| This week:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
TOP |
Tuesday, October
20, 2009 Population growth: there is now a scheme to persuade
people for not having kids by giving them a carbon credit. Like all
population limiting schemes, this one seems designed to breed those who pay
attention to population growth arguments out of the human race.
David Riesman in The Lonely Crowd characterized the world into zones of
population explosion and incipient population decline; the West including
Ireland was in the second category (this before the rapid secularization of
Ireland later in the 20th Century). At the time most people thought the
notion of population decline (other than through a mass die-off as predicted
in the Club of Rome
sponsored Models of Doom)
to be ludicrous. Riesman turned out to be right, one of the few sociologists
to generate falsifiable hypotheses. As to the Models of Doom, which
predicted a planetary die-off before the end of the first decade of the 21st
Century, so far it hasn't happened. There's selective population decline all
right, but worldwide the population continues to grow. We're doing well at
convincing some Western cultures to commit suicide, as predicted by James
Burnham in Suicide of the West. Burnham was fond of saying that Liberalism
is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide. That was
thought to be an obsolete observation after the end of the Seventy Years
War; perhaps it is not so irrelevant as some thought.
==============
As an aside: in my judgment Burnham's The Machiavellians is on my reading
list of works essential for educated people. Alas, it seems to be hard to
find. There is an inadequate summary at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/
mattick-paul/1943/machiavellians.htm , inadequate in part because
Burnham's work is itself a summary of seminal works by others including
Pareto. One cannot expect every educated person to read Pareto, but the
Burnham summary is quite good; the summary of the summary, a précis, is
better than nothing but still inadequate.
You can find a copy of Burnham's book at
http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/
2009/05/01/the-machiavellians-principle-i/ . The download link leads to
a very large pdf file that will take some minutes to download; be patient if
you choose it. It can then be saved or printed. It's a pdf of the paperback
publication, not pleasant to read but readable on any pdf reader including
Kindle and the Sony Reader. I suppose this should lead to an essay on
copyright, but I have mixed emotions about classic works that have fallen
out of print yet ought to be available, and I don't feel up to that essay. I
do think people ought to read Burnham's book.
Modern Academia no longer takes serious discussions of Marxism seriously.
Many academics merely act as if the debate is over, and Marx was right about
a lot, and wrong about some things, but it's not important to determine
which parts are which. Indeed, theories of history and social progress are
not much discussed any longer. I meet fewer and fewer people who have any
idea of what Marx and Trotsky actually said, much less Schumpeter, and while
some academics pretend to know, they don't seem actually to have read the
books. The modern generation is action-oriented and content to pretend that
most of the great social questions have been settled, as for example the
"right" of everyone to health care; some are startled when I point out that
this really means an obligation for everyone to pay someone else's medical
bills but not their own. Perhaps we have this obligation, but it is not easy
to determine from when it comes. If it's purely pragmatic: that some kind of
centrally imposed health care scheme will proved more and cost less and thus
bring the greatest good to the greatest number, one might suppose more
debate on that subject since the evidence seems contradictory; and if there
is some other underlying principle of right and obligation, perhaps that
ought to be stated?
Regarding the pragmatic theory, I again refer you to
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/
elections-politics-politics-political-parties/
13239542-1.html for some data points on Swiss health care experience;
note that Switzerland is small, almost universally literate, and mostly of
the "protestant ethic" persuasion that one ought to work and free-loading is
simply not done. The Swiss experience shows that demand curves work: the
cheaper the good, the more will be consumed. The French and Swiss
experiences of universal health care seem very relevant to the US debates,
but I rarely hear them cited in our discussions. There will be more health
care discussion in
mail later today.
==============
This is Tuesday and the Windows 7 systems had all been restarted by
Microsoft Updates. Firefox keeps crashing on whatever was open when
Microsoft told my system to restart. I've tried three times now, and it is
finally restoring the last known good session. I suppose that keeping 57
open tabs may be thought excessive. My guess is that it has to do with Press
Display, which appears to be the new system that offers to sell you
newspaper articles. While I appreciate that the LA Times needs revenue, I
already subscribe to that; why I have to pay a buggy third party outfit to
see articles in a paper that is already downstairs on my breakfast table is
not so clear to me.
