Saturday, February 01, 2003 TDR EDITOR HOPES FOR HIROSHIMA II
EDIT: The post from TDR linked to above has been changed from its original content. My comments here are no longer applicable.
EDIT II: I have decided to remove the content of my [EDIT III: uncivil and irresponsible] post in response to the original instigator's exercise of good judgment in deleting his. I hereby apologize for the inappropriate invective, particularly my use of the word "Dixie."
Posted by Karsten Barde,
10:38 PM
-
On the scientific method…
Mr. Waligore: "And no, Brad, I don't think the Pope is really 'hedging' about evolution when he talks about souls: Prof. Dini denied recommendations to students who believed in evolution's physical reality; you can do that without being concerned what they think of a soul. It is the method that is important, not the subject matter. Brad's argument about non-Platonists and non-Marxists being able to study Greek philosophy and Marx is stupid. Of course you can. Dini's claim is that if you believe in creationism, you do not understand the scientific method. That's contestable, but plausible."
As I mentioned, these students all must have an A in at least one of Dini's classes. They have all done well in a variety of science classes (or they couldn't get into medical school). They have used the scientific method, and used it competently, for four years. I think these creationists are very comparable to the non-Marxist scholar, or better yet, an atheistic theologian. What is off-base about this? I've been called stupid before, but I prefer to hear at least one reason (preferably a list, but keep it reasonable, my attention span is short), no?
For the record, here's a list of creationist scientists. If Dini wants to tell the inventor of the MRI scanner that he doesn't understand the scientific method, that's his business.
And I am not arguing that these scientists act "as if" they believe in evolution. I think they can act "as if" they understand evolution, and believe something else. And guide their research accordingly. So what? What matters is whether their results hold up among members of the scientific community. If creationists can agree to live in that community, then who cares what they believe?
Jon says: "I would simply challenge anyone that thinks Darwinism 'is up for dispute' vis-a-vis creationism, intelligent design theory, or some other permutation there of, to post a link to a serious, peer-reviewed article claiming that this is, in fact, the case. "
Jon- if the same people doing to the peer reviewing are also professors like Dini, who refuse to write letters of recommendation for creationists, isn't that an argument creationists could use? I'm just saying... Creationists also have their own journals... heh. But I wouldn't necessary lump all 'intelligent design' theorists in with the Earth is 6000 years old creationists.
I do not understand this whole uproar over creationists not being able to understand anti-biotic resistant strains of pathogens (or have I got the issue wrong?). My understanding is that creationists may be willing to grant the fact of micro-evolution, that is mutation of a species. What they do not grant is macro-evolution, of mutation from one species to another (saying for example, how can a complex thing like a mammal's eye develop by random mutation when each of its parts would have no function-- and hence no reason to survive.) I can understand why you might deny someone who a recommendation who is going to work on a biology Ph.D. But does this matter to all kinds of doctors? (I don't know.. I suppose doctors research too) And no, Brad, I don't think the Pope is really 'hedging' about evolution when he talks about souls: Prof. Dini denied recommendations to students who believed in evolution's physical reality; you can do that without being concerned what they think of a soul. It is the method that is important, not the subject matter. Brad's argument about non-Platonists and non-Marxists being able to study Greek philosophy and Marx is stupid. Of course you can. Dini's claim is that if you believe in creationism, you do not understand the scientific method. That's contestable, but plausible.
Finally, I don't know about doctors, but scientists are under no obligation not to use their credentials to write books promoting creationism. Because it is so intimately involved in science, I can see the argument that their view of science will be warped. To pretend that they can act 'as if' they believe in evolution is sort of silly... maybe if they are performing heart surgery, sure... but then the argument becomes whether in this instance it was right for the prof. to deny a recommendation, not whether if it would always be wrong. And I understand the creationists in part because the scientists old claim was that you had to accept the tenets of the priesthood to become a member. But I tell you, if a professor tells me he or she doesn't want to write me a letter of recommendation, I'm not going to ask. I don't see why the professor just does not note on the letter of recommendation that the person is a creationist, and the employers. etc. can make their own judgments. I suspect he means he will not be able to write a good recommendation, so he won't write one at all, which I'm sure many of us have wished professors have been bold enough to tell us.
Posted by Timothy,
5:08 PM
-
More on Dini's Papal bull...
