Jujitsui Generis

Vacation

I will be in the mountains on a well-deserved vacation for the next week.  Most of my time will be spent fishing and swimming in the lake.  Mercifully, I will not have access to a computer, which should ensure some true down time.  I look forward to returning next Sunday night with some new posts.

In the meantime, if you haven't already, check out the blogroll.

Disorganized Labor

The labor unions have had a pernicious influence on the the U.S. economy (just witness GM's current woes).  Thankfully, the power of organized labor over American businesses has been on the decline since the early 80's.  By all appearances, it just got even weaker as the Teamsters and the SEIU today announced a split with the AFL-CIO.  Such dissension and in-fighting threaten to finish an already moribund labor movement.

But I say 'appearances' because the reasons for the split allegedly involve the Teamsters and SEIU's desire to reverse the trends of declining membership and political influence.  They wish to pursue a more aggressive approach to extending their reach; and some commentators are predicting that the unions have not yet breathed their last.  More businesses from the North have fled to the South (mostly at-will states) in recent years in an attempt to break the choke hold of the major union groups.  I would not be surprised if the unions move forcefully to gain a toehold in the Southern and Western states.  Here's hoping they fail.

No Country For Old Men

For those interested in the novels of Cormac McCarthy, here's a review of his latest novel, 'No Country For Old Men'.  I've just started, but will comment later on this scathing review by David Hellman. 

Bringing The Troops Home

Here's an op-ed (registration required) from a solider in Iraq worth reading (hat tip: Instapundit).  Here's the money parts:

"Let's support our troops. Bring them home." Please don't ever say those words again. Nothing is so disheartening to our troops who are in harm's way than to hear our own citizens say things like that...

As I said before, there are two different wars being fought: the war in Iraq and the war being reported in the media. Very few times are the great things that are being done in Iraq reported on because they do not grab the headlines or the ratings that casualties do...

I will wrap this up by saying that you are entitled to your beliefs, and you should believe in whatever you want, but don't pretend to know what you are talking about just because you have watched 30 minutes of CNN the night before. Go and talk to the people who have been there — not the people who make assumptions from a TV studio — and then form your opinion based on facts...

Don't pretend to support troops by trying to undercut their efforts at the same time. Just go to bed at night and pray for their safety and thank God that they are there to protect you and your family, no matter your beliefs.

On a related note, aging has-been, Hanoi Jane, emboldened by her recent return to the public eye, is feeling nostalgic for her days of supporting the Viet Cong, and is finally letting the public know where she stands on the war in Iraq.  She'll be taking her vegetable-oil bus across country to protest the war and demand the return of US troops.  Since major combat is over, it's unclear what exactly she'll be protesting, though, given initial reports, she'll focus on withdrawing troops as quickly as possible.  No word yet on Fonda's policy prescriptions - whether she supports returning Hussein and his Baathist henchman to power, or whether she's hoping for the establishment of an Islamic state.

On Flypaper And The Subtle Lie of 'Just Desserts'

Every time terrorists strike anywhere all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law must stand together and affirm our firm commitment to fight this scourge resolutely and unitedly. I sincerely hope that all of those who cherish and value open and free societies will join hands in the war against terrorism wherever it is fought. I wish the people of London well.  -- Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh

It is odd to make the claim, as many on the left (see, for example, George Galloway) continue to do, that the war in Iraq has fomented an uncontrollable rage throughout the Arab world, and that the war is, therefore, responsible for the continuing terrorist attacks; for the claim, once considered, actually undercuts the motivation of those making it.  The claim may take on two apparent purposes.  In one sense it's simply a meaningless shorthand for opposition to the war, something to the effect of "I told you so", meaning 'those of us who opposed the war told you it would have dire consequences' (what war has consequences that are not dire?).  But in another sense, the claim is meant as something more, it's meant to bestow by implication a degree of legitimacy on the attacks, as if they were the actions of a justifiable resistance, an insurgency fighting the imperial ambitions of aggressor nations.  But it is also meant to lay blame at the feet of the U.S.for creating an insurgency, as if no Islamic threat existed before the invasion of Iraq.  The claim explicitly ties the activities of the insurgency in Iraq to those Islamic elements staging attacks in Egypt, London, Beirut*, etc... and attributes a causal relationship between those actions and events in Iraq. 'Events' in the preceding sentence refers, of course, to the removal of Hussein and his Baathist regime and the establishment of a (feebly) functioning democracy in Iraq. 