Whatever the case, while I was out with my cold/flu something changed.
There was this morning an LA Times op-ed page article called The Afghan Trap
by Dorronsolo. I don't seem to be able to find it on Google. A week ago I
would have been. Yesterday all searches led to this "Press Display" web
site. Today even that's gone. Something is a bit strange. I note that a
Google search on LA Times Today Afghanistan shows no articles from today's
paper. The LA Times appears to have gone off line, even to subscribers. Odd.
===============
The point of The Afghan Trap article I wanted to call to your
attention is that Afghans, and particularly Pushtans, are (1) polite, and
(2) really and truly hate armed foreigners on their territory. This is an
historical observation that I think is verifiable by nearly every report of
the past two thousand years. If it's true, and I think it is, it bodes ill
for the US efforts to remake Afghanistan into a modern stable liberal
democracy. If you an find it, it's in today's LA Times: The Afghan Trap by
Dorronsoro on today's (October 20, 2009) op-ed page is worth your attention.
[It is now available at
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion
/commentary/la-oe-dorronsoro20-2009oct20,
0,2650413.story> ]
We really do have to figure out just what we want in Afghanistan -- and
whether our wishes have any chance whatever of fulfillment. In my judgment,
our wants are irrelevant. We are not going to build a liberal democracy in
Afghanistan; it will take longer and cost more than this nation is willing
to invest. We are not going to have stable Western armed enclaves in
Afghanistan. That can be done, but won't be very useful, and will be costly
over long periods of time -- again something that this nation is nearly
incapable of.
That inability, by the way, has been true for a very long time. Lee's
greatest strategic mistake was to take the war to the North. Had he
continued a strategy of defensive maneuver, politics in the North would very
likely have ended the War Between the States by 1865 with a truce of
exhaustion leading to a negotiated peace.
Democracies have never been much good at long term costly
strategies and deferred rewards. It was only by the Grace of God that we
managed to end the Seventy Years War with Communism without holocaust. Even
so it was costly: see the Hungarian Uprising, Prague
Spring, the Berlin Wall, the Killing Fields, the Reeducation Camps, Boat
People, the long ordeal of Eastern Europe, etc. It was less costly for
Europe than the Thirty Years War ending in the Peace of Exhaustion Signed at
Westphalia in 1648 (the overthrow of the Peace of Westphalia was one of
Hitler's most popular objectives), but costly enough, and it was often a
near thing, with the Cold Warriors constantly taxed to give the Liberals
more and more concessions in return for the wherewithal to continue
Containment.
Containing Afghanistan is simple. Leave, with warning that we are going,
taking with us those doomed allies to whom we have sworn protection (it's
probably too late to build them an enclave, and they don't want that
anyway). Afghanistan for the Afghans, meaning tribes and warlords with
Pushtan domination around Kabul. We can try to shore up an anti-Taliban
faction in Kabul. That might even work. But do it from afar. The strategy of
counter-insurgency would work if we could actually commit to two generations
of doing it, feeding a squad a month into the meatgrinder and disrupting a
lot of American families for two generations here; but we aren't going to do
that, and blood and treasure poured into Afghanistan is likely poured
into, well, not sand, but the Ford of Kabul River.
Ford O' Kabul River
Kabul town's by Kabul river --
Blow the bugle, draw the sword --
There I lef' my mate for ever,
Wet an' drippin' by the ford.
Ford, ford, ford o' Kabul river,
Ford o' Kabul river in the dark!
There's the river up and brimmin', an' there's 'arf a squadron swimmin'
'Cross the ford o' Kabul river in the dark.
Kabul town's a blasted place --
Blow the bugle, draw the sword --
'Strewth I sha'n't forget 'is face
Wet an' drippin' by the ford!
Ford, ford, ford o' Kabul river,
Ford o' Kabul river in the dark!
Keep the crossing-stakes beside you, an' they will surely guide you
'Cross the ford o' Kabul river in the dark.
