~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Saturday, June 21, 2003
Harry Potter and the Quidditch Stone
Steven Den Beste has a typically long post, this one on the first Harry Potter movie.
I wrote a long letter expressing my opinion of the game Quidditch, then I decided to go ahead and post it here too.
Second, here's the part that's annoyed me off and on ever since I saw the movie (last winter on HBO). I could ignore all the holes in the action scenes (that's easy to do for me when I want to enjoy the movie). But I'm into games, and I can spot flaws in rules from a mile away.
At least in the way the rules of Quidditch were explained in the movie, the game absolutely blows chunks (I have't read the books so I don't know if these were simplified rules for the movie). Quidditch is like Old Faithful! The rules both suck and blow at the same time! Here's why:
The players are all assigned various roles.
One gets (relatively smallish) amounts of points for putting the other objects through the other team's goal.
The game only ends when the Golden Snitch caughtor by mutual consent of both team captains (obviously, the captain of the team that is behind is going to be reluctant to consent. So the game ends when the Golden Snitch is caught, at least for "important" games like the one in the movie).
Only the Striker (one for each team) is allowed to go after the Golden Snitch. What this really means is the activities of the Strikers are completely disconnected from the rest of the action on the field and that, ultimately, the rest of the action is irrelivant to the outcome of the game.
Catching the Golden Snitch is worth 150 points, more than enough to be decisive in a typical game. In any case, a Striker whos team is behind by more than 150 points will concentrate on preventing the G-Snitch from being caught until they are (something that will only very rarely have to be resorted to, apparently. Goal scoring with the other objects - Quaffles - is about as common as goal scoring in soccer. Ok, a bit more, but not much more - say about as common as scoring a TD in {modern} American Football. That is, a team is unlikely - virtually unheard of - to be 15 TDs ahead of the other side).
Therefore, the activity of the other players is actually irrelivant to the game. It simply doesn't matter. It exists solely as cosmetic backdrop. The only thing that matters as far as the outcome of the game goes is the battle between the opposing Strikers.
Did J.K. Rowling mean for Quidditch to say something about the novel(s) as a whole? Is it a microcosm of the novels? If she did, what it said isn't that enobling (luckily, as Steven pointed out, this is not the pattern of the storyarc of the movie as a whole, as the other characters do have important things to contribute. However, I can't get it out of my head now that, well, ultimately perhaps these contributions aren't really that significant anyhow and that somehow, someway, Harry would have overcome regardless1).
So in other words, this stupid, foolish game has comletely undermined the enjoyability of the entire movie for me. And from what I gather, among the fans of the books, this game is somewhat popular (there are multiple websites devoted to its supposed intricacies, when in reality it's very simple: two strikers go after the Golden Snitch while the other players dither ineffectually in the background, the Striker who chases down the Golden Snitch is the hero who ends, and wins, the game).
Words cannot express for me how vexing I find it.
Gah!!!!!!
1Um, well, ultimately, yes. I mean, Duh. That's how such action-adventure things go, right? The hero triumphs in the end.
Only sometimes it is heroes, plural. Or at least the sidekick(s) - say, Short Round - do make vital-if-sidekicky contributions to the heroe's success. Here Quidditch sort of rips away the veil of suspension-of-disbelief, at least for me, making it impossible to take the characters at face value. Without Quidditch, my thoughts almost certainly wouldn't have gone down these paths - because I do tend to let the story carry me rather than going looking for things that cause it to unravel. At least in a movie or book that wins and keeps my goodwill.
Also, the fact that a fantasy-game with such obviously flawed rules is so hugely popular among the Potter fan base makes me think less of them.
I also look at the born-a-wizard, norms-are-weak-minded-jerks, some-are-born-as-the-elect stuff with exactly the same affection as I have for "Midichlorians". That is, with rabid antipathy and loathing (also - indeed especially - here). But I'd have gotten over that if it wasn't for Quidditch. However, when combined with Quidditch's rules, it leaves a bad afterburn in my mouth.
Update: Oh, I also like John Hurt, but I can't help but think of Caligula every time I see him. Too much I Claudius I guess.
