Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Unintended Consequences of the Heller 2nd amendment decision
Possible effects of the case on our political landscape I didn't even consider can be found at the Balkinsation Blog
James Madison, 1787
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
"Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491
Congress, trying to do something about it
A slightly more conservative take on the war: appreciated but not completely agreed with
"Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491
Congress, trying to do something about it
A slightly more conservative take on the war: appreciated but not completely agreed with
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Read and consider
The Ethical Blogger
Great questions and issues. The recent post on the use of Facebook by Syrians to create a new kind of citizenship gives me hope.
Great questions and issues. The recent post on the use of Facebook by Syrians to create a new kind of citizenship gives me hope.
Exercise your right to be dangerous
I should be packing, but I'd rather be writing. And I should be writing about Turner's frontier thesis, but I'd rather write about....
..the news that the Supreme Court will address the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to keep handguns at home for private use. Specifically, they will be making a decision on whether it is constitutional for the District of Columbia to outlaw the private ownership of guns.
This came up last month somewhere, but the 2nd Amendment reads:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's clear that the federal government cannot constrain individual states from keeping militias, and hence guns. So the crux of the issue is whether or not individuals have a guaranteed right to own guns.
This case is specifically address the District of Columbia where it has been illegal to own guns since the 1970s. Now, DC is different--it's not a state. And presumably, the prohibition held for that reason.
But the court is willing now to consider it (and it's no coincidence that we have a much more conservative court now that we have in many many years...but that is not the topic I want to address).
Generally, courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment as a collective right rather than an individual one--the right to bear arms is qualified by the first clause in the sentence: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state".
Does that clause modify the right to bear arms? That's the question. And it's a funny one, because even if it does, most of us can still go to the local sports store and buy a hunting rifle, if not a handgun.
[In fact, by some interpretations, the right is limited to those eligible to be in the militia, which until recently was all able-bodied men from 17 to 45 years of age. So by this odd argument, only men of a certain age and ability have the absolute right to own guns]
As we know, the individual ability to own a gun is controlled, rather than outlawed--types of guns, manners in which we can carry guns, who can own guns, are proscribed, but the ability to own one has not (except in DC) been available to us in some way. But the right of the state to control ownership implies its ability to constrain a right.
Other Constitutional rights are constrained in certain ways--the right to free speech is constrained to a certain extent by whether or not it will harm anyone--we do not, in the classic example, have the right to shout "Fire" in a movie theatre.
Nevertheless, the implications of this decision, which will not come till Spring of 2008, are not clear. Some level of regulation will probably remain. I do not think that background checks or making ownership of guns by convicted felons illegal will end.
Some of you might think that I'm all for banning handguns--they are dangerous, and yes, people with guns kill people. But you know, I'm a qualified textualist. I believe the writers of the Constitution, who were a lot smarter than many in our current administration, meant this as an individual right. In the context of the 1770s and 1780s, state militias were not organized the way they were today. They were made up of men who owned guns. And these men with guns were called upon to oust British imperial rule. Furthermore, by British common law, i.e., non-statutory, non written law, which continued to be followed in the new republic recognized the right of British subjects to possess arms.
The US Constitution grants us inherant rights. Only in a few places does it place limits on those rights. Does not seem to be any reason to limit this right in ways other than how our common sense that tells us that times have changed. And restriction of that right must survive very strict scrutiny.
Yes, private gun ownership is dangerous.
I would argue that my right to free speech, if only I exercise it, is more dangerous.
I want neither constrained.
..the news that the Supreme Court will address the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to keep handguns at home for private use. Specifically, they will be making a decision on whether it is constitutional for the District of Columbia to outlaw the private ownership of guns.
This came up last month somewhere, but the 2nd Amendment reads:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's clear that the federal government cannot constrain individual states from keeping militias, and hence guns. So the crux of the issue is whether or not individuals have a guaranteed right to own guns.
This case is specifically address the District of Columbia where it has been illegal to own guns since the 1970s. Now, DC is different--it's not a state. And presumably, the prohibition held for that reason.
But the court is willing now to consider it (and it's no coincidence that we have a much more conservative court now that we have in many many years...but that is not the topic I want to address).
Generally, courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment as a collective right rather than an individual one--the right to bear arms is qualified by the first clause in the sentence: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state".
Does that clause modify the right to bear arms? That's the question. And it's a funny one, because even if it does, most of us can still go to the local sports store and buy a hunting rifle, if not a handgun.
