David T. Beito
Instead, they passed a weaker resolution that selectively condemned only threats coming from the right.
We weighed into this controversy as part of a three person"left/right" coalition for academic freedom.
Has the AHA turned its back on academic freedom? In January, members present at its business meeting rejected a resolution to condemn
attacks on academic freedom, whether from the right or from the left.
Read the rest here.
Mark Brady
"It is a sad testimony to the state of international jurisprudence that after many attempts to find justice, the only hope for US victims in the Yugoslavia wars was the trial defense of a man many of those same victims despised. If there was an independent international court that was recognized and respected by the US, those responsible for bombing Yugoslavia would have been alongside Slobodan Milosevic in the docks these past years instead of having their responsibility being buried with him."
So writes Jeremy Scahill in his essay"Rest Easy, Bill Clinton: Slobo Can't Talk Any More." Jeremy Scahill is an independent journalist who spent extensive time reporting from Yugoslavia, including covering the 1999 US-led NATO bombing from the ground. The night Milosevic was arrested in Belgrade, Scahill was beaten by the former president's supporters outside Milosevic's residence.
See also Amy Goodman’s interview with Andrej Grubacic, Chris Hedges, and Jeremy Scahill.
UPDATE: I also recommend Alexander Cockburn’s"Pages from the Liberals' War—Did Milosevic or His Accusers 'Cheat Justice'? The Show Trial That Went Wrong" published today (Tuesday).
Gene Healy
For the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans should propose an idea so big that it stretches to the stars. Republicans should commit the government to building a space elevator by 2020.
Awesome. And, as the author points out, a space elevator will allow us to drop freedom bombs on anybody that needs 'em.
Snark fails me.
Mark Brady
"[Runciman] takes as his starting point the familiar phenomenon of a leader who rules by generating fear of the unknown, rooted in some iconic catastrophe to which such fear can be related. The 'war on terror' was ideal for this purpose, a war that had no enemy and could thus never be won, a war that need never end. As in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four, such a war empowers a leader to fight any battle he chooses, and to require any sacrifice, since he can declare the existence of the State to be at risk.
"The villain of Runciman’s piece is Tony Blair, Dick Cheney’s 'preacher on a tank'. The central thrust is that 9/11 did not represent a new pattern in world-historical affairs since, as many neocons had been asserting, a similar threat had been around for a decade. No new intent or strategy separated the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center from the 1993 one. The only difference was in technical competence."
Simon Jenkins provides a lucid account of Runciman’s powerful critique of Blair and his rhetorical techniques. For example, "What is near mesmerizing is Blair's ability to turn every criticism into a Manichaean dichotomy. When asked about civilian casualties or military atrocities, he explains that they are always the result of error. 'We regret them and take precautions to avoid them . . . . That is the difference between us and them.'"
"The essay resolves itself into a study in common sense. There is no war on terror. There is no enemy army and there can be no negotiation, no treaty and no peace. Terrorism is indeed a nuisance, a weapon of war, a technique of conflict as old as war itself. To demand its 'rooting out' is as ridiculous as rooting out bombs, or machetes, or revenge, or poverty, or fanaticism. This obsessive chapter in post-Cold War belligerence has reduced itself to no more than waiting for Osama bin Laden to do something next. It is the most nihilistic of narratives."
Read the review and consider buying the book.