I guess today is Comment on Winds of Change Posts Day here, because Trent Telenko has a good one.
Sometimes you read someone's post and think "boy, I wish I'd written that!" - this is one of those posts.
Two quibbles, though:
I do think we need troops, in addition to MPs and support forces, in Iraq. I think what you're getting at is the need for a distinction between front-line combat units and follow-on pacification forces (and yes, significant MP components will be in the later). There was a VDH article on NRO a few weeks back that made a similar recommendation.
What we really need is an increase in the size of the army, not a decrease (like they were talking about until just recently), the creation of dedicated peacekeeping-type forces (probably at least twelve brigade-sized formations, though they would be organized differently from front-line combat brigades, equipped differently: lighter, less high-tech, but they *would* need riflemen. They would need infantry with good commo, fairly fast vehicles, and the like).
Now, my other quibble is with the assertion that cheap levies will fill the bill. I don't think so.
Units to do the type of thing you're talking about should have some experience, will have significant specialized training. Also, while we need a goodly amount, a draft would produce far too many than we need (either that or the term of service would be way too short, which has bad problems of its own - people would just get deployed and their tour would be up by the time they integrated into their post-training unit and got some knowledge under their belt), or it would be rife with the sort of exemptions (or bad luck) that led to the previous system being thought so ill of.
One thing I'm sure of, serving officers don't want to return to that. Also, the British (who Telenko thinks we should emulate, at least to some degree) found that levies (draftees) were not an acceptable substitute for long-service professionals in jobs like this.
So the pay will have to be fairly good (folks talk about the inability of the services to meet recruiting quotas, which is true. However, during the '80s they had far less problem recruiting significantly larger forces. Even if we returned to the total force levels - admittedly split a bit different among the services - of the late '80s, with our larger population base we *should* be able to fill the ranks even with an all volunteer force; but it will mean recognizing some of the things that has made military service less attractive to the type of people who are otherwise inclined to join - which aren't, say, young women from Manhattan majoring in Cultural Studies and minoring in Peace Studies - and make the services more attractive to those people again).
But if we create this sort of bifurcation between the super-high tech front line combat forces and a arm or branch devoted to pacification and reconstruction aide (peacekeeping and the like), we might be able to shift some of current forces into the later (since, as Trent points out, our main battle forces can decisively defeat any foe, at least for the foreseeable future, with a relatively small force - though we shouldn't think of this as a permanent fixture as other ambitious countries will try to follow us on the same information-age warfare curve).
(My other fear with such a component is it will allow people to support increased funding for "defense" in the sense of the peacekeeping units, while opposing spending on the programs needed to keep upgrading the combat forces - sort of like the strategy you can see some starting to do now in using support for increased funding for homeland security to mask their opposition to defense spending).
By the by, I never said France was "evil", either. I just think it's time to recognize France's behavior for what it is - something Armed Liberal himself points out in his post rebutting those who don't see France as a ally: that they aren't.
But the problem is, when the French make assertions (or protestations, because usually they do it when they claim to be "hurt" that we aren't treating them like the "friend they are") of solid alliance with America, a lot of people (interestingly, most of them are Democrats - so one might think Armed Liberal, who does recognize that France is not an ally of America - would be at least as interested in disabusing fellow Democrats of such a notion as otherwise) buy into that. Mainly because they don't know the details of French international behavior and policy (such as the fact that Mitterand, before he died, said France was "in a war" with the U.S. - I have the full quote at home and I'll dig it out tonight. He said that in '99, by the way, when supposedly everything was all swell and chummy, before Bush ruined it all. Clinton and Mitterand, we Americans usually believe, got along well and had a lot in common - not as much as Clinton and Blair, but were friends. Not really the case).
Correcting such misimpressions is fundamental to a clear-eyed democratic debate on American foreign policy and which other countries we can believe really are interested in what's good for us ("us" in the broad sense of "we and them, both. The Western Alliance centered around the U.S. but not consisting exclusively of it").
