Those of you who have read the earlier articles published here on epistemological and cultural relativisms need no reminder of who Richard Rorty is, probably the most prominent and influential philosopher of the last two decades --- not that this necessarily means that everyone shares that opinion; far from it. See: Cultural Relativism
Also Rorty, Now an Enemy of the PC-Left Keep in mind a couple of things as you look at the recommended articles that follow.
First, Rorty has explicitly, angrily, denounced his former radical-left allies, whom he dubs the Academic Left, "the School of Resentment": "tediously self-righteous," "semi-literate," and "politically useless," lacking even a sense of elementary decent patriotism. This appears in one of the numerous composite works in which various philosophers dissect and evaluate Rorty's epistemological theory: Rorty And His Critics, ed. Robert Brandom (2000).
Second, as the last reference hints, Rorty is the only "post-modernist philosopher" that is taken seriously by the school of analytical philosophy, which flourishes world-wide, especially in the English-speaking countries and Scandinavia, but now increasingly on the Continent of Europe itself.
Sunday, March 30, 2003
RICHARD RORTY: SOME ARTICLES ON THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PHILOSOPHER OF OUR TIME: And the Only Serious Thinker the New Academic PC-Left Has Produced
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 06:46 PM PST [ continue ]
Saturday, March 29, 2003
An Hilarious, Hard-Hitting Article To Look At: Mark Steyn
Though the buggy prof has been trying to avoid the biggest sin of other commentators on the web, AKA bloggers --- links to other internet articles, little else; certainly little in the way of thoughtful observations of their own --- from time to time he will urge you to try some other sites, particularly if the writers on them are dealing with topics that have been taken up and discussed in our published views here.
1. The Incomparable Canadian Satirist and Journalist, Mark Steyn
You'll remember Steyn from an earlier article on this site that used one of his invariably humorous and sharp snap-like attacks on cant and pc-idiocies --- the two now synonymous for a couple of decades --- to deal with the ambitious theme of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which is being played out at the heart of Islam itself
On one side of the clash, regressive, witch-hunting, and markedly xenophobic Islamist fundamentalisms --- racist too, not to forget their woman-whipping mores and paranoid mania --- that have developed a widespread appeal to the psychologically dislocated and alienated masses of illiterate or poorly educated masses in the 57 Islamic countries, especially the 22 Arab ones that total almost 300 million people (half now under the age of 15). Turkey alone an exception. The Arab countries differing mainly in degrees of violence and brutality and, on the governmental level, pro- or anti-western foreign policies, little else. With hot-wire fervor and calculated demagogy, the fundamentalist imams and agitators themselves --- cocksure, vitriolic know-nothings --- pushing paranoid and conspiratorial fantasies as their core explanation why there are all the social ills, economic backwardness, political despotism, state-failures, and general misery in Islam and especially the Arab world. The chief culprit causing all these acute problems? Surpise! Surprise! According to the chiliastic demonology, nothing less than diabolical cabals of Jews and their control of Israel and the United States, along with their dupes and followers n Europe and the Arab world . . . all operating globally and locally alike, intent on attacking and destroying the Islam and their believers. The true faith itself to be defended by purifying violence and terrorism, a jihad struggle for the souls of the Islamic peoples against their devilish oppressors wherever they're found.
1. The Incomparable Canadian Satirist and Journalist, Mark Steyn
You'll remember Steyn from an earlier article on this site that used one of his invariably humorous and sharp snap-like attacks on cant and pc-idiocies --- the two now synonymous for a couple of decades --- to deal with the ambitious theme of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which is being played out at the heart of Islam itself
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 01:33 PM PST [ continue ]
Friday, March 28, 2003
How Is the War Faring? Some Random Observations
Remember what was said in the previous article here: all observations about the course of the Iraqi war that appear in the media, this internet site included, are speculative --- nothing less. nothing more. Additionally, the more they roam widely and engage in generalities, the more speculative they're very likely to be. That doesn't mean all speculations are the same, let alone useless. The retired military officers who appear on the TV networks are intelligent, experienced, and clearly knowledgeable, and their opinions tend to be worth more than those voiced by anchormen or most reporters, let alone partisan advocates. Even the retired officers, though, aren't privy to highly classified information that's available only to Command Central and the Pentagon and White House. Then, too, their views are likely to reflect their previous service-affiliations --- on the whole, former army officers more inclined to worry than ex-air force or ex-airborne officers that there's not sufficient armor and men on the ground for the battle of Baghdad and securing long supply lines --- and to draw on their experience in previous wars or battles that may not be fully applicable to the kind of strategy and force deployments being used by the US and UK in Iraq.
One upshot of all this instant analysis --- plus the mood-swings from over-confidence (the war's gonna be over in two or three days) to the silly and shallow doom-doom stuff --- is that certain key statistics have been overlooked. Such as that in 9 days of fighting, US forces --- 3 divisions within 50 miles of Baghdad after an historic offensive advance --- have lost exactly 20 casualties in battle. Twenty! Who would have ever foreseen that? There are, of course, more American casualties in the neighborhood of 50-55, with 30 dead and the rest POWs, and about the same number of Britons, but most of those were due to accidents, inevitable in moving so many helicopters, planes, and tanks around whatever the weather conditions --- and these haven't been all Santa Barbara style "sunny with clear skies and a light cool breeze" (the usual weather in this area 320 days a year) --- and about another 15 or so taken prisoner. Most of the 20 killed, moreover, came in the surprise attack by terrorists disguised as Iraqi regulars giving up or in a suicide car bombing. These won't easily happen again. By contrast, in the Gulf war of 1991 --- when after 6 weeks of bombing (six solid weeks, Baghdad under assault for 44 days) --- the ground offensive when it started last 5 days and counted about seven times that number killed. Another 150 or so Americans were killed when an Iraqi Scud --- which can't hit anything it aims at within a mile with any certainty and is therefore a terror weapon with no military value under international law --- managed to slam into an American barracks in Saudi Arabia.