Mr. Eisenman, the pope said this about evolution: “If the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God.' Evolutionary teaching that regards the human spirit as `emerging from the forces of living matter, or as an epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.”
That doesn’t sound like truthful and forthright affirmation to me. That sounds like hedging. I bet Dini would deny His Holiness a letter of recommendation.
Anyways, here are some other problems with Dini’s “stance.” First off, a student must earn an A in one of Dini’s classes (which presumably focus on evolution) simply to be eligible for a recommendation. That means the student has proved him/herself adept at understanding and using the theories of evolution. Does it really matter that the student believes the whole thing is bunk, as long as he or she understands it thoroughly and knows how to use it? There are a lot of scholars who study ancient Greek philosophy for a living. I bet most of them aren’t all devout Platonists. Does that affect their ability to do work? Dini supposes that no one could ever do work that contradicts their innermost beliefs, that human beings cannot think in different contextual frames. Um, wrong. And if he thinks that religious beliefs are the only potential sources for bias in science, then he is both resoundingly arrogant and sadly mistaken. Yes, a creationist at heart may let his/her beliefs seep into his/her work, causing bias and error. That could happen to someone who believes in capitalism. Or the vanity of human nature. Or Democrats. But scientists deal with it.
Although, now that I think about it, who says that believing in creationism is necessarily an absolute hindrance when it comes to science? Some of the best writers on Marxism think Marxism is total crap, and that counterdogma helps sharpen their thinking. I agree that no one has ever offered scientific proof for creationism. Well, here’s another question: have any creationists ever made advances in evolutionary theory? The answer is yes! Check out this book, or this one. Both written by creationists, and both apparently valuable contributions to the study of evolution. So Dini’s blanket dismissal of personal beliefs is blind.
And finally, I too have heard the claims that creationist doctors harm patients by misunderstanding the nature of pathogenic evolution. But I have seen very little evidence towards this end. Mr. Alessandroni, if you can prove your claim, do so.
A physician who's caring and smart and capable is proabably going to do their job quite well, but as Dini says, Kleiman is ignorant to say that Sunday Beliefs are so harmless. In fact, Dini echoes the assertion of many that the very dangerous increase in tolerance many diseases have to anti-biotics is partly the fault of the creationist doctors who refuse to believe it has anything to do with evolution. I wouldn't even want a nurse who was that stupid.
Dini specifically requires the following:
If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.
Well, think about that. I know a lot of smart people who blindly believe in creationism and I have yet, even from professors of biology, heard an intelligent or remotely scientific explanation for creationism.
Creationist arguments come off like justifications for fundamentalist laws - if a then b then c then of course, it's the will of God - which is fine if you want to abuse women or justify religious war or give a higher explanation for your intolerance, but it would be negligent for a professor to call it science.
Brad is correct in noting that the litmus test given by the professor is slightly extreme, but I would strongly argue that he is incorrect in stating that the professor has "eschewed the scientific method in favor of 'truthful and forthright affirmation,' especially when it comes to a theory very much up for dispute and discussion." In order to alleviate the need for me posting an entire body of research, I would simply challenge anyone that thinks Darwinism "is up for dispute" vis-a-vis creationism, intelligent design theory, or some other permutation there of, to post a link to a serious, peer-reviewed article claiming that this is, in fact, the case. In fact, looking at my picture preceding this statement should suitably verify that we are cousins of the apes.
As an addendum, Darwinian evolution has been official accepted by the Roman Catholic Church for quite awhile; the fact that Dini was once a member of a Catholic teaching order should thus not reflect an "axe to grind" with Catholicism.
Posted by Jonathan,
3:13 AM
-
Friday, January 31, 2003 re: Creationism
The professor, Michael Dini, writes: "If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences."
Wow. I was unaware that scientists had eschewed the scientific method in favor of "truthful and forthright affirmation," especially when it comes to a theory very much up for dispute and discussion. So much for intellectual standards. Hey, maybe Professor Dini can set up a prayer circle for all his acolytes, hold their hands and thunder down his edicts from on high. Dini is speaking, folks! Rapture and affirmation for everyone!
What a crock. Dini sounds like nothing more than an insecure, second-rate scientist with a chip on his shoulder, clamoring for attention. On his website he adds, "It is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions." Prove it.