David T. Beito
Four jobs I have had: Busboy, Assistant Manager at Movie Theater, Sears (Men’s Workwear/Paints), College Professor
Four movies I can watch over and over: Galaxy Quest, Double Indemnity, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the Producers (original version)
Four places I have lived: Minneapolis, Fairfax, Las Vegas, Tuscaloosa
Four TV shows I love: Seinfeld, Colombo, Star Trek (original), The Fugitive
Four highly regarded and recommended TV shows I haven't seen: The Shield, Sopranos, Law and Order, 24
Four of my favorite dishes: Seafood Gumbo, Barbecue Ribs, Pasta Primavera, Grilled Salmon
Four sites I visit daily: Liberty and Power Group Blog, Antiwar.com, Juan Cole, Hit and Run
Four Places I've Vacationed: Norway, Orlando, San Francisco, Big Sky, Montana
Four albums I can't live without: Bunny Berigan, Beethoven’s Ninth, Bob Marley, Tina Turner
Four new bloggers I'm tagging: Peter Gordon, Ralph E. Luker, Alina Stefanescu, Charles Nuckolls
Amy H. Sturgis
Further reading:
The Allen v. Ummerteskee decision (PDF)
"Jim Crow and the Indians" Salon.com article on the Allen v. Ummerteskee case
Protagoras
It is old news that colleges and universities greatly lower the bar for members of certain favored groups. But Yale University allowing someone with no formal education beyond the fourth grade? That almost makes it seem as though Yale admitted the student for political reasons instead of educational ones. Well, but let's be charitable; surely Yale had its reasons.
For example, as a high-ranking official in the Taliban, perhaps this Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi was homeschooled. One wonders exactly what his homeschooling may have consisted in, however. ( Among the things the Taliban did while Rahmatullah was an official: torturing children for things the Taliban accused their parents of doing, shooting dead eight boys for laughing out of turn, jailing children as young as ten years old, beating a boy to death for not chanting"Death to America" with quite enough gusto, raping wives after their husbands were taken away, etc., etc.--you know, just your average good ol' red-blooded fun in the middle-eastern sun.)
In any case, I am glad that Yale is taking the venerable high road of not saying anything. One of its administrators did, however, send an anonymous, unsigned e-mail to two recent Yale graduates who have gotten upset about this enough to pledge not to give money to Yale until it reverses its decision and have invited others to join them. The administrator's five-sentence erudite e-mail called these graduates"retarded" and"disgusting" (it's all documented in Fund's article). For those of you keeping score, that's Protesting Yale Graduates, 1; Assistant Director of Giving at Yale Law School (Who Thought They Couldn't Figure Out Who He Was) Alexis Surovov, 0.
Unfortunately for Surovov, those Yale graduates are sharp; they traced his anonymous e-mail right back to the computer on his desk in his office. Bummer. What's a guy supposed to do now when he wants to cast aspersions on others under a cloak of anonymity?
Anyway, I guess Yale is assuming, perhaps correctly, that if they just keep mum long enough, everyone will lose interest and this issue will go away. Or perhaps they're figuring that with an endowment of over $15 billion--which, if you figure a modest 4%, generates about $600,000,000 in annual income--they don't really need to care what their recent graduates think. By the time recent graduates have paid off the $164,000 they paid for four years' tuition, room, and board and are in a position to start giving money to the school, they will have forgotten all about the objections they once had and will only remember the rosy things Yale's development office tells them in those pretty, glossy brochures about the Yale experience.
[Cross-posted at Proportional Belief.]
Kenneth R. Gregg
Having been tagged, here's my meme of four:
Four jobs I have had: Chess instructor, institute president, paralegal, mediator.
Four movies I can watch over and over: Rocky Horror Picture Show, Phantom of the Paradise, LOTR, Gandhi.
Four places I have lived: Richmond, Indiana; Hemet, California; Long Beach, California; Las Vegas, Nevada.
Four TV shows I love: Smallville, Passions, 60 Minutes, Law & Order: Criminal Intent.
Four highly regarded and recommended TV shows I haven't seen: 24, Prison Break, Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, anything with the initials"CNN" attached to it.
Four of my favorite dishes: Tuna Sushi; avocados, lightly salted; spinach salad; blueberry yogurt.
Four sites I visit daily (besides this one): WendyMcElroy.com blog, Antiwar.com, LewRockwell.com blog, Mises.org blog.
Four Places I've Vacationed: Las Vegas; San Fransisco; Grand Canyon; New Harmony, Indiana.
Four albums I can't live without: Bob Marley's Greatest Hits; The Chieftans' Further Down the Old Plank Road; Tennessee Ernie Ford's The Ultimate Collection; The Hobo Minstrels' The American Hobo.