[In fact, by some interpretations, the right is limited to those eligible to be in the militia, which until recently was all able-bodied men from 17 to 45 years of age. So by this odd argument, only men of a certain age and ability have the absolute right to own guns]
As we know, the individual ability to own a gun is controlled, rather than outlawed--types of guns, manners in which we can carry guns, who can own guns, are proscribed, but the ability to own one has not (except in DC) been available to us in some way. But the right of the state to control ownership implies its ability to constrain a right.
Other Constitutional rights are constrained in certain ways--the right to free speech is constrained to a certain extent by whether or not it will harm anyone--we do not, in the classic example, have the right to shout "Fire" in a movie theatre.
Nevertheless, the implications of this decision, which will not come till Spring of 2008, are not clear. Some level of regulation will probably remain. I do not think that background checks or making ownership of guns by convicted felons illegal will end.
Some of you might think that I'm all for banning handguns--they are dangerous, and yes, people with guns kill people. But you know, I'm a qualified textualist. I believe the writers of the Constitution, who were a lot smarter than many in our current administration, meant this as an individual right. In the context of the 1770s and 1780s, state militias were not organized the way they were today. They were made up of men who owned guns. And these men with guns were called upon to oust British imperial rule. Furthermore, by British common law, i.e., non-statutory, non written law, which continued to be followed in the new republic recognized the right of British subjects to possess arms.
The US Constitution grants us inherant rights. Only in a few places does it place limits on those rights. Does not seem to be any reason to limit this right in ways other than how our common sense that tells us that times have changed. And restriction of that right must survive very strict scrutiny.
Yes, private gun ownership is dangerous.
I would argue that my right to free speech, if only I exercise it, is more dangerous.
I want neither constrained.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Bridging the Barricades
One woman has shocked the genteel bridge world by asserting her right to a political opinion.
I'm impressed by her actions. And I ask myself where and when do we assert our own views? Where do we keep silence? Why are we silent?
Many of us are taught not to disagree with one another - and the topics of religion and politics are made taboo. So, political discussions are often curtailed, particularly at work. But even among friends we can swallow our words in order not to appear uncouth or disagreeable.
So where is the right place to assert your opinion? Is it only in the voting booth? A secret, silent action that makes you one among many citizens?
I often hear that people are "offended" when they see or hear political or religious speech in public places? What is the nature of this offence? Do we feel attacked when someone holds a view that we disagree with? Or is it all in the context? Is religious speach only appropriate in a place of worship, or at home? Should political views only be expounded within spaces where we will not impinge on those who disagree?
Does this have anything to do with our uniquely idea of privacy?
More questions here than statements.
I'm impressed by her actions. And I ask myself where and when do we assert our own views? Where do we keep silence? Why are we silent?
Many of us are taught not to disagree with one another - and the topics of religion and politics are made taboo. So, political discussions are often curtailed, particularly at work. But even among friends we can swallow our words in order not to appear uncouth or disagreeable.
So where is the right place to assert your opinion? Is it only in the voting booth? A secret, silent action that makes you one among many citizens?
I often hear that people are "offended" when they see or hear political or religious speech in public places? What is the nature of this offence? Do we feel attacked when someone holds a view that we disagree with? Or is it all in the context? Is religious speach only appropriate in a place of worship, or at home? Should political views only be expounded within spaces where we will not impinge on those who disagree?
Does this have anything to do with our uniquely idea of privacy?
More questions here than statements.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Small-town, provincial civics
A few days ago, I was invited to attend a Rotary meeting in which the club would be honoring my father for his involvement. Dad was an avid Rotarian right up to his death. It was important to him, so of course I went. I admire Rotary's motto, "Service above Self" and the work that individual members of the club, and the club as a whole, is worthwhile and even meaningful.
Rotary's international campaign to rid the world of polio, the exchange programs for high schoolers and young professionals, and links between individual clubs accross national boundaries increase international cohesion. However, I've always been uneasy with the clubbiness of this service group. Well-fed, comfortable men and women congratualating themselves on how well they are doing. Rotary is a professional club--with members representing their segments of their profession be it law, advertising, journalism,
government, retail, ministry. And there is lots of networking and social conviviality. It could be termed a bastion of middle-class privilege.
But on Wednesday, I observed another aspect of this group, one that I admired, and which made me hopeful. And one, even, that I hope I can emulate. The meeting started with a song. We all stood, faced the front of the hall where the flag stood (there's always a flag), and sang
America the Beautiful. There were 500 voices singing to a symbol. It was not invested with extra meaning. It was not sentimental. It was simple.