One upshot of all this instant analysis --- plus the mood-swings from over-confidence (the war's gonna be over in two or three days) to the silly and shallow doom-doom stuff --- is that certain key statistics have been overlooked. Such as that in 9 days of fighting, US forces --- 3 divisions within 50 miles of Baghdad after an historic offensive advance --- have lost exactly 20 casualties in battle. Twenty! Who would have ever foreseen that? There are, of course, more American casualties in the neighborhood of 50-55, with 30 dead and the rest POWs, and about the same number of Britons, but most of those were due to accidents, inevitable in moving so many helicopters, planes, and tanks around whatever the weather conditions --- and these haven't been all Santa Barbara style "sunny with clear skies and a light cool breeze" (the usual weather in this area 320 days a year) --- and about another 15 or so taken prisoner. Most of the 20 killed, moreover, came in the surprise attack by terrorists disguised as Iraqi regulars giving up or in a suicide car bombing. These won't easily happen again. By contrast, in the Gulf war of 1991 --- when after 6 weeks of bombing (six solid weeks, Baghdad under assault for 44 days) --- the ground offensive when it started last 5 days and counted about seven times that number killed. Another 150 or so Americans were killed when an Iraqi Scud --- which can't hit anything it aims at within a mile with any certainty and is therefore a terror weapon with no military value under international law --- managed to slam into an American barracks in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 03:02 PM PST [ continue ]
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
The War in Iraq So Far: A Brief Analysis
Introduction: Be Wary of Media Hype or Excessive Criticisms:
Several emails have reached the buggy prof from various points around the globe, all essentially asking for his views about the conduct of the war and its likely course over the next few days. Not an easy thing to do; for the buggy prof, or for that matter anyone else . . . including all those brisk and busy arm-chair critics in the media, pontificators to the end . . . mainly TV anchormen and print-journalists who, coming alive on Monday, indulged in a furor of criticism and doom-doom stuff. Look! Look! The coalition's strategy was going astray, wasn't it? And operations were bogging down, and not enough boots on the ground, and obviously not enough armor, the silly twits in Central Command and the Pentagon. While, simultaneously --- The sky's falling! Run, Chicken Little! Run! Run!--- huge and unexpected resistance developing as if Fedayeen terrorists dressed in civvies, mainly recruited from Tikrit, Saddam's home-base, to terrorize the Iraqis, were the equivalent of the German panzer divisions that attacked the US forces out-of-the-blue at the battle of the Bulge in late 1944 in Belgium, and on on; an orgy, it seemed, of cluck-clucking on a vast scale reminiscent of the same gabbling outbursts that raged in the media in October 2001 as the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan started.
A simple question prompts itself here. How would the pundits and doom-sayers know any of this? Only a handful of men or women are in a position to assess the war's actual unfolding, or the progress made so far according to the timetable originally set --- which always, in any war, has to be adjusted for unforeseen contingencies, including sharp changes in weather (the fog and frictions of war, remember?) --- or the obstacles and threats in the way to the battle plan being successfully executed, let alone the various alternative military resources for dealing with them. That handful of analysts is at command central, headed by General Franks.
All the others are speculating, pure and simple.
Nor is this all. The pressures of network and cable chains to provide instant analysis make it vulnerable to the ebb and flow of not just daily battlefield developments, but sometimes hourly . . . right down to detailed analysis of fire-fights at the level of a platoon or squad! Itself not so bad maybe. Immediately, though, high-flying generalizations to the entire war ensue . . . the pundit-pontificators, all of a sudden, great military experts one and all: Saddam's strategy, it turns out, really this or that; American planners failing to anticipate the "that" while being fooled into focusing on "this"; the Iraqis certain to greet American and British forces with bullets, not flowers. On and on, these sky-hooting generalities; never mind the swerves between initial exhiliration and subsequent doomster-stuff. The result of such instant heady stuff? In plain language, a failure to gain any overall perspective on what has actually happened and will likely occur in the next few days or maybe weeks.
Several emails have reached the buggy prof from various points around the globe, all essentially asking for his views about the conduct of the war and its likely course over the next few days. Not an easy thing to do; for the buggy prof, or for that matter anyone else . . . including all those brisk and busy arm-chair critics in the media, pontificators to the end . . . mainly TV anchormen and print-journalists who, coming alive on Monday, indulged in a furor of criticism and doom-doom stuff. Look! Look! The coalition's strategy was going astray, wasn't it? And operations were bogging down, and not enough boots on the ground, and obviously not enough armor, the silly twits in Central Command and the Pentagon. While, simultaneously --- The sky's falling! Run, Chicken Little! Run! Run!--- huge and unexpected resistance developing as if Fedayeen terrorists dressed in civvies, mainly recruited from Tikrit, Saddam's home-base, to terrorize the Iraqis, were the equivalent of the German panzer divisions that attacked the US forces out-of-the-blue at the battle of the Bulge in late 1944 in Belgium, and on on; an orgy, it seemed, of cluck-clucking on a vast scale reminiscent of the same gabbling outbursts that raged in the media in October 2001 as the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan started.
A simple question prompts itself here. How would the pundits and doom-sayers know any of this? Only a handful of men or women are in a position to assess the war's actual unfolding, or the progress made so far according to the timetable originally set --- which always, in any war, has to be adjusted for unforeseen contingencies, including sharp changes in weather (the fog and frictions of war, remember?) --- or the obstacles and threats in the way to the battle plan being successfully executed, let alone the various alternative military resources for dealing with them. That handful of analysts is at command central, headed by General Franks.
All the others are speculating, pure and simple.