Four new bloggers I'm tagging: Stefan Molyneux , Chas Holloway, Jim Bovard and David Hart.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
CLASSical Liberalism
Kenneth R. Gregg
It's at myheritage.com and all you need to do is to download a picture (after registering).
Apparently, I have a face that is 70% Tim Allen and 70% Tom Hanks. Hmmmm.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
CLASSical Liberalism
Gene Healy
Other candidates drawn from personal experience: Irish American libertarians and Jersey libertarians.
Sheldon Richman
I should put on the record that there are no heroes in this story. Research in Motion Ltd, the BlackBerry company, has"defended" its own patents in the past and says it will continue to do so.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Sheldon Richman
Chapter one contains a particularly important point, namely, that globalization as it is today being implemented, rather than meaning real free trade, is a device to impose American patents and copyrights on the developing world. Given the expansiveness of IP protectionism today, this means that the developing world will have scant opportunity to progress economically without paying tribute to American firms for ideas, something which cannot be owned. The parallel with mercantilism is inescapable. They write:
Now that the intellectual and political battle over free trade of physical goods seems won, and an increasing number of less advanced countries are joining the progressive ranks of free-trading nations, pressure for making intellectual property protection stronger is mounting in those very same countries that advocate free trade. This is not a coincidence.
Most physical goods already are and, in the decades to come, will increasingly be, produced in the less developed countries. Most innovations and creations are taking place in the advanced world, and the IT and bio-engineering revolutions suggest this will continue for a while at least. It is not surprising then, that a new version of the eternal parasite of economic progress -- mercantilism -- is emerging in the rich countries of North America, Europe and Asia....
The contemporary variation of this economic pest is one in which our collective interest is best served if we buy goods cheap and sell ideas dear. In the mind of those preaching this new version of the mercantilist credo, the World Trade Organization should enforce as much free trade as possible, so we can buy"their" products at a low price. It should also protect our"intellectual property" as much as possible, so we can sell"our" movies, software, and medicines at a high price.
They go on to say that just as the anti-free-trade fallacies had to be smashed to defeat the original mercantilism, now the IP fallacies have to be smashed to defeat the new mercantilism."Our goal here is to demolish that glass house."
"Globalization" based on U.S.-led IP protectionism and the heavy-handed corporate state is not worth fighting for. It is rank injustice. But globalization based on real free trade is worth fighting for. As long as the first prevails, the anti-free-trade anti-globalists will have the moral high ground. But that high ground rightfully belongs to the voluntarists. Let's make sure we occupy it.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Keith Halderman
Four jobs I have had:
Electronic warfare technician, Pet food salesman, Census taker, Quality control technician
Four movies I can watch over and over:
The Big Liebowski, His Girl Friday, Reefer Madness (the Showtime musical), To Kill a Mocking Bird
Four places I have lived:
Syracuse, New York, Bath, Maine, Tampa, Florida, Norfolk, Virginia
Four TV shows I love:
Cheers, Simpsons, St. Elsewhere, Daily Show
Four highly regarded and recommended TV shows I haven't seen:
24, Law and Order, Grey's Anatomy, CSI
Four of my favorite dishes:
Calamari, Coconut Shrimp, New England Clam Chowder, Grilled Lamb
Four sites I visit daily:
Liberty and Power Group Blog, Trebach Report, Antiwar.com, American University Blackboard site
Four Places I've Vacationed:
Smokey Mountains, Orlando, Florida, Gettysburg, Black Hills
Four albums I can't live without:
Louis Armstrong, Hot Fives and Hot Sevens 4 CD box set
Four new bloggers I'm tagging:
David Beito, Radley Balko, Robert Higgs, Wendy McElroy
Mark Brady
The author explains how the train was once a revolutionary force, bringing romance and power to the world through its steel wheels. Highly recommended.
Mark Brady
Go here for Jonathan Steele’s account of how the U.S. and European countries are blantantly interfering in the Belarussian election.