Then they sat down, and listened for fourty minutes to the day's program, which consisted of some awards, brief announcements, and a talk by Dr. Gary Sick on Iran and the Middle East. Dr. Sick (author of All Fall Down, America's Tragic Encounter with Iran) spoke for about 20 minutes on the emergeing power of Iran in the Middle-east, how it got there, and what
might happen. He pointed out that the impact of American involvement in the last 10 years, invading Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, and deposing Hussein in Iraq, had increased Iran's regional political security and power. And he talked about Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, and opined that despite the global press he's getting, he's not popular at home and may well lose
the next elections.
And 400 people listened, avidly. Took time out of their day to think about the world. Many asked questions after the talk, showing that they were concerned about the role of oil in US foreign policy, about our relationship with Russia, about the likelihood of a war with Iran. People paid attention.
Somehow, this Rotary club at least, has made a connection between the local and the global. Members of the club sit next to one another, have in many instances known each other for years, visit with each other, serve in each other's board rooms, go to church, volunteer for each other's causes, and give money (there's always money). But they also are making the connection between their actions and the actions of our administration.
When a member asked a question about the what role the global trade of oil had in the wars we're in, he linked his question to our own actions in reducing our energy usage.
What I was seeing was civic involvement, of the kind that made America. People standing up and caring about what was happening, and thinking, even blindly, that they can change the world. They believed that they matter. It's this kind of confidence that I both find most irritating and most admirable.
Guiliani should have been at Wednesday's meeting...his team includes neo-con Norman Podhoretz, who advocates "bombing Iran as soon as it is logistically possible" .
Determinination of policy should not only come from the top, but from the middle and the bottom. Leaders need to know that people do NOT want a war with Iran.
Rotary's international campaign to rid the world of polio, the exchange programs for high schoolers and young professionals, and links between individual clubs accross national boundaries increase international cohesion. However, I've always been uneasy with the clubbiness of this service group. Well-fed, comfortable men and women congratualating themselves on how well they are doing. Rotary is a professional club--with members representing their segments of their profession be it law, advertising, journalism,
government, retail, ministry. And there is lots of networking and social conviviality. It could be termed a bastion of middle-class privilege.
But on Wednesday, I observed another aspect of this group, one that I admired, and which made me hopeful. And one, even, that I hope I can emulate. The meeting started with a song. We all stood, faced the front of the hall where the flag stood (there's always a flag), and sang
America the Beautiful. There were 500 voices singing to a symbol. It was not invested with extra meaning. It was not sentimental. It was simple.
Then they sat down, and listened for fourty minutes to the day's program, which consisted of some awards, brief announcements, and a talk by Dr. Gary Sick on Iran and the Middle East. Dr. Sick (author of All Fall Down, America's Tragic Encounter with Iran) spoke for about 20 minutes on the emergeing power of Iran in the Middle-east, how it got there, and what
might happen. He pointed out that the impact of American involvement in the last 10 years, invading Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban, and deposing Hussein in Iraq, had increased Iran's regional political security and power. And he talked about Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, and opined that despite the global press he's getting, he's not popular at home and may well lose
the next elections.
And 400 people listened, avidly. Took time out of their day to think about the world. Many asked questions after the talk, showing that they were concerned about the role of oil in US foreign policy, about our relationship with Russia, about the likelihood of a war with Iran. People paid attention.
Somehow, this Rotary club at least, has made a connection between the local and the global. Members of the club sit next to one another, have in many instances known each other for years, visit with each other, serve in each other's board rooms, go to church, volunteer for each other's causes, and give money (there's always money). But they also are making the connection between their actions and the actions of our administration.
When a member asked a question about the what role the global trade of oil had in the wars we're in, he linked his question to our own actions in reducing our energy usage.
What I was seeing was civic involvement, of the kind that made America. People standing up and caring about what was happening, and thinking, even blindly, that they can change the world. They believed that they matter. It's this kind of confidence that I both find most irritating and most admirable.
Guiliani should have been at Wednesday's meeting...his team includes neo-con Norman Podhoretz, who advocates "bombing Iran as soon as it is logistically possible" .
Determinination of policy should not only come from the top, but from the middle and the bottom. Leaders need to know that people do NOT want a war with Iran.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Pew Global Attitudes Survey
The Pew Research Center has just released its new survey on Global Attitudes. They interviewed 45,239 people in 47 countries
The NYT gives a fine summary of the portion of the survey that deals with attitudes towards global trade, immigration, and to a lesser extent, democracy.