Update: I did some searching, and it looks like Mr. Dini was a longtime member of a Roman Catholic teaching order. (Link to his autobiography here.) Hmmm.... I suppose it would be too presumptuous to think he might have an axe to grind? (Oops, Update 2, I didn't realize that Volokh had found this out already)
Update 3: I'm just going to link to Mark Kleiman, who basically agrees with me, only with less acidity and more intelligence. The salient quote: "It's the required confession of faith that sticks in my craw." Yup. Science professors should not be eliciting kowtows and hallelujahs.
What do you think of a biology professor refusing to write letters of recommendation for students who do not believe in evolution?
Posted by Timothy,
7:59 PM
-
More Nation Stuff (little victories, I know)
TAPPED, the blog of the liberal American Prospect magazine, has linked to the campus publication Nation articles! (Though they got wrong which article was the main one and which one was the sidebar-- that's where our own Laura Dellatorre attacks the Review.)
THE INTELLECTUAL DECLINE OF THE CAMPUS RIGHT, PART II. Entirely by coincidence, The Nation has two worthwhile articles in the current issue describing how the right subsidized and built a network of conservative student magazines on campuses across the country. Here's the main piece; here's the link to a sidebar on the lack of off-campus financial support for progressive student magazines.
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) Turkey's top political and military leaders endorse stationing foreign troops in Turkey...
despite the fact that 80% of the populace there opposes it (according to NPR)
Posted by Peter,
3:28 PM
-
If only I could give him the Michael Mandelbaum award....
John Stevenson on the Dartmouth Observer says protests against the war should not rely on principles like 'peace' and 'justice' but instead on 'cost-benefit analysis.' John Stevenson on the observer says, in effect, if you have been gassed by Saddam, then your situation is not 'optimal'. He also wasn't in favor of intervening in Rwanda to stop genocide (not a very big 'cost' I guess).
"I would not support interevention in Rwanda unless it threatned to destabilized the African continent. A war to liberate Tibet or the Kurds would be unnecessary; their situation is not optimal but not worth expending blood over. Protesting the [Iraq] war should follow this guideline, cost-benefit anlysis, and not be based on concepts such as peace (I call upon Wilson's infamous 'war to end all wars' as sufficient proof) or justice (in the name of God, for the religious extremists of miedeval yesteryear and in the world today or of human rights, for the leftist extremist of recent invention)."
It's not leftists who are promoting human rights everywhere, and certainly not in Iraq. By and large, it is neo conservatives and hawkish humanitarian liberals. I'm proud (in most cases, not Iraq) to be the latter. I say to John: don't generalize such that you compare plundering in the name of God to trying to stop torture in the world today. Unless you think the only problem with the Holocaust was that Nazi Germany invaded other countries to kill Jews, I don't want to hear you claim you only support intervention on 'cost-benefit' analysis. We may be, as John says, "american citizens first" but we should not not forget that we are also all common members of humanity.
Brad: You need to understand the stakes in the Estrada nomination. Bush feels he needs to nominate a Hispanic to the court. His chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, is thought to be the prime contender; however, conservatives feel he might be too moderate and want a real conservative like Estrada. So wing-nuts want Bush to nominate Estrada to the lower courts, wait a few years until Estrada has experience, and nominate him to the Supreme Court. Check out here and tworelated articles at TNR.
Clint: whenever ANYONE publishes, all notes that are posted become published. Don't post at all if you don't want it published: compose it elsewhere first.
Brad, I don't have the time or inclination to get into your--very valid--points. I'm too busy preparing for my--shameless plug--teach-in on media sources to be held at 2 pm in 105 (ack!) Dartmouth.
For the record, that blog wasn't meant for public posting--just as of yet. I was/am still in the midst of research, and was going to flesh out my point well beyond bullet points.
So as this demonstrates, I could certainly use a few pointers in the difference between Blogger's "Post" function and its "Post and Publish" function.