France is not one of those countries. Similarly, Chirac (and previous French leaders) often claim to be acting on high principle rather than out of French interest. It is, in my opinion, very fair for Trent, Joe, Stephen, and others to pull the curtain back - at least as fair as those who tend to point to how we have not always lived up to high principles, but then suggest that we would be better advised to listen to France - because of selective invocation of historical examples. Essentially, pointing to where we may have gone off the track, but not making mention of French involvement in things. Take yesterday's BBC World Newshour report. Judy Swallow(s) (I bet she does!) was anchoring, and they were discussing Iran's nuclear program. For no other reason than to take jabs at America, she invoked Iraq's nuclear program in '91, discovered by the inspectors to be in an advanced state, and it's program in the early '80s, in "an even more advanced state - of course that was at the time when America and Saddam were best friends", and mentioned Israel's bombing of the reactor. No mention that her hero, Chirac, and her hero nation, France, was actually much closer to Saddam both then, in '91, and now, than America was, and that the reactor in question was one built by the French in a deal forged by Chirac.
Things like that skew the debate badly, in my opinion. Similarly, debate within the EU itself is often very badly skewed because it rests on presumptions that, say, "Euroskeptics" are acting on narrow national(istic) interest (which is thus illegitimate), but those involved in EU integration are just selflessly principled, acting out of concern for the General Will. That's simply untrue, and it's very fair to create blog entries that point this out, and that, indeed, many of those involved in the project of EU integration have a certain axe to grind and it's an axe that American policy should take into account because it's overtly counter to America - so that, for example, we might want to think again about our long, long policy of encouraging EU integration unquestioningly, supporting it as if it was in our interest (which has been, for decades, our policy, at the same time, for decades, those involved in the project have made no secret of their antipathy to America, in numerous forums over the years, as I've blogged about in too many posts to link to atm. Just keep scrolling and enter the archives is about the best I can say).
Is this evil? Illegitimate? No. But America and Americans don't have to pretend it's friendly and be copacetic about it, either. If it's legitimate for France to act as France does, it's at least as legitimate for Americans to react as is appropriate to what French policy actually is, rather than what they claim it to be when speaking to an American audience (they are rather more candid at home and in European publications, which is why I have linked to articles in the Financial Times as much as I have over the last year or so).
Indeed, in a number of posts I have mentioned that alliances don't last forever and some of this is inevitable. But it's also why high-sounding things like invocations of "the international community" and "our allies" are nice generalizations but once one looks closer to the details it often involves people trying to get their own interests, counter to ours (often directly opposed to ours), rather than our own. Fair enough (I've also discussed how these tactics are used precisely because they appeal to Americans, and one doesn't see some of these arguments invoked against other countries because those who employ them know that what appeals to Americans - Wilsonian-sounding phrases {masking realpolitik substance} - won't work on most other countries). All this is fair, but it's also fair for us to look behind the platitudes and not be easy marks, patsies to be gulled by every grifter who comes along to sell us their snake oil.
Armed Liberal points out that France is a bureaucratic state. Naturally France is interested in, say, building the EU in that image (its image) - it's been quite successful (in no small part because these forms are at least somewhat familiar to most Continental European powers). However, it might not be something that Britain would or should be interested in swallowing whole. Indeed, I argue on theoretical, principled grounds, that perhaps France (and other Continental European countries) might want to think again. But they wants it, they gots it - it's the encroaching it on others that is more problematic (this is a great, if I do say so myself, post to refer to on this matter). Furthermore, there are definate pitfalls here. Also, in that the French enthusiasm for a big, strong EU is certainly an understandable ambition. However, it's probably not one we Americans should encourage or look fondly at (again, see the vast expanse below this post for reasons why, not just hysterical "anti-French" stuff - that would be an unfair characterization - but argumentation and examples laid out with reasons).
Look at it this way: for many, many centuries, it has been the ambition of Continental European powers to unify Europe under their leadership (France tried that under Napoleon III and somewhat less pathetically but vastly more destructively during the French Revolution and during the reign of the original Corsican Napoleon). The maritime power(s), first Britain and then America, with their own traditions and principles of government, have - until now at least -recognized that such a thing would be very much counter to their interests.
