David T. Beito
In the fall of 1918, Garet Garrett, an assistant editor of the [New York] Tribune, prepared a brief charging Hearst with treason under the Espionage Act of 1917 and traveled to Washington, D.C., to outline his case to Attorney General Thomas Gregory. In October, a federal grand jury sitting in New York City interviewed Garrett and subpoenaed a copy of his brief. While Garrett insisted that he had 'evidence tending to shown treasonable activities' on Hearst's part, he was unable to produce any. The case against Hearst was dropped. Still the suspicions lingered.
Through it all, Hearst did very little to defend himself. Convinced that he had been in correct in opposing American entry into the war and thereafter to urge a negotiated peace, he was not about to surrender his right to speak his mind to his readers.
Fortunately, Garrett more than made up for this serious lapse in the decades to follow. Perhaps his ultimate redemption illustrates that there is hope even for the likes of George Bush....well probably not.
Mark Brady
"The giant Aldabra tortoise was one of four brought by British seamen from the Seychelles Islands as gifts to Robert Clive of the British East India Company. Clive died in 1774."
The three other tortoises given as gifts to Clive died soon after they arrived in Kolkata. Although the zoo's records show that the tortoise was born in 1750, some claim he was born in 1705. The zoo will use carbon-dating to determine his real age.
To read the full story, go here.
Kenneth R. Gregg
"What is necessary for the use of land is not its private ownership, but the security of improvements. It is not necessary to say to a man, 'this land is yours,' in order to induce him to cultivate or improve it. It is only necessary to say to him, 'whatever your labor, or capital produces on this land shall be yours.' Give a man security that he may reap, and he will sow; assure him of the possession of the house he wants to build, and he will build it. These are the natural rewards of labor. It is for the sake of the reaping that men sow; it is for the sake of possessing houses that men build. The ownership of land has nothing to do with it."--Henry George
Henry George (9/2/1839-10/29/1897) was born in Philadelphia, the second of ten children of a poor, pious, evangelical Protestant family. His formal education was cut short at 14 and went to sea as a foremast boy on the Hindoo, bound for Melbourne and Calcutta eventually making a complete voyage around the world. Three years later, he was halfway through a second voyage as an able seaman when he left the ship in San Francisco and worked at various occupations (including gold mining) and eventually went to work as a journeyman printer and occasional typesetter before turning to newspaper writing in San Francisco including four years (1871-1875) as editor of his own San Francisco Daily Evening Post. George's experience in a number of trades, his poverty while supporting a family, and the examples of financial difficulties that came to his attention as wage earner and newspaperman gave impetus to his reformist tendencies. He was curious and attentive to everything around him.
"Little Harry George" (he was small of stature and slight of build, according to his son) was fortunate in San Francisco; he lived and worked in a rapidly developing society. George had the unique opportunity of studying the change of an encampment into a thriving metropolis. He saw a city of tents and mud change into a town of paved streets and decent housing, with tramways and buses. As he saw the beginning of wealth, he noted the appearance of pauperism. He saw a degradation forming with the advent of leisure and affluence, and felt compelled to discover why they arose concurrently. As he would continue to do as he struggled to support his family in San Francisco following the Panic of 1873.
Dabbling in local politics, he shifted loyalties from Lincoln Republicanism to the Democrats, and became a trenchant critic of railroad and mining interests, corrupt politicians, land speculators, and labor contractors. He failed as a Democratic candidate for the state legislature, but landed a patronage job of state inspector of gas meters (which allowed him time to write longer expositions).
As Alanna Hartzok has pointed out, Henry George's famous epiphany occurred
"One day, while riding horseback in the Oakland hills, merchant seaman and journalist Henry George had a startling epiphany. He realized that speculation and private profiteering in the gifts of nature were the root causes of the unjust distribution of wealth."His son, Henry George, Jr., said
"...Henry George perceived that land speculation locked up vast territories against labor. Everywhere he perceived an effort to" corner" land; an effort to get it and to hold it, not for use, but for a"rise." Everywhere he perceived that this caused all who wished to use it to compete with each other for it; and he foresaw that as population grew the keener that competition would become. Those who had a monopoly of the land would practically own those who had to use the land."Over the next several years, George devoted his time to the completion of his major work. In 1879, finding no publisher, he self-published Progress and Poverty (500 copies), and issued the following year in New York and London by Appleton's after George transported the printing plates to them. The plates were then taken by Appleton's and the book soon became a sensation, translated into many languages and assured George's fame, selling over 3 million copies.
"...in 1871 [he] sat down and in the course of four months wrote a little book under title of"Our Land and Land Policy." In that small volume of forty-eight pages he advocated the destruction of land monopoly by shifting all taxes from labor and the products of labor and concentrating them in one tax on the value of land, regardless of improvements. A thousand copies of this small book were printed, but the author quickly perceived that really to command attention, the work would have to be done more thoroughly.
