, 2004
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been announced for 2004. I started compiling a post about it, but found myself sending emails to my father for clarification. He is an expert on the topic of Nobel Prizes (having written a book about it based on interviews with over 70 Nobel Laureates) so I decided to invite him to write a little blurb here for us. Given his expertise in the topic and the Hungarian connection of one of this year’s laureates, he has spent the last day and a half giving interviews to various media outlets in Hungary. I have edited his post  with his permission  by shifting some of the science information into a footnote to focus the attention on another component of his note. My father is Professor of Chemistry at the Budapest University of Technology.
Some experiences beyond chemistry of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry by István Hargittai
On October 6 the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2004 was announced. The citation was, “for the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation.” The recipients were Aaron Ciechanover (b. 1947 in Israel), a professor of medical sciences at the Technion – the Israel Institute of Technology, Avram Hershko (b. Herskó Ferenc 1937 in Hungary), also a professor of medical sciences at the Technion, and Irwin Rose (b. 1926), an American professor, formerly at the Fox Chase Cancer Research Center in Philadelphia.[1]
There is an interesting side issue with Avram Hershko in that he was born in Karcag, Hungary, and then emigrated with his family in 1950 to Israel. He is one of several scientists of Hungarian origin who became famous and much recognized abroad. There are various counts of Hungarian Nobel laureates, but here is what the Prime Minister of Hungary allegedly said on the day of the chemistry prize announcement: He welcomed the news by referring to Hershko as the fourteenth Hungarian Nobel laureate and stressed that Hershko has kept his Hungarian name and language.
[click to continue…]
by Chris Bertram on October 7, 2004
It is National Poetry Day here in the UK, and though it is presumably _not_ National Poetry Day in many of the nations from which CT contributors and readers come, I’m not going to let that stop me. “Nick Barlow is assembling a list of participating blogs”:http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/2004_10_03_archive.html#109714776137102153 and among them is “Backword” Dave Weeden “who opines that”:http://backword.me.uk/2004/October/nationalpoetry.html 130 is the greatest of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. He may be right, but my favourite — especially in Britten’s setting in his Nocturne — is 43. Here it is:
bq. When most I wink, then do mine eyes best see,
For all the day they view things unrespected;
But when I sleep, in dreams they look on thee,
And darkly bright, are bright in dark directed.
Then thou, whose shadow shadows doth make bright,
How would thy shadow’s form, form happy show
To the clear day with thy much clearer light,
When to unseeing eyes thy shade shines so!
How would, I say, mine eyes be blessed made,
By looking on thee in the living day,
When in dead night thy fair imperfect shade
Through heavy sleep on sightless eyes doth stay!
All days are nights to see till I see thee,
And nights bright days when dreams do show thee me.
by John Q on October 7, 2004
Back in January, about a decade ago in Internet time, Kieran announced
This week at Crooked Timber, at the suggestion of Daniel, some of us will be discussing Doug Henwood’s new book, After the New Economy.
Henry followed up and Daniel gave us a series of Real Soon Now posts, which I suppose constitutes as good a representation of the New Economy as any.
At the time, I had a pretty good excuse for not joining in – the book hadn’t gone on sale in Australia. Brad de Long kindly sent me a copy, and, a mere eight months later, my review is done, at least in draft form. Comments much appreciated.
[click to continue…]
by John Q on October 7, 2004
by Ted on October 6, 2004
The White House has unambiguously stated that it does not support the “extraordinary rendition” provisions.
The president did not propose and does not support this provision. He has made clear that the United States stands against and will not tolerate torture and that the United States remains committed to complying with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States does not expel, return or extradite individuals to countries where the United States believes it is likely that they will be tortured.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES
Counsel to the President
Washington
I’m probably naive- we’ll find out soon enough. But that’s a clear, praiseworthy denunciation of the provisions in question. This leaves Hastert, Hostettler, and other supporters of these provisions without a fig leaf, doesn’t it? The 9/11 commission doesn’t want it, the Justice Department doesn’t want it, and President Bush doesn’t want it. It violates common decency, conservative principle, and 200 years of history. How can they stand up for them?
(I’m really not interested in nailing the White House for a flip-flop. If it’s true that they caved because of political pressure, good for them. Maybe they caved because of principle. Maybe it was a miscommunication. Either way, it’s a blessing, and they deserve praise for it.)
It also gives pro-Bush bloggers a hook to promote this story. President Bush denounces torture! But the provision still needs to be defeated. Pile on, guys!
by Ted on October 6, 2004
I missed about half of the VP debate, but Something Awful has some of the best commentary that I’ve seen. Excerpts:
* Cheney lost some credibility by countering Halliburton accusations with, “the nonpartisan website Sexbarn.org has all the information discrediting those rumors.” Actually, Sexbarn.org turned partisan about the same time they added the alpaca gallery and video section.
* Both candidates struggled with Gwen’s question, “if you could be any flavor of ice cream in the whole wide world, what flavor would you be?”
* When told not to mention John Kerry’s name in his response, Edwards mentioned it twice. Legend has it that if you say John Kerry’s name three times, he will appear and kill you with his hook hand. Gwen scolded Edwards for trying to invoke evil spirits.