I, however, would like to focus on the section of the survey entitled "Values and American Exceptionalism"
We stand out. How?
The survey finds that there is a strong negative correlation between wealth and strength of religious beliefs. Poor countries, like many African nations, sow high scores in questions dealing with the role of God and morality. Wealthy Western European countries show low scores that reflect a mostly secular population.
The US, however, the wealthiest nation, comes out in the middle of the religious index, on par with Mexico and Lebanon.
Success and Individualism
According to the survey Americans are also more likely than any other respondants to disagree with the idea that success in life is due to foces ousde our control. Unless they are poorer. People with incomes under 30K are on the other end of the scale, and have less faith that success comes from an personal effort.
Why is this?
The overall finding that believe in the importance of religion is higher under conditions of poverty is understandable. God sustains those who have little to rely on in this world. But what does it say that Americans are so faithful to traditional beliefs in morality and the role of God in our lives--all the while living high on the food chain?
Is it our history...our founding as a Christian nation (yes, this can be debated, and should be), the religious cycles we've gone through (Great Awakening I, Great Awakening II), Or is it what David Brooks has called the American belief in providence and progress--that we are on a God-given path, that our wealth is a direct correlation to our believe in God...we are being rewarded. We are the chosen people.
And to finish. The final question on this section may bolster this conclusion. 55% percent of Americans are of the opinion that our culture is superior to others'
Note, the Italians don't agree. 68% of them were trancendentally proud of their culture, compared to only 31% of the British respondents feeling that way about British culture.
The NYT gives a fine summary of the portion of the survey that deals with attitudes towards global trade, immigration, and to a lesser extent, democracy.
I, however, would like to focus on the section of the survey entitled "Values and American Exceptionalism"
We stand out. How?
The survey finds that there is a strong negative correlation between wealth and strength of religious beliefs. Poor countries, like many African nations, sow high scores in questions dealing with the role of God and morality. Wealthy Western European countries show low scores that reflect a mostly secular population.
The US, however, the wealthiest nation, comes out in the middle of the religious index, on par with Mexico and Lebanon.
Success and Individualism
According to the survey Americans are also more likely than any other respondants to disagree with the idea that success in life is due to foces ousde our control. Unless they are poorer. People with incomes under 30K are on the other end of the scale, and have less faith that success comes from an personal effort.
Why is this?
The overall finding that believe in the importance of religion is higher under conditions of poverty is understandable. God sustains those who have little to rely on in this world. But what does it say that Americans are so faithful to traditional beliefs in morality and the role of God in our lives--all the while living high on the food chain?
Is it our history...our founding as a Christian nation (yes, this can be debated, and should be), the religious cycles we've gone through (Great Awakening I, Great Awakening II), Or is it what David Brooks has called the American belief in providence and progress--that we are on a God-given path, that our wealth is a direct correlation to our believe in God...we are being rewarded. We are the chosen people.
And to finish. The final question on this section may bolster this conclusion. 55% percent of Americans are of the opinion that our culture is superior to others'
Note, the Italians don't agree. 68% of them were trancendentally proud of their culture, compared to only 31% of the British respondents feeling that way about British culture.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Schlesinger's Journals
Journals: 1952-2000, historian Arthur Schlesinger's memoire has been released.
The New York Times Review makes it sound delightful.
The New York Times Review makes it sound delightful.
Socialism...Capitalism
Dominique Strauss-Kanh, a former French president, and Socialist, has been named the director of the International Monetary Fund, a key capitalist organization.
Friday, September 28, 2007
History and Culture. Are you cut out to be an American?
All Western European nations have some kind of requirement that applicants for nationality and citizenship show that they have transfered their sense of belonging and attachment from their birth nationality to their new country.
Requirements can include
Legal Residency: commonly, as in the US, a minimum of 5 years, but some countries require 8 or more years
Language: ability to read, write and speak the language adequately
Good moral character: usually only measurable by an absence of a criminal record, but personal references from friends, neighbors and co-workers may be required
Knowledge of history and culture: many countries, including the US, require that applicants pass a citizenship knowledge test.
The US just has revised its test:
Are you ready to be an American? Link to a sample test.
Requirements can include
Legal Residency: commonly, as in the US, a minimum of 5 years, but some countries require 8 or more years
Language: ability to read, write and speak the language adequately
Good moral character: usually only measurable by an absence of a criminal record, but personal references from friends, neighbors and co-workers may be required
Knowledge of history and culture: many countries, including the US, require that applicants pass a citizenship knowledge test.