Nor is this all. The pressures of network and cable chains to provide instant analysis make it vulnerable to the ebb and flow of not just daily battlefield developments, but sometimes hourly . . . right down to detailed analysis of fire-fights at the level of a platoon or squad! Itself not so bad maybe. Immediately, though, high-flying generalizations to the entire war ensue . . . the pundit-pontificators, all of a sudden, great military experts one and all: Saddam's strategy, it turns out, really this or that; American planners failing to anticipate the "that" while being fooled into focusing on "this"; the Iraqis certain to greet American and British forces with bullets, not flowers. On and on, these sky-hooting generalities; never mind the swerves between initial exhiliration and subsequent doomster-stuff. The result of such instant heady stuff? In plain language, a failure to gain any overall perspective on what has actually happened and will likely occur in the next few days or maybe weeks.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 07:40 PM PST [ continue ]
Sunday, March 23, 2003
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MILITARY REVOLUTION: ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSES: PART TWO
This is part two of the commentary about the revolution in warfare, with part one found in the previous entry here. You should read that part before proceeding here. It will give you a background feel, even if theoretical, about the ways the war in Iraq is unfolding, dictated largely by American planning: the overall strategy for the war, the battlefield tactics, with of course inevitable adjustments made as the war unfolds. One big change, remember, occurred even before the war started last week: the need to re-route the 4th infantry division and the 1st cavalry division, which were scheduled to deploy from 40 ships in the Mediterranean and open up a Northern front at the war's start, once the new Turkish parliament --- dominated by moderate fundamentalists, but whose ranks are filled with new conservative parliamentarians from the smaller cities and countryside of Turkey with little or no experience in foreign policy --- refused to allow the deployment. The 40 ship armada is heading for the Gulf region, and the divisions --- the most technologically advanced in the combined use of armored vehicles, tanks, gunships, and motorized artillery --- will be able to supplement the war effort once they're on land and the ships are unloaded. The unloading, keep in mind, will take days. Meanwhile, a northern front has been opened up with different, lighter forces, especially the 101st airborne.
One other thing. A couple of emails I've received wonder why the buggy prof is talking about missile defenses when, so they said, the topic isn't relevant to the war in Iraq that is now raging there. Really? The Patriot missiles defenses that have knocked down several Iraqi scuds over Kuwait the last six days --- in particular, PAC-2 's and PAC-3's --- are part of any effective missile defense system, are deployed already in other areas of the Middle East (specifically, Israel), and are also ready for use in the northern region of Pacific Asia, where North Korea has been practicing brinksmanship tactics for the last several months.
Nuclear Missile Defenses, to circle back to them, are the fllp side of the revolution in military affairs. Frequently overlooked those knowledgeable about these revolutionary military changes, they're no less a radical change in American strategy and tactics than the fast-paced changes in offensive capabilities that the previous entry, Part One, talked about.
One other thing. A couple of emails I've received wonder why the buggy prof is talking about missile defenses when, so they said, the topic isn't relevant to the war in Iraq that is now raging there. Really? The Patriot missiles defenses that have knocked down several Iraqi scuds over Kuwait the last six days --- in particular, PAC-2 's and PAC-3's --- are part of any effective missile defense system, are deployed already in other areas of the Middle East (specifically, Israel), and are also ready for use in the northern region of Pacific Asia, where North Korea has been practicing brinksmanship tactics for the last several months.
Nuclear Missile Defenses, to circle back to them, are the fllp side of the revolution in military affairs. Frequently overlooked those knowledgeable about these revolutionary military changes, they're no less a radical change in American strategy and tactics than the fast-paced changes in offensive capabilities that the previous entry, Part One, talked about.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 09:11 PM PST [ continue ]
Saturday, March 22, 2003
THE REVOULUTION IN WARFARE: IRAQ AND WAR: WHAT NOW, WHAT NEXT? Part One
THE REVOLUTION IN WARFARE: IRAQ AND WAR: WHAT NOW, WHAT NEXT? Part One
What is unfolding in Iraq is only the latest stage --- essentially the end of the second generation --- in the revolution of warfare that began 30 years ago near the end of the Vietnam War.
1) The Basics of the Revolution:
Driven by rapid advances in communications and information technologies since the late 1960s, the revolution consists of a marked shift away from the vast conscript armies and mass destructive force that culminated in the devastation of WWII and its 50 million dead --- huge armored assaults that could destroy whole cities in a matter of weeks or even days (think of Stalingrad, the battle of Berlin), wide-area strategic bombing of urban and industrial areas that couldn't accurately distinguish between civilian and military targets, and nuclear weapons at the very end --- and toward ever increasing pin-point accuracy in the use of smart weaponry --- delivered by small, highly trained professional armies and special-ops or mammoth carrier forces hundreds of miles out to sea --- that, in turn, rely on radical improvements in reconnaissance, intelligence, command-and-control-and-communication systems.
What is unfolding in Iraq is only the latest stage --- essentially the end of the second generation --- in the revolution of warfare that began 30 years ago near the end of the Vietnam War.
1) The Basics of the Revolution:
Driven by rapid advances in communications and information technologies since the late 1960s, the revolution consists of a marked shift away from the vast conscript armies and mass destructive force that culminated in the devastation of WWII and its 50 million dead --- huge armored assaults that could destroy whole cities in a matter of weeks or even days (think of Stalingrad, the battle of Berlin), wide-area strategic bombing of urban and industrial areas that couldn't accurately distinguish between civilian and military targets, and nuclear weapons at the very end --- and toward ever increasing pin-point accuracy in the use of smart weaponry --- delivered by small, highly trained professional armies and special-ops or mammoth carrier forces hundreds of miles out to sea --- that, in turn, rely on radical improvements in reconnaissance, intelligence, command-and-control-and-communication systems.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 05:40 PM PST [ continue ]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO FRANCE OR SHOULD HAPPEN? Queries from readers.
I. The Background
Prof Buggy has received several queries about France and what to do about it --- or, alternatively, what the Bush administration will do, which may or may not amount to the same thing. They've come from Michael Jabbra, John, Amber Ingels, and some others who prefer anonymity --- their right.