Kabul town is sun and dust --
Blow the bugle, draw the sword --
I'd ha' sooner drownded fust
'Stead of 'im beside the ford.
Ford, ford, ford o' Kabul river,
Ford o' Kabul river in the dark!
You can 'ear the 'orses threshin', you can 'ear the men a-splashin',
'Cross the ford o' Kabul river in the dark.
Kabul town was ours to take --
Blow the bugle, draw the sword --
I'd ha' left it for 'is sake --
'Im that left me by the ford.
Ford, ford, ford o' Kabul river,
Ford o' Kabul river in the dark!
It's none so bloomin' dry there; ain't you never comin' nigh there,
'Cross the ford o' Kabul river in the dark?
Kabul town'll go to hell --
Blow the bugle, draw the sword --
'Fore I see him 'live an' well --
'Im the best beside the ford.
Ford, ford, ford o' Kabul river,
Ford o' Kabul river in the dark!
Gawd 'elp 'em if they blunder, for their boots'll pull 'em under,
By the ford o' Kabul river in the dark.
Turn your 'orse from Kabul town --
Blow the bugle, draw the sword --
'Im an' 'arf my troop is down,
Down an' drownded by the ford.
Ford, ford, ford o' Kabul river,
Ford o' Kabul river in the dark!
There's the river low an' fallin', but it ain't no use o' callin'
'Cross the ford o' Kabul river in the dark.
Rudyard Kipling
If I seem ambiguous, of course I am. We have sent the Legions to
Afghanistan and Iraq. They want to achieve the objectives we have given
them. Bringing home a defeated army is never a good thing for a republic. We
sent the troops, and we have no right to demand that they throw their honor
on the ground as they withdraw.
Once again we search for Peace with Honor. Nixon achieved that in Viet
Nam, but he had promised South Viet Nam security against outside invasion:
counter insurgency was their problem. They achieved internal security, and
had at least a democratic a society in South Viet Nam as anyone in the
region with few exceptions; but Nixon could not keep his promise after the
Watergate scandals, and we all saw the shameful scenes in which we abandoned
out erstwhile allies to the tender mercies of the northern invaders.
The worst of it all is that some of use saw the upcoming end in Iraq
before we ever went in. Our original commitment in Afghanistan was not the
same as the obligation we assumed in Iraq. We could have gone in, expelled
the Taliban, and got out, leaving Afghanistan to the Afghans (which is to
say to the warlords in the hills, Pushtans around Kabul, and Taliban in a
few areas). We didn't, and getting out -- peace with honor -- is more
difficult now. I wish Obama well in finding a path to peace with honor. (and
see below)
=====================
Vatican welcomes Anglicans into Catholic church
When faith overcomes politics
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/
10/20/vatican.anglican.church/
ROME, Italy (CNN) -- The Vatican said Tuesday it has
worked out a way for groups of Anglicans who are dissatisfied with their
faith to join the Catholic Church.
The Vatican says more Anglicans have expressed an
interest in joining the Catholic Church.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/
mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
The process will allow groups of Anglicans,
including bishops and married priests, to join the Catholic Church some
450 years after King Henry VIII broke from Rome and created the Church of
England.
The number of Anglicans wishing to join the Catholic
Church has increased in recent years as the Anglican church has welcomed
the ordination of women and openly gay clergy and blessed homosexual
partnerships, said Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the head of the
Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
=====================
There is now mail, including a lengthy healthcare discussion
forum.
====================
I have often recommended Amity Schlaes
The Forgotten Man. (Kindle
version available) One subscriber who took my recommendation says
the forgotten man
Jerry,
I have reached the part where Roosevelt is running
for president. Ye Gods, we're doing it all over again. We did not learn
from last time.
You know, if Hoover had not tried to engineer the
un-engineer-able, things would have recovered and we would have not made
it to Roosevelt and his wackos. Socialism would probably not have gained
much prominence here. The road to hell....
Phil
The book remains one of the best accounts of what we did in
the last depression.
Tuesday TOP
Current Mail
|