The US just has revised its test:
Are you ready to be an American? Link to a sample test.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
News Flash: Men Happier than Women
The NYT reports a study that indicates women are more stressed and more unhappy more of the time than men.
It's plausible. We're doing more than our mothers (in general, I'd say...I'm doing less), we have higher expectations, and the same amount of time to get everything done.
If this were true, what could we do about it? Should our priorities change? Should what makes us "happy" change?
It's plausible. We're doing more than our mothers (in general, I'd say...I'm doing less), we have higher expectations, and the same amount of time to get everything done.
If this were true, what could we do about it? Should our priorities change? Should what makes us "happy" change?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Voting? Can I have your Identification Card Please?
What if we had to produce a government-issued ID with a photograph when we wanted to vote? Your drivers' license, your passport...
On the face of it, it doesn't seem unreasonable. Only US citizens can legally vote, and after registration, there are few checks on the voting procedure.
Indiana, and a few other states have voting registration laws that require proof of identity. However, the Indiana law has been challenged and the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal.
So what's the big deal? Why are people challenging these laws? Why don't most states already require proof of identity when voting? Why are we having this discussion?
First of all, there's very little evidence of voting fraud, as the NYT piece points out. There is certainly concern about fraud, but there doesn't seem to be much out there.
Second, who will be affected by this law? Who doesn't have government-issued ID cards? The urban poor, for one. People who don't drive and don't fly. The economically disadvantaged tend to vote Democrat. So some people argue that the ID requirement could effectively disenfranchise some portion of this group of people.
Is it all a conspiracy then by partisan Republicans to play on fears of immigration and disenfranchise a voiceless group of people? Or is there something more substantial at stake?
So are there any civil liberties that we should be concerned about?
If the government (federal or state) is in the business of establishing identity, do we lose anything? Do we gain anything?
Driver's licenses are only part of how our identity and relationship to the state is established. What about birth certificates? Marriage certificates? Death certificates?
What about our social security number? When are we required to provide that number? Well, when we pay taxes, for one. When we fill out almost any health care form, for another.
Birth, marriage, travel, death, employment, taxes....all moments when we interact with the state. We live in a regulated world. What's one more regulation, one more control? Who would it harm?
On the face of it, it doesn't seem unreasonable. Only US citizens can legally vote, and after registration, there are few checks on the voting procedure.
Indiana, and a few other states have voting registration laws that require proof of identity. However, the Indiana law has been challenged and the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal.
So what's the big deal? Why are people challenging these laws? Why don't most states already require proof of identity when voting? Why are we having this discussion?
First of all, there's very little evidence of voting fraud, as the NYT piece points out. There is certainly concern about fraud, but there doesn't seem to be much out there.
Second, who will be affected by this law? Who doesn't have government-issued ID cards? The urban poor, for one. People who don't drive and don't fly. The economically disadvantaged tend to vote Democrat. So some people argue that the ID requirement could effectively disenfranchise some portion of this group of people.
Is it all a conspiracy then by partisan Republicans to play on fears of immigration and disenfranchise a voiceless group of people? Or is there something more substantial at stake?
So are there any civil liberties that we should be concerned about?
If the government (federal or state) is in the business of establishing identity, do we lose anything? Do we gain anything?
Driver's licenses are only part of how our identity and relationship to the state is established. What about birth certificates? Marriage certificates? Death certificates?
What about our social security number? When are we required to provide that number? Well, when we pay taxes, for one. When we fill out almost any health care form, for another.
Birth, marriage, travel, death, employment, taxes....all moments when we interact with the state. We live in a regulated world. What's one more regulation, one more control? Who would it harm?
We try to regulate certain things--health insurance, unemployment, welfare--to ensure that those who belong here receive these services. Or we try to. There seems to be a general agreement that public education cannot be restricted to legal residents of this state. But welfare is becoming more and more restricted, more and more localised. Control of a mobile population can only occur when the givers know who the receivers are.
"Do you belong here?" demands an answer that perhaps, will be answered in the future with the production of a stamped paper signifying our identity.
Inspired by this opinion piece by Adam Liptek: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/us/24bar.html?ex=1191384000&en=9776ee1a13c547cd&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Are you ready to be a citizen?
What if we all had to take this oath?
The Oath of Allegiance to the United States, taken by naturalised citizens
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
The Oath of Allegiance to the United States, taken by naturalised citizens
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Bush's plan for success.