1. Briefly, note first that President Bush already telephoned Moscow and Beijing after he issued his ultimatum on Monday night to Saddam Hussein --- but pointedly not to Paris, whose government the administration clearly regards, as does Blair's Cabinet in London, to be the major obstructing country on the Security Council . . . the spoiler with a veto that didn't or wouldn't compromise with its two allies, Britain and the US, on a second resolution as a follow-up to 1441. Not even, get this, simply a resolution that did no more than reaffirm 1441. Period; end point. And as Bush's snub to Paris indicates, there are already repercussions.
Prof Buggy has received several queries about France and what to do about it --- or, alternatively, what the Bush administration will do, which may or may not amount to the same thing. They've come from Michael Jabbra, John, Amber Ingels, and some others who prefer anonymity --- their right.
1. Briefly, note first that President Bush already telephoned Moscow and Beijing after he issued his ultimatum on Monday night to Saddam Hussein --- but pointedly not to Paris, whose government the administration clearly regards, as does Blair's Cabinet in London, to be the major obstructing country on the Security Council . . . the spoiler with a veto that didn't or wouldn't compromise with its two allies, Britain and the US, on a second resolution as a follow-up to 1441. Not even, get this, simply a resolution that did no more than reaffirm 1441. Period; end point. And as Bush's snub to Paris indicates, there are already repercussions.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 07:51 PM PST [ continue ]
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
REFLECTIONS AND PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE IMMINENT WAR WITH SADDAMITE IRAQ
Issued last night --- aimed above all to the Iraqi people and military commanders --- President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to quit Iraq with his family or face war has brought 6 months of efforts at the United Nations to an end, something already clear in the US-British-Spanish statement made after the three heads of government met in the Azores on Sunday. It has also brought to an abrupt halt 12 years of Saddam's cunning ability to outwit and disgrace the UN and UN inspectors, even as he obtained influential patrons abroad as his defenders --- especially the French, but also the Russians and even the German left-wing government.
Here, in response to about a dozen emails the buggy prof has received today --- mainly from his listserver subscribers --- are some quickly jotted down thoughts and predictions
Here, in response to about a dozen emails the buggy prof has received today --- mainly from his listserver subscribers --- are some quickly jotted down thoughts and predictions
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 02:32 PM PST [ continue ]
Saturday, March 15, 2003
Stupid Platitudes Repeated by Stupid People or Gullible People or by Calculating Ideologues about the Iraqi Controversy
1) American Unilateralism.
The term, by now a full-of-beans cliche, is used reflexively, even by media reporters who should know better --- no hope for the rigidly never-say-die pc academic left and their adoring student automatons; might as well try teaching a paunchy, over-the-hill grey mare to be a champion steeple-chaser --- whenever the prospect arises that the US will go to war to destroy the mass-murdering, megalomaniacal Saddamite regime in Iraq without UN Security Council approval. Huh? Whenever I hear the tag invoked, I shake my head and slap my ears. Are these people serious?
Consider just three among many problems with the term.
For one thing, any UN approval of a second resolution has been ruled out for weeks now once the Jacques Chirac and the French government decided to veto anything resembling an ultimatum to Iraq . . . which is exactly what Security Council Resolution 1441 stipulates: clearly, explicitly, and in repetitive teminology if the Saddamite regime didn't comply "totally," "immediately," and "unconditionally" to disarm and let the inspectors confirm this. The burden of proof here was laid on the Saddamites, not the inspectors. They were to show with convincing proof that they had disarmed, where, when, and how, or commit themselves immediately to doing so. At every turn, though, the French government since 1441 was passed last November has done its utmost to frustrate any revival of the resolution's thrust --- right down, according to British UN delegates, to a refusal even to "reaffirm" Security Council 1441, nothing more to achieve anyway now that Jacques Chirac has dug his heels in and says he will veto any resolution that justifies war.
The term, by now a full-of-beans cliche, is used reflexively, even by media reporters who should know better --- no hope for the rigidly never-say-die pc academic left and their adoring student automatons; might as well try teaching a paunchy, over-the-hill grey mare to be a champion steeple-chaser --- whenever the prospect arises that the US will go to war to destroy the mass-murdering, megalomaniacal Saddamite regime in Iraq without UN Security Council approval. Huh? Whenever I hear the tag invoked, I shake my head and slap my ears. Are these people serious?
Consider just three among many problems with the term.
For one thing, any UN approval of a second resolution has been ruled out for weeks now once the Jacques Chirac and the French government decided to veto anything resembling an ultimatum to Iraq . . . which is exactly what Security Council Resolution 1441 stipulates: clearly, explicitly, and in repetitive teminology if the Saddamite regime didn't comply "totally," "immediately," and "unconditionally" to disarm and let the inspectors confirm this. The burden of proof here was laid on the Saddamites, not the inspectors. They were to show with convincing proof that they had disarmed, where, when, and how, or commit themselves immediately to doing so. At every turn, though, the French government since 1441 was passed last November has done its utmost to frustrate any revival of the resolution's thrust --- right down, according to British UN delegates, to a refusal even to "reaffirm" Security Council 1441, nothing more to achieve anyway now that Jacques Chirac has dug his heels in and says he will veto any resolution that justifies war.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 06:49 PM PST [ continue ]
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Why Continued Containment and Deterrence of Saddam, Besides Not Being Effective, Have Been and Will Be Far More Costly Than A Quick War and Regime Change
These comments are prompted by an email from Dr. Edward Trevelyan, an employee of the US government and a former Olympic Gold-Medalist . . . a specialist in international relations.