But notice that a negative response ( by negative I mean an inflamed, committed to blowing up civilians or oneself kind of response) to the events in Iraq would then entail one of two wishes: either a fervent wish to turn back the clock, that is, a wish to reinstate some sort of Baathist regime or to even return Hussein to power, or a desire to assume control over the political destiny of Iraq - presumably with institutions markedly less democratic and a great deal more theocratic in nature. 

In the first case, Hussein was reviled by much of the Islamic world.  For much of his rule he was avowedly secular and was, after all, by far the biggest murderer of Muslims throughout the Middle East.  Baathist holdouts are unlikely to find much support among the wider Muslim world, and it is unlikely that the bombings in London and Egypt are the actions of die hard Baathist committed to returning to political power.  The last days of major combat witnessed a fair amount of party holdouts and hangers-on making last ditch efforts.  But the continuing efforts of the U.S. military, the death of Hussein's sons, and his subsequent arrest squashed whatever glimmer of hope for a triumphant return remained.

In the second case, however, it is no secret that some former Baathists have found common cause with the foreign fighters spilling in from other countries.  But that is only on pragmatic grounds and based on the idea that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' rather than on any deeper sympathies or ideological correspondence.  It is also a truism that the insurgency is intent on weakening resolve throughout Iraq, on making a vibrant and functioning democracy impossible to achieve.  Such an achievement would likely represent the death blow to the wish to establish Islamic rule (see here for something they'll really hate) throughout the greater Middle East.  Exacerbating ethnic divisions in order to foment a civil war is one such method for achieving this hope.  Diminishing the will of the U.S. and thereby forcing a withdrawal is another. Terrorizing the world through senseless acts is yet another.  For tactical and logistical reasons, the last method is the least likely to to produce large scale damage, though it may affect public opinion (That's a gamble.  Such actions had their intended effect in Spain, but - by all appearances - are likely to have the opposite affect in London).  But all the methods share a common purpose: to prevent representative government from taking hold in Iraq and to destroy the fragile chance for democracy to blossom throughout the larger region.

So in one sense (though many countries were targets long before the war in Iraq, as Australia's Prime Minister Howard eloquently explains here), those claiming that the war in Iraq has led to an increase in terrorist attacks are correct.  They most certainly have.  That is because much is at stake, and for logistical reasons it is far easier to attack Iraq and - for a variety of reasons having to do with lax immigration laws and an entrenched Muslim community, including radical Islamist elements - London (though as Belmont Club has argued, one should be heartened by how unsuccessful and small scale the attacks outside of Iraq have been).  It is vitally important to the Islamist elements throughout the Middle East and Europe that the project in Iraq not succeed.  It is vitally important to the West that it does.  But the assertion that events in Iraq have drawn the ire of the Islamic world - and its concomitant implication that they have therefore spawned a legitimate resistance movement - is justified only if one believes that subverting the will of the Iraqi people, that ruthlessly subjugating them to the strictures of a medieval fundamentalism, that forcing them to trade one devil for another is a legitimate purpose of the insurgency, that that is a justifiable and righteous cause of 'the resistance'.  But that is to undercut the motivation of those making the claim, for in admitting that it is the worst elements of Islamic society that are committed to Iraq's undoing - and that they would either like to see a return of the Baathists or the tyranny of Sharia - one only bolsters the case for seeing the project through to the end; one is actually making the case for resolve and tenacity in the face of barbarism.  That's kind of the point - unless, of course, one yearns for the oppressive days of Hussein's rule or finds common cause with those who would deny democracy and flourishing to those hopeful souls struggling so frantically in Iraq.  But that would be downright traitorous, if not appallingly inhuman.