At the heart of his critique of Gilded Age capitalism was the conviction that rent and private land-ownership violated the hallowed principles of Jeffersonian democracy and poverty was an affront to the moral values of Judeo-Christian culture. Progress and Poverty was “an inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth.” In the fact that rent tends to increase not only with increase of population but with all improvements that increase productive power, George finds the cause of the tendency to the increase of land values and decrease of the proportion of the produce of wealth which goes to labor and capital, while in the speculative holding of land thus engendered he traces the tendency to force wages to a minimum and the primary cause of paroxysms of industrial depression.
George moved his family to New York in 1880 due to the demands as writer and lecturer. In 1881 he published The Irish Land Question, and in 1883-4 he made another trip at the invitation of the Scottish land restoration league, producing on both tours a strong international interest in his ideas. In 1886 he was the candidate for the United labor party for mayor of New York, and received 68,110 votes against 90,552 for Abram S. Hewitt (Democrat), and 60,435 for Theodore Roosevelt(Republican). In 1887, George founded the “Standard,” a weekly newspaper (1887-92). He also published Social Problems (1884), and Protection or Free-Trade (1886), a radical examination of the tariff question, An Open Letter to the Pope (1891), a reply to Leo XIII's encyclical The Condition of Labor; A Perplexed Philosopher (1892), a critique of Herbert Spencer and, finally, his The Science of Political Economy (1897), begun in 1891 but uncompleted at his death, when he was running for Mayor of New York one final time.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
CLASSical Liberalism
Gene Healy
Keith Halderman
Now, I do not necessairly agree with everything put forth in the dialogue, I do, however, strongly support the following statement; "The Soviet Union imploded. I thought: What an incredible vindication for the United States. Now it's over, and the time has come for a real victory dividend, a genuine peace dividend. The question was: Would the U.S. behave as it had in the past when big wars came to an end? We disarmed so rapidly after World War II. Granted, in 1947 we started to rearm very rapidly, but by then our military was farcical. In 1989, what startled me almost more than the Wall coming down was this: As the entire justification for the Military-Industrial Complex, for the Pentagon apparatus, for the fleets around the world, for all our bases came to an end, the United States instantly -- pure knee-jerk reaction -- began to seek an alternative enemy. Our leaders simply could not contemplate dismantling the apparatus of the Cold War."
Hat Tip Kenny Rodgers
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Today, ABC's"Good Morning America" reported on the Bush administration's claim that"negative" stories on the war in Iraq are playing right into the hands of the"enemy," and that the press is to blame for the sagging public support of the war. Bush's declining poll numbers are the result of negative publicity.
Such sagging public support, of course, has nothing to do with any erosion of the public's faith in the administration's competence, eh? Or the fact that Iraq is steeped in sectarian conflict, careening toward civil war? Nah. Nothing to do with those things.
On one level, of course, Bush is absolutely right: The press tends to focus on car bombs and murders and kidnappings as news. Well. DUH. Pick up any newspaper and the story is the same locally. Watch any local news broadcast and the story is the same there too. The news often reads or sounds like a police blotter. That has been the tendency in local news for as long as I've been alive. Why on earth would this tendency be different on a national or global level? Crime is news in this culture, and whether the criminals are local thugs or foreign ones, the play's the same.
But there is no direct correlation between news coverage and public perception, unless one believes that people are sheeple. Interestingly, even though NYC newspapers and newscasts focus on local crime all the time, it has not altered the public perception that crime is down in the Big Apple, as part of a long-term trend. And there is a good reason for this public perception: Crime is down. In reality. There were over 2,600 people murdered in NYC in 1990; that number dropped to under 600 by 2004. Whatever the continuing negative focus of the press, the reality of life in this city has inspired people's positive perceptions.
Perhaps the Bush administration needs its own reality check. The downturn in public opinion on the Iraq war is not simply the result of press brainwashing. The public perception has changed because things in reality are not going as well in Iraq as the administration claims.
I guess the administration is just frustrated with the"reality-based community." And here they thought that they created their own reality.
What is the administration's alternative? Planting positive stories in the press?Paying off journalists who ask sympathetic questions? Or maybe the press should simply be"embedded" into an official Ministry of Propaganda.
Sigh.
Cross-posted to Notablog.
David T. Beito
I am glad Eugene is finally on the case. Unfortunately, he is still dancing around a fundamental quandary, a quandary that needs to be eventually faced by those VC bloggers who are pro-war.
Perhaps the antiwar Hayekian libertarians had a point, after all, when they warned about the dangerous unintended consquences of going down the Wilsonian road. Perhaps too this is also the time for libertarians to reopen their debate on this policy.
How can they support, often just by their silence, the Wilsonian effort to spread democracy while, at the same time, call on the Bush admininistration to undermine the autonomy of these democracies just because the voters don't think the"right" way? This is a contradiction.