A few excerpts from Bush's speech last night, which I missed.
"[T]he way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains."
"The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is return on success. The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. "
Iraqi leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America."
"Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land and strengthen our military, so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists."
But what if it doesn't work?
"[T]he way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains."
"The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is return on success. The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. "
Iraqi leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America."
"Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land and strengthen our military, so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists."
But what if it doesn't work?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Rules for Bad Analogies, part III
I have to disagree with Senator John Kerry. Responding to the speech on August 30 by President Bush, in which Bush linked Vietnam to our war in Iraq, Kerry said, "invoking the tragedy of Vietnam" was "irresponsible." Kerry was referring to Bush's position, that leaving Iraq to early could have the same disasterous consequences that leaving Vietname did--boat people, reeducation camps, and the killing fields, in Bush's words.
As Contanetti's article in the Weekly Standard points out, Opposition to the war has been using the Vietnam analogy for years.
Rule 5: Once you introduce an analogy, you cannot shift the ground under your opponents feet and disallow it. Engage with their argument or consider perhaps that you may have chosen a "bad analogy".
As Contanetti's article in the Weekly Standard points out, Opposition to the war has been using the Vietnam analogy for years.
Rule 5: Once you introduce an analogy, you cannot shift the ground under your opponents feet and disallow it. Engage with their argument or consider perhaps that you may have chosen a "bad analogy".
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Citizenship
Ann Althouse, a colleague of my late father, is a wonderful blogger and photographer. She captured a quote from Teddy Roosevelt that I find moving and inspirational. But then I find many of Teddy Roosevelt's speeches inspirational--particularly, his speech on the Duties of American Citizenship.
How often do we think of our duties as citizens? When we pay taxes we are fulfilling our duties as citizens. When we vote we are fulfilling our duties as citizens. When we criticize our government, we are fulfilling our duties as citizens.
How else do we, as individuals, interact with the state?
How often do we think of our duties as citizens? When we pay taxes we are fulfilling our duties as citizens. When we vote we are fulfilling our duties as citizens. When we criticize our government, we are fulfilling our duties as citizens.
How else do we, as individuals, interact with the state?
Sunday, September 9, 2007
European View of Central Anatolia. Part II
Perhaps it was not the Venetians, trading for good, perhaps it was the Russians who were the first people with a European context to see the monesteries in Capadocia.
The history of the Russian Orthodox church centers around Kiev in the 1000s--and the Kievans looked to Constantinople, Syria, Athos, and Cappadocia. The mongol invasions of the 1200s, did not change this. The Mongols were, unlike Christian rulers, tolerant of all religions. So perhaps, while the Europeans were organizing crusades ( and incidently sacking Constantinople), religious people were travelling between Kiev and Anatolia.
These religious links go even earlier it turns out. In 400, AD there was a schism between Rome and Constantinople , in "field of eccliastical oikonomia, (Icons?) inherited from the Capadocian fathers. This implies there was a certain amount of contact before this time between the church in Rome and the religious houses in central Anatolia.
My question may be inaccurate. To ask how the first European viewed the Cappadocian landscape is to forget the Europe is a construct, and that contact between people in this region cannot be sliced into easily managed timelines. Capadocia was not "discovered"; it was always there.
So I need to look for first written records in European languages describing this region.
Trade and Religion. Two unique forces that create mobility among our population.
The history of the Russian Orthodox church centers around Kiev in the 1000s--and the Kievans looked to Constantinople, Syria, Athos, and Cappadocia. The mongol invasions of the 1200s, did not change this. The Mongols were, unlike Christian rulers, tolerant of all religions. So perhaps, while the Europeans were organizing crusades ( and incidently sacking Constantinople), religious people were travelling between Kiev and Anatolia.
These religious links go even earlier it turns out. In 400, AD there was a schism between Rome and Constantinople , in "field of eccliastical oikonomia, (Icons?) inherited from the Capadocian fathers. This implies there was a certain amount of contact before this time between the church in Rome and the religious houses in central Anatolia.
My question may be inaccurate. To ask how the first European viewed the Cappadocian landscape is to forget the Europe is a construct, and that contact between people in this region cannot be sliced into easily managed timelines. Capadocia was not "discovered"; it was always there.
So I need to look for first written records in European languages describing this region.
Trade and Religion. Two unique forces that create mobility among our population.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Travel in Contexts
The New York Times travel section includes a slide show showing Cappadocia, where Sara and I visited.Yes, it really was that beautiful.
I asked myself then, and I still do: What did the Europeans who first saw this landscape think?