(*In all fairness, though the Cedar Revolution was most certainly, in part, sparked by hopeful events in Iraq, it is unlikely that the recent attacks in Lebanon - as some have argued - have anything to do with the insurgency in Iraq except in the most general and incidental way; though Syria's continuing use of proxy violence is a useful indication of the desperate panic that is seizing parts of the Middle East now facing genuine opposition to corruption and tyranny.)

You'll Find No Shelter Here

Here is the latest step in Mugabe's 'Beautification Campaign'.  Police rounded up hundreds of homeless citizens taking shelter in churches after their homes were razed on Mugabe's orders - another phase in Mugabe's efforts to most certainly destroy his country.

Roughed Up In Sudan

We should not be surprised that the Secretary of State's delegation should be treated in such a way. Good for both Condi and Andrea Mitchell for speaking out and loudly about their (mis)treatment by the government of Sudan.  We would not expect any less from American women, nor would we expect anything more from the genocidal government of Sudan.

Rorty On Orwell

Hat tip to Alina over at Totalitarianism Today for pointing to this summary of James Conant's argument against philosopher, Richard Rorty's (mis)appropriation of Orwell.

For those who care, Rorty has long given the libertarianish and conservatively inclined the shudders in his attempts to deprive liberalism (in the old-fashioned sense) of any sort of philosophical foundation.  Such attempts sometimes lead him to appropriate other writers in idiosyncratic ways (which is a statement Rorty would take to be complement).  In particular, Rorty has offered a rather unique reading of Orwell's 1984 (see here for more commentary), a novel traditionally interpreted as a warning against the degrading totality of totalitarianism, particularly its propensity to consume all of the private sphere, to regulate even once-free individual activities.  Orwell, it is widely believed, was pointing to the propensity of totalitarian governments for destroying all that is private and individual, to the point of re-writing history and even denying what ones senses know to be true, even elementary truths like 2+2=4.

Rorty, on the other hand, reads Orwell as arguing against totalitarian societies on the grounds that they subjugate a liberals attempts to remake himself in ways that are more open, that are less cruel (Rorty's hallmark virtue).  For Rorty, it's the claim to possess objective truths, over and above particular descriptions, that lead to the 'philosophical urge', an urge that once turned political, becomes tyrannical.

Winston's admittance that 2+2=5 if Big Brother claims it to be so should not, according to Rorty, be read as a defense of the notion of 'objective truth', or as a diatribe against relativism but as an admission that Big Brother's total control is an intrusion into an individual's own attempt to carve out his path at salvation (his own virtues, his highest good, etc...).  In the same way, Rorty argues that Winston's final breakdown as the rat is eating through the cage - a breakdown in which he betrays Julia - is ostensibly a depiction of cruelty, but primarily an act of self-betrayal.  The interrogator's actions force Winston to shred his own self-description, a description he could create only within the confines of the private sphere.  For Winston - the quintessential liberal, a man for whom cruelty was the worst offense - his betrayal of Julia was a complete breakdown in the language (web of belief, etc...) which he used to describe himself.

Rorty's argument (clumsily truncated here) is that one need not read the topical Orwell as shilling for notions of 'philosophical foundations' or 'objective truth'.  Orwell's importance (as contrasted with Nabakov in the same book) was his political contribution to liberalism, or to the idea that the more intrusive the form of government, the more likely it is to ravage the individual's private acts of self-creation, the more likely it is to force individuals to betray the things they hold most dear - even the basic beliefs that make sense of the world.  Rorty argues that, read in this way, 1984 need not be read as one more argument that the foundation of liberalism is rooted in the nature of the world.  It is as much an invective against cruelty as it is against totalitarian forms of government.

Orwell - as others have shown - would have disagreed with Rorty's attempt to lump him in with those post-modern skeptics who have argued for a liberalism without foundations (a la Habermas and Rawls).  But that's a minor nuisance to Rorty.  The fun of his poetic project - as he sees it - is not to use writers in the 'correct way', but to find wildly unorthodox ways of appropriating their works, of utilizing what one needs to complete one's projects.  What the author intended has always been of little concern to Rorty; he is happy to use what he finds to cobble out his own contribution to what he regards as the enlightenment/liberalism project.