Michael: The article linked here by Walter Russell Mead --- a justifiably gifted specialist on US foreign policy --- may exaggerate the costs of ongoing containment of Iraq compared to the use of war, but it's a vigorous argument: containment's problem isn't that it doesn't work, but that it produces resentments that brought us 9/11 (perhaps the only "link" between Saddam and Osama), and huge costs in lives and to the surrounding political climate in the Middle East. My question is: will those resentments be any less if war is the choice? ---Edward
Deadlier Than War By Walter Russell Mead
Michael: The article linked here by Walter Russell Mead --- a justifiably gifted specialist on US foreign policy --- may exaggerate the costs of ongoing containment of Iraq compared to the use of war, but it's a vigorous argument: containment's problem isn't that it doesn't work, but that it produces resentments that brought us 9/11 (perhaps the only "link" between Saddam and Osama), and huge costs in lives and to the surrounding political climate in the Middle East. My question is: will those resentments be any less if war is the choice? ---Edward
Deadlier Than War By Walter Russell Mead
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 03:34 PM PST [ continue ]
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
US Angry with Blix. Is He Easily Duped and Misled? Yes, Says a Former Friend and Former Deputy Prime Minister in Sweden: the Wrong Man for the Wrong Job
American officials are openly voicing anger with Hans Blix's performance. In particular, what they regard as significant evidence of Iraqi non-compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441 --- which calls for "immediate," "complete", and "unconditional" cooperation with the inspectors to show that it has or will disarm (three adjectives with different meanings, apparently, in French and Russian than in English) --- never showed up in Hans Blix's public statement to the Security Council last Friday. Blix Report Blix's public excuse since then? He couldn't confirm the existence of the big drone plane, nor 100 special cluster bombs that can be used for spraying chemical or biological weapons, but was going to look into it.
Seems a strange claim, no? He could have said on Friday, clearly, explicitly, that the inspectors had found such weapons, but hadn't yet determined what violations they constituted.
Seems a strange claim, no? He could have said on Friday, clearly, explicitly, that the inspectors had found such weapons, but hadn't yet determined what violations they constituted.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 02:05 PM PST [ continue ]
Monday, March 10, 2003
The Absurdities of Cultural Relativism If That Means "No Useful Standards of Comparison" for Specific Purposes: For Instance, Which Cultures Encourage or Hinder Economic Development or Political Democracy, and Why?
We've talked a fair amount about cultural relativism in our commentaries, especially in its pc-versions that draw on various post-modernist epistemological theories, all claiming that there is no such thing as objective truths or even universal values that pertain to all of human-kind. It follows for cultural relativists --- meaning almost all the politically correct radical Academic Left these days, except when it comes to US democracy and capitalism, themselves somehow cleary and incontestably evil--- that nothing "truthful" or "objective" or "better here than there (or vice versa)" can exist meaningfully beyond the consensus of a particular group and hence its shared beliefs and values and normative standards about the world and the "correct" blueprints for living your life.
Which groups?
Well, some might refer to scientific professions; never mind, all reality is "socially constructed," it's said, with scientists of any sort no more in bracing contact with any reality than your average Jack of Jill. Some might refer to philosophers in the analytical school that covers all the English-speaking countries, Scandinavia, and more and more the European continent; others might refer to so-called Continental philosophy heavily influenced by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and French post-modernists like Foucault and Derrida. And, lest we forget, such groups might mean the pc-radicals themselves, organized into feminist or ethnic or political movements or what have you. But note. Somehow, in mysterious ways never clarified, their politicized members forget that, if relativism is sound, they're not supposed to pass judgment on the culture of other groups. Somehow, the mystery deepening, ever darker, the radical avant-garde --- tenured, comfy professors for the most part (oh, those daredevil revolutionaries!) --- have convinced themselves that they have been able to transcend the limits of relativist thought, carving out for themselves a privileged position of wondrous insight and understanding of other groups. At any rate, if the groups in question happen to be middle-class Americans, meaning all Republicans, slimy sell-out Democratic politicians, all the duped women and minorities (victims of false consciousness who admire American life), and --- the scum of the earth, the most dreadful monster in all evolutionary history --- white male Americans . . . imperialists, racists, and sexists to the core.
Which groups?
Well, some might refer to scientific professions; never mind, all reality is "socially constructed," it's said, with scientists of any sort no more in bracing contact with any reality than your average Jack of Jill. Some might refer to philosophers in the analytical school that covers all the English-speaking countries, Scandinavia, and more and more the European continent; others might refer to so-called Continental philosophy heavily influenced by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and French post-modernists like Foucault and Derrida. And, lest we forget, such groups might mean the pc-radicals themselves, organized into feminist or ethnic or political movements or what have you. But note. Somehow, in mysterious ways never clarified, their politicized members forget that, if relativism is sound, they're not supposed to pass judgment on the culture of other groups. Somehow, the mystery deepening, ever darker, the radical avant-garde --- tenured, comfy professors for the most part (oh, those daredevil revolutionaries!) --- have convinced themselves that they have been able to transcend the limits of relativist thought, carving out for themselves a privileged position of wondrous insight and understanding of other groups. At any rate, if the groups in question happen to be middle-class Americans, meaning all Republicans, slimy sell-out Democratic politicians, all the duped women and minorities (victims of false consciousness who admire American life), and --- the scum of the earth, the most dreadful monster in all evolutionary history --- white male Americans . . . imperialists, racists, and sexists to the core.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 02:25 PM PST [ continue ]
Follow-Up: David Horowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Richard Rorty (a gifted philosopher, once associated with the radical left, and now its steadfast enemy)
A couple of emails came in asking for some more information about David Horowitz, Noam Chomsky, and --- since I've discussed at length the important philosophical work of Richard Rorty, the only distinguished and original thinker to associate with the radical left for years, until his rupture in the late 1990s ---Rorty too.
In a recent lengthy book about Rorty's important, if highly contested, philosophical work that gathered many of the most influential philosophers of the current generation in both the English-speaking world and the EU, Rorty and His Critics, edited by Robert Brandom, Rorty was asked whether he isn't "ashamed" of having had some influence on the rabid, politically correct Academic Left that now flourishes in the more murky corners of American academia --- womens' studies, ethnic studies, cultural studies, literary theory, sociology, quite a few second-rate historians, and the like. No, not ashamed he replied --- only "chastened". He then went on to define the Academic Left --- the avant-garde of which now consists of aging radicals of the Vietnam war era, their bellies sagging and sprawling outward, their lives filled with comfy high-style affluence while they fulminate endlessly against the alleged evils of capitalism, American life, American democracy, and American foreign policy --- calling it the School of Resentment, a term he got from the well-known critic Harold Bloom (likewise a chastened former radical) . . . tiresomely self-righteous and self-congratulatory, politically useless, and semi-literate.