It's fair to point out that France's current foreign policy is well in line with these traditions (though, thankfully, much less militant - if much more passive-aggressive - about it). Why is it then untoward for us to recognize our historical interests are not in line with that and indeed that this is a threat to those interests? Especially when one looks at not only the clear intent of their policy but what they say when they think Americans aren't likely to be paying attention.
Indeed, it's as good a time as any to have a policy debate on the subject. Armed Liberal may quibble over the details of some people's interpretations and analysis. But it's fairly clear from his post that he is in broad agreement with the fact that France (for example) is not and perhaps hasn't been for some time (perhaps since the end of the Great War) an ally of the U.S. One of his quibbles, though, seems to be that some of us are trying to do what little we can to get the American people to recognize that (it'd be nice if most elected Democrats recognized, or openly said if they privately know, that France is not an ally, rather than castigating the current Administration for failing to treat France as an ally).
In the end, I essentially agree with what Armed Liberal wrote in that post. I just think that it should be more widely recognized that this has some significant policy implications for Americans, and we need to start thinking them through as we're entering a significant new era of foreign policy for us.
By the by, I'm planning (actually, I've been planning but am only now getting around to) a extensive post on the sort of foreign policy I think we should have for the 21st century, which I hope to make this weekend (and will have some historical discussion and the like, regarding some commonly held myths about American foreign policy, for those interested in that kind of thing).
Update: Forgive me the nasty dig at Judy Swallow(s) (I bet she does!) - it's the only such I allow myself anymore. But she earned it. She's easily the worst of BBC's Radio News anchors - no mean feat that, either.
Here's that Mitterand quote:
"France does not know it, but we are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, a war without death."
(As quoted in the Spring '99 issue of The National Interest. The article, "Britain's Atlantic Option - and America's Stake", by Conrad Black, is not available online).
Well, France may not know it (far be it from me to quibble with the great Mitterand, even though I tend to take that assertion with a large dose of salt), but its elites are certainly going at it hammer-and-tongs.
Armed Liberal dissents from my view on the post below, saying that such a gag is "reasonable".
Scroll down to the comments by G. Gonzalez, which are important here. He notes that Joly was part of the investigation into the case in question. Ok, well, the story did not make clear that Eva Joly was part of the investigation. Had I known that, my take would likely have been different: parties involved in the case (attorneys for the defense, prosecution, investigators, and the like) can be restrained from commenting on it. That's fair. My bad for not being aware of her role in the case. In this case, there is no crushing of free speech involved (well, some extreme free-speech advocates might say otherwise, but I would not go that far down that path. In this case, Joly came by the information she wants to publish in an official capacity and it is, IMO, appropriate for some constraints to be put on how and when she can discuss the matter publicly).
However, judging from Armed Liberal's initial post, he didn't know, either, that Eva Joly was involved in the case. His post seems to imply that third parties (say, journalists or others looking into the case on their own account, but not part of the trial proceedings) not only can, but should, be gagged by judicial decree.
This is not part of normal jurisprudence. I would ask if Armed Liberal thinks that third parties (reporters, bloggers, writers and the like who are otherwise involved in the proceedings but do "investigative reporting" into the matter and then write - either for publication in a newspaper, magazine, or book - on the topic, or speak on it - say, on radio or TV or even at a public forum somewhere) can and should be kept from talking about it, by court decree?
IMO, this is a significant distinction and the right of parties not directly involved in the proceedings to comment on aspects related to it, to the crime, and so forth are an important part of civil discourse. If Joly were not involved in the case, then her book would be very appropriate - just as the fact that "whistle blowers" in the Enron and Arthur Anderson episodes in America were a vital part of democratic discourse, even though in some ways it was possible that they might say things that could impact potential jurors and others involved in ongoing legal proceedings.
What woud Armed Liberal say if an American judge (lets say, one appointed by Reagan or by Bush's father) ordered them to be restrained from discussing the matter until all possible legal proceedings involving these companies were resolved?
A Paris court last night halted publication of a book by a former investigating magistrate that claims France is institutionally corrupt.