Jason T. Kuznicki
All area friends and neighbors are invited to stop by -- appropriately enough -- the Hawk n Dove Restaurant on Capitol Hill. Given the crowd I'm likely to draw, the name is all too appropriate.
It's at 329 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, and we'll be there this Sunday, March 26, from 6PM until whenever.
The Snarky Bastards are invited -- even Apollo, if he's still speaking to me after that 9th Amendment tiff. Likewise to the Cliopatriarchs, the Liberty and Power contributors, the recently defended Dr. Caleb McDaniel, as well as anyone else who reads, comments, or links here.
Yes, that means you, so don't be shy. Hope to see you there.
Radley Balko
I've found quite a bit, most of which makes the case more troubling than it already is.
You can check here for the latest. There's still much, much more to come.
Aeon J. Skoble
Aeon J. Skoble
David T. Beito
The second is that of Michael Bérubé, a professor of Literature at Penn State. Bérubé's site is one of the most popular academic blogs around. Even more to our liking, Bérubé has recently written some kind words about fight by Ralph Luker, Robert K.C. Johnson and myself to promote academic freedom against the twin threats of speech codes and David Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights.
Keith Halderman
Today, someone sent me further evidence in support of that thesis in the form of a clip from the television show Boston Legal. One of the program's lawyers, defending a woman who refused to pay her taxes in protest of the war in Iraq, gives a very powerful and eloquent closing argument that is well worth watching. (click on freshest video) If this is the kind of message being put out during prime time on mainstream media then I believe there is some hope of ending the fiasco in Iraq in the near future.
As well there should be, my friend also sent me the latest post by Scott Ritter who constituted a voice in the wilderness throughout the build up to our most recent invasion of Iraq. In the article Ritter, who has been right on this issue from the very beginning, devastates both the historical and present cases for war. To those who say the world is better for our invasion and occupation he replies, “Iraq has come to this: a human and social disaster of enormous scale, where unified central governmental authority is not only non-existent, but unachievable under current conditions.”
In an argument very similar to the one used by the above television attorney, Ritter closes his piece with this statement; “If, by writing a book exposing the lies about Iraqi WMD or submitting an essay to Al Jazeera (or for that matter, to AlterNet or any other outlet that publishes a dissenting view), the Bush administration construes my actions as representing a threat to the United States and as such worthy of covert monitoring, so be it, for it is their actions that are seditious to the ideals and values set forth by the Constitution, not mine. When faced with the scale of the criminal activity undertaken by the Bush administration in the name of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people or defending America, the only real sedition I could commit would be to remain silent.”
Hat Tip Kenny Rodgers
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
The Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI, as the group called itself, forced its way in at night with a crowbar while much of the country was watching the Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier fight. When agents arrived for work the next morning, they found the file cabinets virtually emptied.
Within a few weeks, the documents began to show up — mailed anonymously in manila envelopes with no return address — in the newsrooms of major American newspapers. When the Washington Post received copies, Atty. Gen. John N. Mitchell asked Executive Editor Ben Bradlee not to publish them because disclosure, he said, could"endanger the lives" of people involved in investigations on behalf of the United States.
THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago today, a group of anonymous activists broke into the small, two-man office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Media, Pa., and stole more than 1,000 FBI documents that revealed years of systematic wiretapping, infiltration and media manipulation designed to suppress dissent.
Read the rest here
David T. Beito
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Yesterday, I posted at Notablog a brief piece that cited a fine principle enunciated by GOP Senator Chuck Hagel:
You cannot in my opinion just impose a democratic form of government on a country with no history and no culture and no tradition of democracy.
Yeah. How 'bout that?
Read more of my mini-rant here.
David T. Beito
Lawrence Reed wishes Grover Cleveland (perhaps the greatest president in American history) a happy birthday and for all the right reasons.
Mark Brady
"The Black Shamrock symbolises our mourning for all those who died as a result of Irish collaboration in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for which the airports at Shannon, Aldergrove and Baldonnel have become pit-stops. It also symbolises our mourning for the loss of Irish Neutrality."
"The Black Shamrock is also, of course, a symbol of resistance. In wearing it, all of those who do declare their opposition to any Irish involvement, be it economic, strategic or logistical, in the unjust and illegal wars."
Kenneth R. Gregg
"Every good person deep down is an anarchist."--Paul Avrich
I regret to say that Paul Avrich (8/4/1931-2/16/2006) died a month ago due to complications from Alzheimer's disease. He was, along with James J. Martin, one of the primary historians of anarchism of our day. He was precise, careful and sympathetic in his research, having become a confidant of numerous radicals during his lifetime. His many works on American and Russian anarchism are basic works which any student of these must study in order to fully understand them. As the anarchist Marianne Enckell said:He was a trusted friend to many of the older members of our movement, putting them in touch with each other, following their reunions, visiting them regularly - and watching them depart from this life, one after another. Without him, much of what is remembered by the movement would be lost.