I am reminded of lunarscapes, of Salvador Dali, of vulviform and phallic shapes. That is my late twentieth-century context.
Now, the region was peopled from 2000 B.C, first by the Hittites who came from Europe. Then Persians from the East, Romans from the West, and Turks, again from the East.
But what about the modern European gaze? What is the first recorded reference to Cappadocia by a western European? Who was it? A Venetian on the Silk Road? A Russian? What did they see? What was their context for placing Anatolia's material culture?
A piece written by Hans Theunissen Ottoman-Venetian Diplomatics,suggests that Venetian trade in Anatolia may not have been disrupted by the Mongol invasion of 1243. And, the city of Sivas in Eastern Anatolia, while under mongolian rule in the 13th century, was an important center for European trade. The Genoese had a consulate (late 13th century)! By the early 14th century, however, Turkish and Venetian interests clashed. Enter the Ottomans, who wish to control Anatolia. Treaties with Venetians might indicated increased trade by late 14th century. By 1414, Venetian priveleges were negotiated solely with the Ottomans. See Chapter Seven
Theunissen, Hans, ‘Ottoman-Venetian Diplomatics: the ‘Ahd-names. The Historical Background and the Development of a Category of Political-Commercial Instruments together with an Annotated Edition of a Corpus of Relevant Documents’, Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies 1/2 (1998), 1-698
And if I'd only been to the Met this summer I might have seen an exhibit on Venice and and the Islamic World
I asked myself then, and I still do: What did the Europeans who first saw this landscape think?
I am reminded of lunarscapes, of Salvador Dali, of vulviform and phallic shapes. That is my late twentieth-century context.
Now, the region was peopled from 2000 B.C, first by the Hittites who came from Europe. Then Persians from the East, Romans from the West, and Turks, again from the East.
But what about the modern European gaze? What is the first recorded reference to Cappadocia by a western European? Who was it? A Venetian on the Silk Road? A Russian? What did they see? What was their context for placing Anatolia's material culture?
A piece written by Hans Theunissen Ottoman-Venetian Diplomatics,suggests that Venetian trade in Anatolia may not have been disrupted by the Mongol invasion of 1243. And, the city of Sivas in Eastern Anatolia, while under mongolian rule in the 13th century, was an important center for European trade. The Genoese had a consulate (late 13th century)! By the early 14th century, however, Turkish and Venetian interests clashed. Enter the Ottomans, who wish to control Anatolia. Treaties with Venetians might indicated increased trade by late 14th century. By 1414, Venetian priveleges were negotiated solely with the Ottomans. See Chapter Seven
Theunissen, Hans, ‘Ottoman-Venetian Diplomatics: the ‘Ahd-names. The Historical Background and the Development of a Category of Political-Commercial Instruments together with an Annotated Edition of a Corpus of Relevant Documents’, Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies 1/2 (1998), 1-698
And if I'd only been to the Met this summer I might have seen an exhibit on Venice and and the Islamic World
Rules for Bad Analogies, part II
Rule 3. Recognize that half of what you know is inaccurate, and the other half is subject to interpretation.
Rule 4. Recognize that it is hard to compare something you are immersed in with something you experienced second hand.
(all credit to wjw)
Rule 4. Recognize that it is hard to compare something you are immersed in with something you experienced second hand.
(all credit to wjw)
Friday, September 7, 2007
9/11 and Captivity Narratives
Regarding analogies, here's another historical comparison by Susan Faludi in the New York Times. She examines America's reaction to 9/11 in light of 17th and 18th-century American colonists' struggle against the Indians. She argues that Americans created "a fable of national invincibility on the American frontier" to cocoon themselves from their traumatic introduction to the Americas and early loss of life (significant in terms of percentage) in wars against the Indians. And, Faludi, writes, we're doing it again.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Bad Historical Analogies
As a historian, I often complain about people's ahistoricism and ignorance of the past when they make decisions about our future. However, often, when they do consider past events, I whine and complain that they are making false analogies. So I want to create a set of rules for using historical analogies when speaking of current and controversial events.
Here are two.
Here are two.
- Do not compare any event to the rise of German National Socialism, the Munich Agreement, or Hitler's Final Solution. Why? The scale of horribleness engendered by these events makes your analogy a mockery and hence people will disregard your point. It's a slur, even if you think it you don't mean it that way. Unless you're a German historian of the period you probably don't really know enough.