Linguistic Head Lice

Hat tip to A Stitch In Haste for this ridiculous story out of San Bernadino.  The district is thinking of incorporating the Ebonics into its curriculum:

Texeira suggested that including Ebonics in the program would be beneficial for students. Ebonics, a dialect of American English that is spoken by many blacks throughout the country, was recognized as a separate language in 1996 by the Oakland school board.

"Ebonics is a different language, it's not slang as many believe,' Texeira said. "For many of these students Ebonics is their language, and it should be considered a foreign language. These students should be taught like other students who speak a foreign language...

Len Cooper, who is coordinating the pilot program at the two city schools, said San Bernardino district officials do not plan to incorporate Ebonics into the program.

"Because Ebonics can have a negative stigma, we're not focusing on that,' Cooper said. "We are affirming and recognizing Ebonics through supplemental reading books (for students).'

Uh-huh.  Kip Esquire sums it up best:

I'm not a linguist, and I refuse to wade into the muck of whether Ebonics is a "language" or a "dialect" or both or neither. Here's the easy part — it's not "foreign," hence it cannot legitimately be considered a "foreign language."

When a child shows up in school with head lice, we don't create a special "head lice classroom" for them. We treat the condition and move on.

We don't quibble about which among the immigrant German, Austrian or Swiss children in an American classroom speaks "proper" German or which Spanish dialect — Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican or European — is more "proper" in our schools. We (hopefully) simply teach them Standard Written English and move on.

Ebonics may certainly have some cultural validity, comparable to Hebrew or Yiddish for secular Jews. Knowledge of Ebonics as a supplement to Standard Written English is a personal and family decision that may be rational in some situations and some locations. But Ebonics as an alternative to Standard Written English is not rational and not an appropriate option in our public schools any more than instruction in Spanish or any language (except insofar as to catalyze the learning of Standard Written English).

Otherwise, Ebonics is merely linguistic head lice.

Kip Esquire opens his post with a delightful quote - one worth repeating again and again:

Naturally I am biased in favour of boys learning English; and then I would let the clever learn Latin as an honour and Greek as a treat. But the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English. I would whip them hard for that.
--Winston Churchill

The Explosion Of An Un-Scandal

Here's Hitch on the latest scandal over Karl Rove:

Writing to a friend in 1954, P.G. Wodehouse commented:

Are you following the McCarthy business? If so, can you tell me what it's all about? "You dined with Mr. X on Friday the tenth?" "Yes, sir." (Keenly) "What did you eat?" "A chocolate nut sundae, sir." (Sensation) It's like Bardell vs Pickwick.

Wodehouse of course was only affecting ignorance and making light of a ludicrously pompous and slightly sinister proceeding. But he was essentially correct in his lampooning of the McCarthy hearings, since even the most convinced anti-communist would not learn anything from the spectacle that he did not already know, and since the show trials managed to go on without producing either any evidence of any crime, or any evidence of any perpetrator, or any evidence of any victim.

It is the entire absence of the above three elements that makes the hunt for Karl Rove (who was once so confidently confused with I. Lewis Libby) so utterly Snark-like. In fact, in his column of July 17, Frank Rich was compelled to concede that the whole thing is absolutely nothing in itself, but is rather a sideshow to a much larger event: the deception of the Bush-Cheney administration in preparing an intervention in Iraq.

Hitchens goes on (rightly), by way of providing context for this whole drama, to strip the credibility of Joseph Wilson and his wife.  He then concludes by questioning the scope and validity of the very law that gave rise to this whole controversy.  That, of course, sidesteps the entire issue of Rove's legal culpability.  Intent to knowingly break the law would compel the President to show Rove the door.  But, as I've written before, that is not something that any evidence has yet shown.  And Hitchens is right to argue that Rove's actions might be charitably interpreted as an instance of doing his job, that is, rebutting what was - at the time - being gulped up by the media.  The media loved the Wilson story and fed the idea that Joseph Wilson was objectively gathering evidence that some of Bush's claims on Iraq's attempted acquisition of yellowcake uranium were were just plain wrong.  In this instance, Rove's actions might be interpreted as simply trying to indicate that Wilson was not the best source to assess such claims - which, by the way, turned out to be exactly right.