Excellent article Mr. Waligore, congratulations. Now tell me what you think of this Estrada business. Will the Democrats fight this one till the death?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:26 AM
-
Wave of the future
Well, that's nice, but why doesn't the US put real money into projects like this one? We spent untold billions on the Human Genome Project (well, okay, three billion). And sure, having those genetic codes is real cute and all, but wouldn't it be nicer to start weaning the economy off (ba-dum) oil? Fusion? Hydrogen cars? Intuitively, I think Mr. Bush is right when he says that technology, not regulation, will have the greatest impact on environmental reform (though perhaps someone... Karsten? could offer a more nuanced argument). But he has yet to prove his seriousness in funding that technology. Fusion is a nice start. Let's see more.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:19 AM
-
re: Here comes the coalition
Well, were these leaders elected or not? Chirac is a rightwinger too, does that invalidate his opinion? And what about Havel? Is he just gunning for aid? Is it possible, perhaps, that he remembers how the US stood up to the USSR and won? During an era when France told NATO to get bent? Hm. It seems fashionable nowadays to call Bush supreme dictator and the like. Havel, Miller and Medgyessy don't seem to agree, possibly because they've seen what a real dictatorship looks like. I mean, yes, nothing would make me happier than Ashcroft falling down a flight of stars, and I will oppose until I die the various infringements on civil liberties since 9/11. But as Tim pointed out, we still live in a stable democracy, as do the Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. etc. They're being led by elected leaders whose opinion, in my books, counts for quite a bit.
At the very least, I fail to see how these leaders' opinions hold less weight than America's opponents. Look at who Bush is up against... France? France?!?! A country that can't get enough of Robert Mugabe? A country pursuing a dangerous unilateral intervention in the Ivory Coast? A country that was terrified of standing up to Milosevic? Or how about China? Honestly, from a moral standpoint, who cares what they think? I don't understand why certain countries can be dismissed because they have rightwing governments (again, aren't these governments elected?), while countries like Syria and China are invoked as proof of Bush's failure to gain international support.
(Oh yeah, as a sidenote, Jared, I wouldn't list Canada and Japan as opponents. In the polls I've seen, most Canadians support the US, and it seems like Chretien may side with the US, Security council or not. As for Japan, well, Koizumi has wavered thus far. Then again, the next actual decision Koizumi makes will be his first. Most of his opponents in the Diet are pushing for a strong stance against Iraq, and odds are Japan will join up with the US. Oh yes, not to mention Australia).
I feel sort of strange arguing all this, since I don't support this war, I think it's a terrible idea, etc. etc. (And btw Mr. Hendler, I think your posters around campus have done an excellent job arguing towards this end.) But I think it's an important point, because it seems to me that Bush has done what he said and assembled his international coalition. If this isn't multilateralism than I don't know what is. I think this could turn into an interesting debate on what the nature of multilateral action should be, and what shape it should take in the future--ie: what sort of coalition, with what sorts of countries, makes an action multilateral? Is the Security Council approach really the best method? Alas, I'm too tired right now to press this any further.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:54 AM
-
Thursday, January 30, 2003 Re: Here comes the coaltion:
Tony Blair, United Kingdom Václav Havel, Czech Republic Peter Medgyessy, Hungary Leszek Miller, Poland Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark
Hmmmm.... A lot of countries gunning for NATO admission, eh?
Sure, we can shrug our shoulders at the usual suspects like Blair and Berlusconi, but Vaclav Havel? Peter Medgyessy? Those aren't bloodthirsty warmongers. They're committed liberals who know full well the horror of tyranny and oppression.
Spain: Right-wing government of Spain, a non-permanent Security Council member, gung-ho behind Bush, ignoring public opinion.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark
Leader of rightest coalition, including members of the Danish People's Party, described by the BBC as "extreme right-wing" and "ultranationalist." And yes, the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs is a member of the DPP.
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Leader of the Social Democratic Party, which is, beleive it or not, Portugal's rightist party.
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Rightist. Millions--literally--of demonstrators have turned out to protest his plans.
Spain: Right-wing government of Spain, a non-permanent Security Council member, gung-ho behind Bush, ignoring public opinion.
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
I don't need to go into him.
Italy: Silvio Berlusconi, the Prime Minister, holds line behind Bush, although there are no plans for Italy to provide troops.
Posted by Clint,
8:49 PM
-
Nation article on alternative publications is out!
Check out thenation.com's front page for my article on alternative progressive student publications. Here is the article about left-leaning publications (including, of course, the Free Press), and a sidebar on conservative publications and The Dartmouth Review. Both will appear in the most recent print edition (issue date 2/17) coming to newsstands in the next week! The Nation also posted a list of ten vibrant student publications here, with quotes by the paper's editors, including our own Kumar Garg!