For the intelligent if brief customer reviews of Rorty and His Critics, at Amazon, click here.
In a recent lengthy book about Rorty's important, if highly contested, philosophical work that gathered many of the most influential philosophers of the current generation in both the English-speaking world and the EU, Rorty and His Critics, edited by Robert Brandom, Rorty was asked whether he isn't "ashamed" of having had some influence on the rabid, politically correct Academic Left that now flourishes in the more murky corners of American academia --- womens' studies, ethnic studies, cultural studies, literary theory, sociology, quite a few second-rate historians, and the like. No, not ashamed he replied --- only "chastened". He then went on to define the Academic Left --- the avant-garde of which now consists of aging radicals of the Vietnam war era, their bellies sagging and sprawling outward, their lives filled with comfy high-style affluence while they fulminate endlessly against the alleged evils of capitalism, American life, American democracy, and American foreign policy --- calling it the School of Resentment, a term he got from the well-known critic Harold Bloom (likewise a chastened former radical) . . . tiresomely self-righteous and self-congratulatory, politically useless, and semi-literate.
For the intelligent if brief customer reviews of Rorty and His Critics, at Amazon, click here.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 01:36 PM PST [ continue ]
Is Noam Chomsky a Good Guide to US Foreign Policy or a Demented Ideologue?
For some reason, Noam Chomsky --- an innovative and important scholar in linguistics, whose work has ramified onto wider subjects like psychology and philosophy --- also sees himself as qualified to comment at length in manic, full-blown manner, full of ex-cathedra pronouncements, on US politics and foreign policy, regarding which his views are ho-hum garden-variety pc-hokum, only delivered with even more than ordinary hoked-up ideological fervor. Naturally, then, he is a hero in the bien pensant radical circles that prevail in universities these days when it comes to US policies, especially abroad . . . above all in ethnic and women's studies, sociology, cultural studies, and literary theory (itself so politicized for three decades that it might as well be dubbed "jargon-laden Derrida and Foucault as applied to American politics and capitalism"). Come to that, he's no less a favorite in such lame-brained programs as Global Peace and Security at UCSB, whose intellectual content, to the extent it can be called that, amounts to making the students enrolled in it feel morally self-righteous and superior . . . an attitude that spills outward into instant indignation like an octopus squirting ink immediately it encounters any contrary analysis and evidence. When they enroll in political science 121, International Relations Theory taught by the buggy prof, their cocksure mental work is suddenly jarred intellectually for the first time, and maybe the last time too.
Here, in a commentary sent to the listserver, gordon-newspost, last spring, Chomsky's work on US foreign policy --- which carries no more authority about the subject than, say, a Hollywood actor's does who goes on a whirlwind jaunt to Baghdad and fawns at the feet of a butcher like Saddam Hussein --- is dissected, mainly as a lead-in to a far more thorough analysis of his wild-eyed, fanatical distortions and lies that was done by David Horowitz and a group of his employees that did what no IR specialist would ever waste time on doing: examining in depth his propaganda tracts.
Here, in a commentary sent to the listserver, gordon-newspost, last spring, Chomsky's work on US foreign policy --- which carries no more authority about the subject than, say, a Hollywood actor's does who goes on a whirlwind jaunt to Baghdad and fawns at the feet of a butcher like Saddam Hussein --- is dissected, mainly as a lead-in to a far more thorough analysis of his wild-eyed, fanatical distortions and lies that was done by David Horowitz and a group of his employees that did what no IR specialist would ever waste time on doing: examining in depth his propaganda tracts.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 12:54 AM PST [ continue ]
As a Follow-Up to Our Buggy Commentary on Huntington, the Clash of Civilizations, and Radical Islamist Fundamentalism: Also David Horowitz, the scourge of the PC-Left
A well-organized, highly informative forum on the subject of Islam --- in particular, whether it is a religion of peace or violence --- is energetically recommended, especially if you've read the commentary posted a couple of days ago on Huntington, Islamo-fascist fundamentalism, and the clash of civilizations uncoiling with raw, rippling force in the Islamic world. A 3-part forum, the first two parts have already been published at David Horowitz's website, The Front Page. And like all the forums there, it features a well-balanced panel with a wide range of views, this time four specialists:
"Ibn Warraq, the author of Why I am Not a Muslim; Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of the Southern California chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); Robert Spencer, an adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation and author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith; and As`ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at California State University at Stanislaus, and adjunct professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of Bin Laden, Islam, and America's New War on Terrorism."
The published parts are Part I and Part II (go to Front Page
But who is David Horowitz, and why is he so widely and extravagantly hated by the politically correct left, on and off campus?
The published parts are Part I and Part II (go to Front Page
But who is David Horowitz, and why is he so widely and extravagantly hated by the politically correct left, on and off campus?
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 12:39 AM PST [ continue ]
Sunday, March 9, 2003
The Dishonest and Strange Mental Worlds of French and German Diplomacy, and The Flight from Reality among the Post-Modernist Radical Avant-Garde
Some Background Theoretical Comments
Repeatedly, in our buggy commentaries, we've noted that the main issue pitting the French and German governments against those of the US and the UK --- plus 25 out of 28 members of NATO (which includes the 10 East European countries joining this year) --- is a far different reading of their fundamental national interests, especially security ones and the greatest threat to them.
No surprise. The diplomatic square-off over Iraq has only brought these tendencies to the surface, at work now ever since the end of the cold war and the massive shifts in the distribution of power --- economic, technological, military, and cultural --- that began a decade ago. The Iraqi controversy is itself, to put this more tangibly, the precipitant here of these open divisions, not the basic cause. Sooner or later, if the existing Iraqi controversy were to vanish overnight, the underlying security-laden, power-laden causes of the divisions within NATO and now engaging Russia would have flared
Why were these realigning forces inevitable?