The book by Eva Joly, who uncovered political and financial corruption at the Elf oil company, is the first by a judge to have been blocked by the French courts.
The stay is only "temporary", but the precedent it establishes is. . .telling.
Arnaud Montebourg, a Socialist MP, said she should be given the Legion d'Honneur rather than be attacked for her honesty.
Mme Joly, 57, said the French establishment was one of the most rotten in Europe. "It is a country of networks that don't like to be challenged."
Look, I fully understand the necessity of anti-corruption laws. However, this was the result of some very petty people, acting small.
What Charles Moose was doing was out in the open, no corruption involved, and clearly they could have granted him a waver if they had been so inclined. This was a story that deserves telling, an honorable, honest man doing a good job and rising to a crisis (in the face of considerable criticism from some quarters). People talk about "not enough good role-models" and then they act this way. It's unfortunate that Chief Moose was, essentially, pushed to resign by the leaders (oops - misuse of the word "leader". "political hacks" might be more appropriate) of the community he so ably served.
In my opinion, when you cut away the chaff and the rationalizations, they were driven by envy; they didn't want to see him prosper as a result of his good service. That's very small of them.
It's just that others are doing a far better job on this subject than I think I could at the moment (here's a reasonably good Safire piece that maybe hasn't gotten a lot of attention).
The success of this movement would be a major victory for the Moslem world, not just for democracy and the West. It would add something that our success in Afghanistan and Iraq could not - an internal rejection of extremist, totalitarian Islamism, from within the country that arguably (Sunni vs. Shia divisions notwithstanding) set things in motion as far as producing an "Islamic Republic" that other radical Islamists could point to as an example - a country that "humbled" the mighty Great Satan and was, supposedly, building a modern Islamic nation.
The success of the counter-revolution would help slam shut those arguments and have the potential to create the conditions for a truly successful, moderate, liberal-democratic but Moslem-majority nation. If paired with an Iraq that also develops along such lines, that would produce great momentum in the region for such transformations. The rollback of the poisonous ideology (spread largely by Saudi money and missionary efforts) that spread throughout the Arab world (yes, I know that Iran is not part of the Arab world, but it has long been tied to it as part of the Dar el-Islam and has often greatly influenced it's Arab neighbors as a result of its proximity and the strength of Persian civilization) would pick up renewed vigor.
It's something that is key not only to our success in the War on Bad Philosophy/"war on terror" etc, but key to a revitalization of the nations of the Middle East.
So I was going to let this pass (after all, it's just more of the same, for the most part). But one part of it kept annoying me, so I'm going to comment on it.
As for the whole thing, notice what consensus and consent consists of in the minds of the pro-EU set. The advice is: take this, without question or alteration. Accept what is presented to you, in toto, no matter what your own interests and opinions might be. Anyone who quibbles with what is presented to us is dismissible as a Europhobe, the merits of their arguments do not need to be addressed.
Also, the overall deceptive nature of the entire thing. I'll take one "small" example of an internally contradictory assertion before going on to the bit that was most objectionable (to me, at least); Mandelson writes that the draft EU Constitution creates "deeper integration, where it is justified by the benefits [an assertion, not an argument], but without substantially more Brussels centralisation." - but then his following paragraphs enumerate the many ways in which greater authority and power is, rather substantially, invested in Brussels - over criminal law, foreign policy, social policy, "rigorous policing" of the market (some would say that an entity that regulated the acceptable curvature of fruit and prosecutes people who use unapproved measuring systems - like selling beer in "pints" - is rigorous already. But they want it to be even more "rigorous"), and overall "agenda setting".
But the bit that really vexed me enough to make a separate post about it (after, in my own opinion, concentrating overmuch on the EU lately. My goal really isn't to be a one-note-wonder here) is this one sentence:
The convention's proposal to reduce the size of the Commission's voting members to 15 will mean that from 2009 Britain will for half the time not have a full voting member.
This is really deceptive. Either Mandelson has not read the draft EU Constitution he so vigorously defends, or he trusts that the vast majority of the people reading his editorial will not have waded through the thickets of its nearly-impenetrable prose.