P.S. There's so much research that I (and my co-author Emma Ruby-Sachs) did that did not make it into the article. But for conservative publications, I did write about the history of The Dartmouth Review in the Free Press' first year issue.
Spain, Portugal, and Italy, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Denmark impress you that much more than Germany, France, Japan, Canada, China and Russia? And the UK? Well, unless something happened that I missed, I'd definitely put my money on the other guys. The worst part is that these leaders are generally going against the will of their people. Part of the signed letter reads
The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists — the enemies of our common values — are prepared to go to destroy them.
The enemies of our common values? You mean like the right to free speech and fair process? Funny how our common values are theirs to define, and how easy they are to ignore when it suits us, huh? I think we should all be in fear of anyone who talks about our common values, as if they were actually some tangible thing owned by us, judged by us. Especially because most of these terrorists are using the the same language in their propaganda.
Edit When I first read Brad's post, I thought he was being ironic...
Posted by Jared,
10:32 AM
-
Here comes the coalition
Looks like critics can no longer chastise Bush for going it alone in Iraq, certainly not after this astonishing roll call of US allies, set to appear in today's edition of The Times. Sure, we can shrug our shoulders at the usual suspects like Blair and Berlusconi, but Vaclav Havel? Peter Medgyessy? Those aren't bloodthirsty warmongers. They're committed liberals who know full well the horror of tyranny and oppression.
I hate to say it, but Bush's friends abroad impress me far more than his opponents. Anyone care to see things differently?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:08 AM
-
Wednesday, January 29, 2003 Republicans and Race
Posted by Timothy,
9:06 PM
-
Tuesday, January 28, 2003 "Tell the truth before the bombs are falling..."
Hello all. It's been a while, but this article I found via cursor ties in so perfectly to an article I should have in the upcoming DFP, that I couldn't resist.
It's an interview with Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam era leaker of the Pentagon Papers, and recent author of Secrets. It can be found at Editor and Publisher, an industry rag that with these othertwo recent articles may be fast establishing itself as my favorite site for news about the print media. Ellsberg raises some great points about the weaknesses of war reporting as things heat up in the final stretch, similarites and differences between Iraq part deux and Vietnam, and Vietnam's impact on the move of the US towards bombing based wars, among others issues.
An excerpt:
Publishers and editors should start from a knowledge that if policies from the outside look questionable and unfounded and even dangerous, there is a very high likelihood that many people inside the government feel exactly the same way, and possibly even more deeply. There is a lot more dissent inside than you can imagine. It may even be offered by those who are spokesmen for the policy -- as we saw with George Ball and others in regard to Vietnam. So a reporter may not be able to guess who they are, but start with the knowledge they exist.
This government, like in Vietnam, is lying us into a war. Like Vietnam, it's a reckless, unnecessary war, where the risks greatly outweigh any possible benefits. I'd make this argument to insiders: Don't do what I did. Don't keep your mouth shut when you know people are being lied to. Tell the truth before the bombs are falling, while there's still a chance to do something about it.
Posted by Clint,
5:55 PM
-
RE: An ANSWER to Justin (response to Tim's posting at [1/21/2003 9:00:43 PM])
I'm finally responding to Tim's reply to me which he posted about a week ago. Wish my response could have been more timely. But anyway, let me address some of Tim's criticisms: "Oddly, Justin cites evidence by Ramsey Clark, without mentioning that Ramsey founded another WWP offshoot and defended people like Milosevic." -Tim
First off, I think Tim has misconstrued the purpose of my references to Ramsey Clark. My first reference to Clark was meant to be an example of something coming from the left that was just as unfairly accusatory as Tim's link. If you'll notice, I even summarized this link as "Images of terrible suffering without the least bit of explanation or context; Fingers pointing vaguely at scapegoats without much explanation." I don't see how this became grounds for Tim to pigeonhole me as a Ramsey Clark supporter, and expect me to answer for every one of Clark's opinions. Does Clark's defense of Milosevic automatically nullify everything else he has to say? For readers to accept the validity of this type of debate tactic amounts to an invitation to the debaters to answer all questions by changing the subject. (ie: Bush can't be guilty of the war crimes Clark accuses him of because Clark has defended Milosevic in the past... The latter point has nothing to do with the validity of the former point, and can only be understood as a diversion.)