"… there is a huge campaign by foreign governments to intervene in the Belarussian poll, even more controversially than in Ukraine in 2004. While Russia is hardly engaged in this election, Europe and the US are pumping in money. According to the New York Times, cash is being smuggled from the US National Endowment for Democracy, Britain's Westminster Foundation and the German foreign ministry directly to Khopits, a network of young anti-Lukashenko activists."
"Some of this foreign money will be used to fund street protests promised by opposition activists if Lukashenko is declared the winner. They have already dubbed it the 'denim revolution', giving supporters little bits of the cloth as symbols to copy the successful demonstrations in Ukraine and Georgia.
"But why is the US, with the EU in its wake, so concerned about Belarus? Is it because Belarus stands out as the only ex-Soviet country that maintains majority state ownership of the economy and gets good results? Is ideological deviance forbidden? (The IMF, while admitting Lukashenko's economic success, calls it 'ultimately unsustainable', being based on cheap Russian energy imports and wage increases that outstrip productivity growth.) Is the problem Lukashenko's independence, his friendliness to Russia and resistance to Nato, his abrasive, don't-push-me-around style? As one Minsk resident put it to me, he's a 'Slavic Castro'."
Mark Brady
Go here and here to read accounts of the scandal and John Profumo’s life. Like many poor souls, he was once a politician. However, from all accounts, he conducted himself with dignity in his resignation and subsequent life.
UPDATE: David Kynaston's obituary in the Financial Times is well worth reading.
David T. Beito
John J. Miller's essay on Upton Sinclair's"The Jungle" (Leisure & Arts, Feb. 23) reminds us that Sinclair's novel on Chicago meatpacking plants was motivated by the author's ill-informed passion for socialism, but there's more to the story. The dreadful conditions Sinclair depicted in his novel were largely hogwash.
To Crumpacker and other contemporary skeptics,"Either the Government officials in Chicago [were] woefully derelict in their duty, or the situation over there [had been] outrageously over-stated to the country." If the packing plants were as nasty as alleged in"The Jungle," surely the government inspectors who never said so must be judged as guilty of neglect as the packers were of abuse. A 1906 report from the Department of Agriculture provided a point-by-point refutation of the worst of Sinclair's charges, labeling them"willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,""atrocious exaggeration" and"not at all characteristic."
President Theodore Roosevelt was well aware of Sinclair's fabrications. In a July 1906 letter to editor William Allen White, TR wrote,"I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."
As it turns out, the big meatpackers themselves pushed for the 1906 act because it put the federal government's stamp of approval on their products, foisted the annual $3 million price tag onto taxpayers, and imposed costly new regulations on their smaller competitors. Far from a crusading truth-seeker, the socialist Sinclair was a sucker who ended up being used by the very industry on which he heaped so much unjustified scorn. Government oversight did not begin with the passage of the law inspired by Sinclair, the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. Hundreds of inspectors had been employed by federal, state and local governments for more than a decade. Congressman E.D. Crumpacker of Indiana noted in testimony before the House Agriculture Committee in June 1906 that not even one of those officials"ever registered any complaint or [gave] any public information with respect to the manner of the slaughtering or preparation of meat or food products."
Stephen Cox
The history of these wars is viewed from the diverse perspectives of four writers, each of them familiar to people who read this site: Robert Higgs, Bruce Ramsey, Aeon Skoble, and (bringing up the rear) Stephen Cox. Diverse and, I believe, provocative. I expect this issue--which is on the news stands now--to arouse a lot of useful controversy.
Protagoras
Mark Brady
Now, almost fifteen years later, Friday's Independent (London) carries the story that he was under investigation for alleged war crimes at the time of his death. Detectives were considering Maxwell's admission that while serving as a British Army captain in World War II he shot dead a German civilian. The incident is said to have taken place in April 1945, when his platoon was trying to capture a German town. Maxwell said he shot dead the town's mayor after a tank opened fire on them. At the time of his death he was aware he was under investigation and the latest revelation is likely to fuel speculation that he killed himself. However, the author of an acclaimed but unauthorized biography of Maxwell, Tom Bower, said this was"fanciful"—because Maxwell had never shown any remorse or regret over the shooting.
For the BBC account, go here. For the full story, go here and here.