- Whenever you compare a past event to a current one, draw out the distinctions as well, in order to make the parallels more believable. Consider the differences in economic terms, social terms, political terms, and cultural terms, for starters. Use the analogy with moderation. Educate yourself enough to know how to do this.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
History and Science
Read The World without Us by Alan Weisman. He examines what would happen to our world if humans completely disappeared. What are the environmental impacts? What would go first? What would last forever. (New York City subways and polymers, respectively). To shape his argument, Weisman looks at the world before us, talks to scientists, travels to the DMZ between North and S. Korea, the abandoned hotels in the Turkish part of Cyprus, and even the Capadocia region of Turkey to hypothesize about the environmental impact of the disappearance of the human race.
It's both disturbing and comforting to think of the Earth repairing itself after we are gone.
It's both disturbing and comforting to think of the Earth repairing itself after we are gone.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Natural Selection and making lots and lots of money
So, an article in the NYT In Dusty Archives, covers a new book out by Gregory Clark at UC-Davis that posits that the explanation for the accumulation of wealth in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Britain is evolution--that the British population evolved into one that had the culture and knowledge to save money, to work hard, and learn to read.
Basically, his argument boils down to this. The agrarian sector, made of of poorer people, had fewer descendents (having fewer children that lived). Middle-class people had more children that lived and therefore gave more to the human gene pool. And these middle-class English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish transmitted their values and knowledge.
“Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving,” Dr. Clark writes.
This worries me. We live in a phenomenally wealthy culture, by historical standards. The gap between the rich and poor is growing. Mortality rates are changing to reflect this gap.
What are we passing on?
Basically, his argument boils down to this. The agrarian sector, made of of poorer people, had fewer descendents (having fewer children that lived). Middle-class people had more children that lived and therefore gave more to the human gene pool. And these middle-class English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish transmitted their values and knowledge.
“Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving,” Dr. Clark writes.
This worries me. We live in a phenomenally wealthy culture, by historical standards. The gap between the rich and poor is growing. Mortality rates are changing to reflect this gap.
What are we passing on?
The patient man
When Mao Tse Tung was asked what had been the consequences of the French Revolution, he replied that it was too early to tell.
Did he say that because he was a Communist, or because he was Chinese?
(Incidentally, this conversation is apocryphal. I haven't found any reliable sources for it, and it might have been Chou En Lai in any case.)
Did he say that because he was a Communist, or because he was Chinese?
(Incidentally, this conversation is apocryphal. I haven't found any reliable sources for it, and it might have been Chou En Lai in any case.)
Friday, August 3, 2007
History Boys
The discovery early in the week that Mike Tyson has a tattoo of Chairman Mao on one arm and Che Guevara on the other tempted me to to ask you all what historical figure YOU would get as tattoo. However, while interesting, I thought the question might not lead to much insight.
Then I met a prof at the UW who had a tattoo of Napoleon inked on his back--and not just Napoleon--Napoleon AND his horse.
And that did get me wondering...
What is it with us and the French? Why do we have so little respect for them?
The American Revolution is the defining event in our nation's history. And the French were our allies...King Louis XVI provided the Continental Congress with the equivalent of 1 million dollars and in 1778 sent warships to help in our naval battles against the British. Sometime after the French overthrew their own monarchy, they marked American-French amity with the Statue of Liberty. The motto "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" sounds as American as July 4th, apple pie, and Rotary clubs.
Yet, we as a people just don't like them much.
Is it their vocal opposition to our involvement in the middle east? Is it their socialist-based government (which is rapidly changing, by the way)...or is there some innate dichotomy in our national identities?
Hmm. Maybe I should go back to the tattoo question. I'm thinking Golda Meir.
Then I met a prof at the UW who had a tattoo of Napoleon inked on his back--and not just Napoleon--Napoleon AND his horse.
And that did get me wondering...
What is it with us and the French? Why do we have so little respect for them?
The American Revolution is the defining event in our nation's history. And the French were our allies...King Louis XVI provided the Continental Congress with the equivalent of 1 million dollars and in 1778 sent warships to help in our naval battles against the British. Sometime after the French overthrew their own monarchy, they marked American-French amity with the Statue of Liberty. The motto "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" sounds as American as July 4th, apple pie, and Rotary clubs.
Yet, we as a people just don't like them much.
Is it their vocal opposition to our involvement in the middle east? Is it their socialist-based government (which is rapidly changing, by the way)...or is there some innate dichotomy in our national identities?
Hmm. Maybe I should go back to the tattoo question. I'm thinking Golda Meir.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)