This gets to a larger problem I have with Tim's argumentation. Altogether too much of it is based on guilt by association. I think I should be allowed to post links to information on demonized leftist sites without having to answer for everything members of those leftist sites have ever said or done. Sometimes even people who believe ardently in "Maoist Agrarian reform" can have useful information that is difficult to find elsewhere. It almost seems that by choosing to pigeonhole me with Ramsey Clark, just for two non-endorsing links to his sites, Tim is doing to me exactly what he has suggested Dartmouth pro-Palestinians have done to Rocky.(see [1/20/2003 4:16:46 PM | Timothy Waligore]) Must I follow my posting with a tepidly repulsive letter of disclaimer, just so no one gets the wrong idea about what I, as a politically-neutral Dartmouth organization, stand for?
This ties in with a problem I have with the types of accusations I've read on Tim's link attacking ANSWER. The accusers never argue about the validity of their opponent's case; instead, they choose to attack the opponent himself for issues that are completely unrelated. My summary:
Question: Why are the protesters against the war on Iraq wrong? Answer: Because some of them question whether Milosevic is guilty of massacres. Case closed. Question: Is it possible that some of them might have had grounds for believing what they do about Milosevic? Answer: We don't know because we've already tuned them out.
I was not as disturbed when they did this with the Milosevic case, because I'm mostly in agreement with them on this issue, but when they used this utterly disingenuous argumentation tactic to pin the blame for the Kurdish genocide on ANSWER, I was enraged. I followed the link for their defense and found nothing but a flimsy, unrelated piece on how ANSWER supporters opposing sanctions met once with OSFI, an Iraqi organization, whose leader is quoted saying something about how Kuwait is worse off under US control then it would have been under Saddam's control. Gosh. One might as well assume Clinton is guilty of apologism for Palestinian terrorism, simply for having met with Arafat. They present no legitimate evidence of how ANSWER could be even remotely tied to Kurdish genocides. I'm much less likely to trust this website's other accusations after reading this halfass "proof" of ANSWER's "apologism" for Kurdish gassings.
Another issue:
"Justin complains that the site I linked to had crimes that could be attributable to the U.S. government. If Justin wants to say ANSWER is as bad as the government they condemn, fine. If he wants to call Rumfeld-lovers and the Bushies hypocrites, fine. But hypocrites can also be pointing out your own hypocrisy. Furthermore, I hope Justin will realize the original reports on ANSWER came from David Corn of The Nation. If he doesn't feel he has to answer to right-wing bloggers, how does he answer lefties like him and Eric Alterman? " -Tim
Indeed, I coexist peacefully with such people, and give credence to much of their criticism of the more radical left. But I feel that Tim's question misses a larger point I was making. The line of my argument does not lead one merely to criticism of the American right, as Tim suggests. Neither the right *nor* the left advocated the "forceful overthrow" of the US government for its support of Saddam Hussein in the 80's. Anyone who opposed such an overthrow (ie: almost everyone, including me) should be able to understand how ANSWER could oppose the overthrow of the Iraqi government for comparable crimes. It might just have been the U.S. right-wing leading the charge to ransack sovereign South American countries, but we all allowed ourselves to be dragged along in their crimes to some extent. Once the Iraq situation is understood as a power play between two forces exhibiting comparable evils, then ANSWER's defense of Iraqi sovereignty begins to make more sense.
Tim asks why this argument does not lead me to the conclusion that Americans should overthrow their own government. My answer is that this sort of forceful action is disproportionate to the crimes, and would threaten to cause a great deal more suffering than the crimes themselves. It is much more productive to work within the system for change. The same is true for Iraq: the suffering of war and its aftermath could very well be disproportionate to the crimes of Saddam Hussein. So in this case too, I think it is important to work within the system, with inspections, and most importantly, the prospect of real rewards in the form of ending sanctions in the event of Iraqi compliance.
Regarding leftist apologism:
Tim has a point about certain spokepersons of radical leftist groups, like Ramsey Clark, being guilty of apologism. I agree that by taking their opposition to US foreign policy too far, they all too often end up unjustly defending the crimes of the US's enemies, perhaps even to the detriment of their own cause's credibility with the American public.