That's not the case here, though. We have looked at the document in some detail. This post here examines the EU Commission and this one looks at the selection process for Commissione members. Mandelson clearly implies that there will be rotation of Commissioners (a given country will have a Commissioner half the time, and not have one half the time). However, that is not what the draft Constitution establishes (Article I-26, #2):
Each Member State shall submit a list of three persons, at least one of which must be a woman [so they have affirmative action built right into the Constitution. How enlightened of them.], whom it considers qualified to be a European Commissioner. The President-elect, taking account of who voted for and against him - er, taking account of European political and geographical balance, shall, from the names submitted, select up to thirteen person chosen for their. . .[General Europeanness and the like]
Under the Constitution, it is possible that Britain will never have a Commissioner - not that they will have one half the time and not have one the other half.
Now, it's unlikely that it will work out that way. Britain will have a Commissioner some of the time (especially if Britain's Commissioner is, say, a Chris Patten type, willing to play ball with the powers-that-be behind the whole EU show. In other words, someone who thinks like he's supposed to). Here's how it's going to work: whichever set of nations elects the Capo de Tuti Capo of the Commissione, AKA the Commission President (which is the key selection here) will insure a controlling majority of Commissioners (this will be the central powerblock that is sometimes referenced as the advance guard of the EU project (and intellectual hangers-on from other countries, such as the aforementioned Chris Patten, which helps cloud the issue of who's decisively pulling the strings). The President will throw three or four Candidates from other countries in as well, so they'll have people to point to if criticism arises ("what do you mean we're a monolith? See, we have X, Y, Z, and Peabody over there, all representing diverse opinions who are Commissioners") - but that will just be a cosmetic sop to deflect such criticism. The power will be firmly entrenched in the hands of the clique, which will be able to easily prevent any matter that non-vanguard members want to take up (since everything of importance must pass through the Commission before it is taken up by any of the other EU institutions, such as the so-called "Parliament") and put through their own agenda (as Mandelson puts it "maintain its efficiency and its agenda-setting role", though what he says following that is clearly - again - contradicted by his previous assertions and by what the draft Constitution actually says. Again, reliance upon the fact that the majority of the people reading his piece will not have read it, having been intimidated - he and others of his stripe hope - by its bulk and by its intentionally murky prose and division into discrete sections that have to be pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle before one sees the picture of just where power is vested - and, indeed, the use of euphemism, substituting "competence"/"competency" for the word "power" is a key example).
"What we should be working towards is a situation in which every member of the EU has to sign up and implement the single market, which I think has been good for British business and prosperity and jobs in this country, but beyond that, not every member state should be required to sign up to everything.
"If some countries want to integrate more closely, they should be allowed to do so, and if others don't want to join, they shouldn't be obliged to do that."
So of course it's dismissed as being "ideologically opposed to Europe" (in the words of Denis MacShane, Britain's Minister of Europe).
Ok, so when you read this article, in style - ignore content for the moment and just focus on style and tone, what does it remind you of?
I donno what it reminds you of, but it reminds me of Pravda back in the bad old days. Right along with the repetition for emphasis:
As part of Europe's determined effort to tackle illegal and harmful content on the internet and new delivery platforms such as mobile phones, a two year extension to the Safer Internet Action Plan has been adopted by the European Parliament and Council upon the proposal of the European Commission.
To better equip parents and children with the tools and awareness they need for daily life in an information society, the EU Council has agreed with the European Parliament to accept the Commission's proposal for a two-year extension to the Safer Internet Action Plan. This is the EU's response to tackling the controversial issue of illegal and harmful content on the internet.
Uh, yah: you said that in the first paragraph.
The article is listed as "Editor: Leigh Phillips"; I can't find a "byline" anywhere. I don't know if that means it was written by Leigh Phillips or by "Functionary 305, Annex-B". It is uniquely vague, but apparently is discussing a rule that applies to:
The extended action plan covers many different types of illegal content or conduct including racist material
Bloody wogs.