His principal works were:
The Russian anarchists. Princeton University Press, 1967; re-edition 1978 (Les Anarchistes russes; translated by Bernard Mocquot. Paris: Maspero, 1979; other translations in Japanese, Spanish and Italian).
Kronstadt, 1921. Princetown: Princetown University Press, 1970 (La Tragédie de Cronstadt, 19211; translated by Hervé Denès. Paris: Seuil, 1975; other translations in Spanish and Czech).
Russian Rebels, 1600-1800. New York: Schocken Books, 1972.
The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. New York: Cornell University Press, 1973 (Gli anarchici nella rivoluzione russa; translated by Michele Buzzi. Milano: La Salamandra, 1976).
The history of the anarchist movement in the United States, published by Princeton University:
- An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre, 1978.
- The Modern School Movement: Anarchism and Education in the United States, 1980.
- The Haymarket Tragedy, 1984.
- Anarchist Portraits, 1988.
- Sacco and Vanzetti, The Anarchist Background, 1991.
- Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, 1995.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
CLASSical Liberalism
David T. Beito
Our article, which appears in the latest issue of AHA Perspectives, describes our failed efforts to get a resolution from the AHA linking speech codes and the Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR) as leading threats to academic freedom.
Horowitz charges that in
this article, Beito, Luker and Johnson shift ground. Now it is their claim that by promoting intellectual diversity the ABOR risks encouraging students to make false claims of indoctrination, thus chilling professorial discourse. This is like opposing the First Amendment to the Constitution on the grounds that someone might make a false claim that their free speech right had been infringed. The solution to this problem is quite simple. Universities can set up grievance committees to ajudicate such claims. In fact they could simply extend the mandates of existing grievance committees that deal with racial and sexual discrimination to handle these matters. What's the problem, then?
The problem? Where do I start? The best analogy to illustrate the dangers of the ABOR is the (now mercifully dead) Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine, like supporters of the ABOR, touted the need to enshrine multiple points of view. As Jesse Walker points out, however, the opposite proved the case. For decades under the Fairness Doctrine, media commentators steered clear of controversial issues out of fear that they might be forced to give “equal time” to the other side. The same chilling effect is bound to occur on a campus governed by the ABOR. It would destroy most of the remaining vestiges of free and open discourse in the classroom and render it safe, sanitized, and dull.
Horowitz’s solution of free speech “grievance committees” that he would explicitly model after existing committees dealing “with racial and sexual discrimination” is quite a stunner. This recommendation shows a breathtaking (and apparently unquestioning) faith in the good intentions of campus administrators. Instead of challenging the corrupt power of the administrative diversity police, he calls for adding to their power by giving them yet more rules to enforce. Aren’t our overly bureaucratic campuses already stifled by too many rules, guidelines, and mandates? Apparently not for Horowitz.
Meanwhile there are courses in universities across the country which are self-evidently courses in indoctrination for which there is no present remedy. Social Work 510 at Kansas State University, for example, is billed in the catalogue as a course in Social Welfare. The entire syllabus, however, is a chapter by chapter reading of Howard Zinn's atrocious diatribe,"A People's History of the United States." The ABOR is a suggested remedy for a widespread problem which is corrupting the intellectual enterprise of universities across the country. But Beito, Luker and Johnson prefer to ignore this problem in favor of addressing the greater threat allegedly presented by my bill. Interestingly not of them or anyone else in the academic community has approached me with any suggestion as to how the wording of my bill might be changed to accommodate their concerns while achieving its goals of promoting intellectual diversity and ending the practice of political indoctrination in our academic classrooms. This failure shows their bad faith. I have been open from the beginning to suggestions from sincere critics of my bill -- that is critics who are concerned about the political abuse of the universities by faculty activists. I once had the illusion that David Beito and K.C. Johnson might be such critics. I no longer am. Their AHA resolution was an attempt to strengthen the credibility of the enemies of academic freedom in the university at the expense of an effort to protect it.
Why should I propose changes to the ABOR when I think that the entire concept of an ABOR is wrongheaded? Instead I have suggested (and suggest again) that the major stumbling blocks to quality education are not liberal professors but professional administrators. On campuses throughout the country, they continue to dumb down standards because of an obsession with student body count, salaries, and empire building.
If Horowitz wants to improve higher education, he should join in the fight to expose grade inflation and other abuses of this bloated administrative elite. He wouldn't have to start from square one. Some of us have been waging this fight for years through groups like the Alabama Scholars Association. Unfortunately, instead of following this constructive route, Horowitz promotes a policy regime that will entrust more power to the same administrative elite that is the source of most problems on campus.