Repeatedly, in our buggy commentaries, we've noted that the main issue pitting the French and German governments against those of the US and the UK --- plus 25 out of 28 members of NATO (which includes the 10 East European countries joining this year) --- is a far different reading of their fundamental national interests, especially security ones and the greatest threat to them.
No surprise. The diplomatic square-off over Iraq has only brought these tendencies to the surface, at work now ever since the end of the cold war and the massive shifts in the distribution of power --- economic, technological, military, and cultural --- that began a decade ago. The Iraqi controversy is itself, to put this more tangibly, the precipitant here of these open divisions, not the basic cause. Sooner or later, if the existing Iraqi controversy were to vanish overnight, the underlying security-laden, power-laden causes of the divisions within NATO and now engaging Russia would have flared
Why were these realigning forces inevitable?
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 03:39 PM PST [ continue ]
Friday, March 7, 2003
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON'S CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS: Viewed in Perspective since 9/11 and the Imminent Destruction of Saddamite Iraq
Published in the mid-1990s and reprinted several times, The Clash of Civilizations --- written by Samuel Huntington of Harvard, one of the two or three most creative political scientists of the last two generations (he's in his late sixties) --- has generated more controversy than any scholarly book over the same span of time . . . not just in academia, but in the popular press and on television world-wide. It is also one of the most misunderstood books, while turning out to be the most prophetic. True, as we'll see, Huntington erred at times. No surprise. His book, along with Francis Fukuyama's End of History, another important ground-breaking study --- were the only two publications of import that tried to provide a new analytical framework for making sense of the broad politically charged trends at work in international relations in the post-cold war era.
Huntington's book was not just more profound than Fukuyama for all its pioneering missteps, it helps us make much more sense of the triple-layered threat that this country confronts in the world these days (along with other governments abroad, including in the Arab world, that share President's Bush's policies in dealing with them):
Huntington's book was not just more profound than Fukuyama for all its pioneering missteps, it helps us make much more sense of the triple-layered threat that this country confronts in the world these days (along with other governments abroad, including in the Arab world, that share President's Bush's policies in dealing with them):
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 06:28 PM PST [ continue ]
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
THE BUSH REVOLUTION IN US FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICIES: Some Queries from Prof. Kent Douglas, and Buzzy Replies
Michael:
I wonder if you could comment on the recently announced resignation from the U.S. Foreign Service of diplomat John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor to the U.S. embassy in Athens, and my related query.
In his letter, Kiesling states "The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger..." Kiesling's resignation was reported in the New York Times, and is cited in an anti-Bush diatribe by Robert Sheer in today's Los Angeles Times.
In his letter, Kiesling states "The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger..." Kiesling's resignation was reported in the New York Times, and is cited in an anti-Bush diatribe by Robert Sheer in today's Los Angeles Times.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 06:29 PM PST [ continue ]
Monday, March 3, 2003
Best, Easily Accessed Source for Comparing GDP, Productivity, Per Capita Income in the US, EU, Japan
The EU Commission in Brussels puts out a yearly EU Competitiveness Report, generally well organized and presented. The one for 2001, chapter 2, is the best, most easily accessed source: just 9 pages long, it's loaded with good charts, tables, and some brief discussion of trends that deal with GDP, growth, productivity levels, per capita income, employment growth, and so on. EU, US, Japan 2001 Note that this is in .pdf, which means you have to have Acrobat reader to see it properly. There is an .HTML equivalent, but it scrambles all the charts (the converter programs between the two formats aren't much good . . . and yet, that's odd because between .pdf and Word documents the converters work perfectly. Go ask Microsoft why).
Stat-USA/Gov is an excellent place to start your search for any data on the US. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency in the Commerce Department, handles all the national income stats, and is under constant pressure to revise and update its methodologies as the US economy has shifted from a mfg. economy to an information-based one, with productivity trends and inflation and, for that matter, exports that aren't normally counted as such (e.g., Amazon selling books abroad) are taken into account. The IMF and the OECD are invaluable too, as well as producing important reports and analyses. The UN does this for mainly developing countries, as does the World Bank. Prof Bug will try to get a list of these, along with some accessible scholarly journals, plus a handful of news sources like the NY Times or Die Zeit or Le Monde or the Daily Telegraph, and put them inside the links page (see the bright blue-and-white button above: don't worry, clicking on it won't open up a hornets' nest).
If you don't have Acrobat --- which is put out by Adobe --- you can get it free: run a google search for Acrobat, then download and install. Actually, in a mellow, less bugged out mood than a moment ago, the Buggy Prof has stopped his stinging and just done this for you: Acrobat download
Stat-USA/Gov is an excellent place to start your search for any data on the US. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency in the Commerce Department, handles all the national income stats, and is under constant pressure to revise and update its methodologies as the US economy has shifted from a mfg. economy to an information-based one, with productivity trends and inflation and, for that matter, exports that aren't normally counted as such (e.g., Amazon selling books abroad) are taken into account. The IMF and the OECD are invaluable too, as well as producing important reports and analyses. The UN does this for mainly developing countries, as does the World Bank. Prof Bug will try to get a list of these, along with some accessible scholarly journals, plus a handful of news sources like the NY Times or Die Zeit or Le Monde or the Daily Telegraph, and put them inside the links page (see the bright blue-and-white button above: don't worry, clicking on it won't open up a hornets' nest).