(See, I can say "bloody wogs" and write it in my blog, because I'm in America, you know, the place that crushes dissent, but that's Banned in Europe! - something that gets people into the proper "European Spirit" of accepting that it's the right - no, the duty - of government to protect us from certain ideas (like, say, not having enough European Spirit and the related "expressions of monetary xenophobia").
Add that to the fact that only political parties that promote a "European Conciousness" are, by the terms of the draft EU Constitution, are considered legitimate (it'll be interesting observing who gets to define what is a "European Conciousness") and we see an entity that does not bother to hide its ambition to control political life and expression throughout Europe - it just casts it in benign sounding language. But it boils down to:
Free speech, the judge told him, was not an absolute right. It could not be used to justify certain offences, such as criticism of the EU, or blasphemy.
Sometimes it seems that political strategery reaches the level of the absurd. There was, for example, the spectacle of Bill Clinton taking credit for (Newt Gingrich's) Welfare Reform Bill after vetoing it twice, and Clinton signing onto the Republican method of balancing the budget in '96 (after trying the Democratic method of doing so via tax increases, and producing $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see). That was done to win votes.
I bring that up not to rehash the Clinton era (not at all), but the perverse strategic thinking of both parties - where it now seems that the best way for one's party to accomplish a policy goal is to have the other side in the White House. Because the recent record is George Bush embracing the Kennedy-sponsored Education Bill (and essentially dropping his own so that he would get Kennedy's support on the Education Bill) and the Political Speech Regulation Act of 2002 (which was beloved by far more Dems than Republicans).
Now we have the Prescription Drug Bill that Republicans are going to pass, mainly to take an issue away from the Democrats. Now, that might be strategically sound - we'll come back to that later. But first, lets flagellate some folks, Mmmn-K? (I always enjoy doing the fun stuff up front). I have been waiting for Andrew Sullivan to start complaining about the expense of this program and what it will add to the debt over time, like he did with the tax cut. His terminal position on the tax cuts was that he "hated" taxes, but, well, we shouldn't have them while we were spending so much. Well, here's a vast new spending program, and where's Andrew's opposition?
I also keep waiting for those folks who said that any tax cut needed to be "paid for" by rises elsewhere to say that this drug program should be paid for by cuts in other social spending - especially on the richest age-group in America (more on that in a bit). Yes, to some degree a prescription drug program will help reduce spending on other, often more costly, health care. But lets be real here: the tax cut is far more likely to "pay for itself" than the prescription drug benefit (the "costs" to government of tax cuts have historically always been over-estimated, while the costs to us all of government spending programs like this have always been vastly underestimated. This type of thing always ends up costing much more than projected). Also, here's a direct subsidy, a wealth transfer, from most Americans to the richest segment of American society - Seniors - at a time when the "needs" of America's poorest segment (children) are not on the policy agenda. Do we here complaints about making average tax payers foot the bill for the (comparatively) wealthy, as we did with tax cuts (which allow people to keep more of their money, rather than coercing the rest of us to subsidize their health care?) This not only creates significant current spending, but it significantly increases unfunded future liabilities, and is part of a pattern of irresponsible spending.
Also, one other thing to keep in mind: this program will, sooner rather than later, put the stovepipe to America's drug industry. How? Pressure for government-imposed price caps and controls will be inevitable (several states are already doing that) - just as in other countries with such programs. What has that done? Typically, it's caused the amount of effort drug companies put into researching new medicines to collapse. That's going to be the pattern here. So one would expect someone (like, say, Andrew Sullivan, to pick on him again) who has often expressed concern on these issues to raise the alarm now. But no.
One also has to pity the Democrats who are out there, flailing away, claiming that "this Administration is gutting Social Spending", when it enacted the largest increase in Federal education spending in history and is set to sign into law the biggest increase in Federal social spending since LBJ. They are clearly living in a romantic fantasy, a necessary (for them) delusion, dogmatically clung to like a wino clutching his last bottle, because all they have to offer to their constituencies anymore is fear. From the standpoint of ideas, the Democratic party is now an obsolescent curiosity, while the Republican Party is now, essentially, the party of the JFK tradition (not really the LBJ tradition; the Republican Party has not gone that far in embracing the welfare state). Ted Kennedy is claiming credit for the version that is going to pass, while Tom Daschle and his minions are crying about it. I mean, here's the Washington Times editorializing in favor of a Bill that has been stripped of it's most Libertarianite-Conservative provisions (or had them watered down to the point of cosmetic irrelevance) What does this mean?