What we miss when we evaluate these "apologists", though, is that they sometimes end up making charged statements like "Iraq never did anything wrong" (see Tim's posting) simply because they don't want to provide moral fodder for US military action (a worthy cause, by some estimates). A statement like this can either be understood devoid of context, in the sense that this man is trying to beatify Saddam to sainthood, or it can be understood to mean that the international actions of the Iraqi leadership were on a moral par with those of its neighbors and those of the U.S. government. Disagreement on this is both reasonable and expected. Regardless, the point is that past US military actions are quite relevant to our evaluations of other country's leaderships, because US actions help to set the moral standard for the rest of the world. If one perceives that Iraqi actions, while heinous, are in line with U.S. standards of international action, then I don't think it is "apologism" to oppose a U.S. war whose driving force is rooted in a (false?) sense of moral highground.
Lastly, Tim suggested that the US government, by virtue of its democratic system, holds an intrinsic moral superiority over the Iraqi dictatorship. I agree with him 100%. But as far as moral highground in the international community goes, America's internal democracy is hardly relevant as long as the US opposes any semblance of democratic process among countries. How is an Iraqi, or anyone else outside the US, to see our country as having a democratic spirit while we continue to insist on the right to wage unilateral, unprovoked warfare on countries we internally deem rogues? People talk about the "democratic peace", and its sanctifying effects on international relations, but as long as the democratic ideal does not include any spirit of democracy among nations, then I don't think it is very relevant to the debate.
-justin
Posted by Justin Sarma,
3:33 AM
-
Not only was the appeal by Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche, a 52-year-old senior Buddhist monk, rejected, but the 28-year old Lobsang Dhondup was executed Sunday afternoon (Jan 26).
This fact carried a particular weight at the Harry Wu lecture tonight during which a Chinese student suggested that such executions were a thing of the past...
Posted by Peter,
2:59 AM
-
Monday, January 27, 2003 Ah, Beijing...
Seems like folks in the Ivory Coast are not too happy about France's latest appeasement policies. Certainly, the French had to make difficult choices to sort out a tricky situation. Was negotiating with (and acquiescing to) the rebels the best option? Would a hardline (aka "American") stance have worsened the situation? Are the French perhaps *gasp* correct after all?
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:47 AM
-
But do they have compost fairies?
Well, I'd love to oppose this, since as everyone knows, I hate the environment. But... it seems like good news to me.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:08 AM
-
Sunday, January 26, 2003 Re: McKinney
Tim, in the article you provided about McKinney, I don't get a sense of her alleged anti-Semitism.
What are the charges? 1. That she criticized U.S. support of Israel (legitimately) and said Giulani ought to have accepted the cash from the Saudi prince (admittedly not the smartest political gesture). 2. That she appeared at an event sponsored by Farrakhan. 3. That she accepted $2,000 from the extremist American Muslim Council founder Abdurahman Alamoudi (while the more wealthy John Sununu and Sen. Clinton declined his donations after his remarks in support of Hamas and Hezbollah were publicized). 4. That she called out the Bush administration to wonder "what they knew" before 9/11 (many other Americans asked the same question, if you recall). 5. That her father called Cynthia's 1996 congressional opponent a "racist Jew" (well, was he?). And that McKinney Sr. blamed Jews in her district for causing her defeat in the 2000 primary (well, did they?).
None of the charges listed above seem to be grounds for labeling McKinney anti-Jew in any meaningful sense. (Anyone recall a certain Jewish member of the Dartmouth '02 class who was known to call anyone he disagreed with an anti-Semite?) I've got no problem calling out conservative, Sharon-apologist (and yes, maybe racist) Jews for what they really are.
I think it's a possibility that a vocal, controversial Green presidential candidate might undermine "the good work" going on in states, but it could also be a real booster if public opinion came down in support of the candidate's strong statements. I can't say which is more likely. The author of Tim's article seems to think the former is true, and that choosing a "lightning-rod candidate" would "march the party away from ...legitimacy." Maybe so.
Now Michael Moore would be awesome :). Can you imagine? Jim Hightower's another great guy, but he's got no intention of running. Any other populists from the South or the Midwest who come to mind?
Creationism