If you don't have Acrobat --- which is put out by Adobe --- you can get it free: run a google search for Acrobat, then download and install. Actually, in a mellow, less bugged out mood than a moment ago, the Buggy Prof has stopped his stinging and just done this for you: Acrobat download
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 06:36 PM PST [ continue ]
France, Britain, the US and WWII; also French and American Tussles at Present: From Professor Anthony O'Regan
Our thanks to Professor Anthony O'Regan, a specialist in International and Comparative Politics, for his comments on an article by a syndicated columnist about French-bashing in the media that has splurged here the last two months. That article was sent to him by a former student of his, and he sets out some comments to clarify the historical record.
The Buggy Prof then throws in his two-cents' worth, elaborating on the historical context of appeasement and British, French, and American diplomacy and strategy before and during WWII
The Buggy Prof then throws in his two-cents' worth, elaborating on the historical context of appeasement and British, French, and American diplomacy and strategy before and during WWII
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 03:58 PM PST [ continue ]
From Marc Grossman, Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs --- the No. 3 Man at Our State Department
Marc Grossman, who graduated from UCSB with honors in the mid-1970s --- then went on to get an M.A. at the London School of Economics --- joined our Foreign Service and moved upward to ambassadorial status in record time. Now one of the key policymakers in the State Department, Marc is also used for particularly delicate negotiations --- such as when he was sent last fall several times to negotiate with President Putin about Iraq and win its support for UN Security Resolution 1441 calling for the immediate, total, and unconditional cooperation of Baghdad in disarming. There are several other former students of ours who are in the Foreign Service or intelligence agencies or in our military --- careers that others of you visiting this site might want to consider, along with other positions in the US civil service. (It will help to get some graduate training, though it's not essential.)
We are lucky to have such talented, dedicated, hard-toiling people in our civilian and military agencies, including our professional officer corps, several of whom hold Ph.D.'s.
Michael
How great to hear from you. We are doing our level best to get this right. Thanks also for the website. Great! You can see what I spend me day doing by looking at state.gov, then going to Bureaus and Offices, then to Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. The section "from the Under Secretary" has all my testimony, statements, etc. Who would have believed all those years ago that you'd have sent the now number three person at the State Department on his way!!! I hope to see you soon here or there!
We are lucky to have such talented, dedicated, hard-toiling people in our civilian and military agencies, including our professional officer corps, several of whom hold Ph.D.'s.
Michael
How great to hear from you. We are doing our level best to get this right. Thanks also for the website. Great! You can see what I spend me day doing by looking at state.gov, then going to Bureaus and Offices, then to Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. The section "from the Under Secretary" has all my testimony, statements, etc. Who would have believed all those years ago that you'd have sent the now number three person at the State Department on his way!!! I hope to see you soon here or there!
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 11:07 AM PST [ continue ]
Sunday, March 2, 2003
FOLLOW-UP ON THE EU, US, ECONOMICS, POWER: A Reply to John
Once again, the buggy prof is grateful to John, a former honors student at UCSB who has studied, worked, and lived in Europe for years and is a gifted linguist to boot. A graduate of one of the best law schools in the US, John practices law now, but retains a vigorous interest in European politics and US-European relations.
John's Comments First
Thanks for your reponse to my inquiry. I'd seen some discussion of these points in various sources, but the statistics were presented in summary without any clear explanation of their derivation, leaving the reader to parse through the possibilities. I think that the issue of Old Euope's economic prospects-- which as you point out is what we're really talking about here-- is essential to understanding what is driving anti-Americanism there. The widening gap in the economic growth potential of the US as compared to Europe's biggest economies is far more troubling to Europe than what America does as the sole superpower at the end of the Cold War.
John's Comments First
Thanks for your reponse to my inquiry. I'd seen some discussion of these points in various sources, but the statistics were presented in summary without any clear explanation of their derivation, leaving the reader to parse through the possibilities. I think that the issue of Old Euope's economic prospects-- which as you point out is what we're really talking about here-- is essential to understanding what is driving anti-Americanism there. The widening gap in the economic growth potential of the US as compared to Europe's biggest economies is far more troubling to Europe than what America does as the sole superpower at the end of the Cold War.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 04:12 PM PST [ continue ]
Saturday, March 1, 2003
From a recent visitor to UC Berkeley: The Fatuity and Intellectual Idiocy of Anti-War Protestors
From Michael Jabbra, who recently graduated from UCSB, where he was a top-notch, powerfully motivated student . . . who, among other things, learned in the course of his four years of study how to shape a rigorous and well thought-out argument --- something, he says, totally absent in the sloganeering and mindless raucous cat-calling that pass for brainy grist in the anti-war crowd always on display in Berkeley, whose campus he just visited. His email message about his jaunt there appears at the end here. Meanwhile, here's Prof Bug's reply.
Well, Michael: you're right. And you have to understand why. Leave aside the middle-of-the road person who's confused about the Iraqi problem. Most people are confused and not well-informed, on either side of the debate --- not just in the protest movements. Most of the vocal leaders and avant-garde fist-shakers in those movements, to be more explicit, couldn't tell you what the population of Iraq is, its ethnic breakdown, the nature of the Baath Party that rules, Saddam's background or why he has spent over $100 billion for decades now on his weapons of mass destruction, even at the cost of tremendous economic suffering for his nation as a result of 12 years of tough sanctions. Nor do they how to make sense of Jerrold Post's informed book, based on his years as a CIA analyst specializing in psychological profiling of dictators, especially Saddam Hussein himself.
Well, Michael: you're right. And you have to understand why. Leave aside the middle-of-the road person who's confused about the Iraqi problem. Most people are confused and not well-informed, on either side of the debate --- not just in the protest movements. Most of the vocal leaders and avant-garde fist-shakers in those movements, to be more explicit, couldn't tell you what the population of Iraq is, its ethnic breakdown, the nature of the Baath Party that rules, Saddam's background or why he has spent over $100 billion for decades now on his weapons of mass destruction, even at the cost of tremendous economic suffering for his nation as a result of 12 years of tough sanctions. Nor do they how to make sense of Jerrold Post's informed book, based on his years as a CIA analyst specializing in psychological profiling of dictators, especially Saddam Hussein himself.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 12:20 PM PST [ continue ]