Well, one thing it means is that, to a large degree, we can see why Democratic politicians are in near hysteria and trying to whip up the fervor of their base in a frenzied, almost maniacal fashion. What you're seeing there is panic: they're getting pressured and forced to the margins. But the most significant thing is that now America needs a (new) party of limited government. George W. Bush is completing the transformation of the Republican Party into the party of JFK's political legacy (as much as that will cause Democrats to wail and gnash their teeth): tax cuts to incentivize economic growth and prosperity, strong foreign policy and defense, and support for moderate "safety net" social spending programs and some (but not pervasive) regulation, generally activist government (but not Social Democracy).
In my opinion, Libertarianism goes way too far in the other direction all too often. But now that this is the Republican Party, there is room on the political spectrum for a party of limited government. This is not to say that there is room in the American political system for three major parties. Not at all.
I remember back in the early '90s, there were all these stories about how enthusiastic the people of Hong Kong were about the impending unification with China. Chinese patriotism was sweeping the island city, and everyone and their uncle was gung-ho about it and thought things would work out peachy (before you say "it did", the history of Hong Kong, and China, is not over yet. We'll see).
So everyone (we were told in news reports) was a happy camper, looking forward to the lowering of the Union Jack with joyous anticipation of the end of a colonial era. But everyone who could do so was also making sure they got a passport issued by a third country (or even a British passport, which was actually somewhat preferred).
Folks may wonder why I spend so much time haranguing the EU. After all, what's the big deal, right? So they do things different over there - everyone doesn't have to do it our way, right? Well, yes. Those folks can do what pleases them. I hope they're happy with the result. Also, since they are never at a loss for words when it comes to giving us hick Yanks suggestions, well - we still have freedom of speech here (though they might not have it much longer if the EU gets its way. Indeed, this is not the first such thing the Grandees of the EU have mused about being desirable. See the "BANNED IN EUROPE" link, above). At least the EU will free itself from such irritable things as "divisive" criticism, "monetary xenophobia", and other assertions that shows that the writer is not acting in a European spirit and thus does not understand European values). As Steven Den Beste writes:
Under the proposed constitution, the true wielders of power in Federal Europe would be unelected, and not directly accountable to the citizenry. But as long as the people of Europe still have the ability to express themselves freely and to express dissenting opinions about government actions and policies, there would still be some measure of accountability to the citizens of Europe. This proposal by the Council of Europe makes clear that those in favor of a Federal Europe led by unelected leaders recognize the danger that free expression represents, and intend to squelch it as much as they can. Their goal is to reduce accountability as much as possible; to insulate the leaders from the opinions of the citizens of Europe. And it is exactly the fact that anyone can easily publish on the internet and reach a wide audience all over Europe, and the world, that makes it the biggest threat that the totalitarians everywhere, and in Europe, face.
I just hope this gets nipped in the bud while it's still possible (gotta nip it in the bud, Andy). I think it's a potential major crisis - not just for the people who live in the EU, but (as usual), for Americans too. Of course it won't happen all at once. As with Hong Kong. But bit by bit, the Chinese administration of Hong Kong is gradually chipping away at liberty (this (it marches forward), and see also this and, more recently, this).
The one insidious and ominous aspect of the EU draft Constitution that I didn't really touch on in my series "A Constitution for Bureaucratopia" (Part I, Part II and Part III) is that it is made very clear throughout the text that only people who were "pro Europe" enough would be considered fit to serve in its various institutions. This is put forward with the happy, smiley face of benign reason (after all, we really shouldn't have people who are anti-EU running the EU, should we? Why, it would be absurd, right?) - but it is fundimentally anti-democratic (especially given what is defined as being of a proper "European spirit" - and more to the point, who gets to define that). One will note that there are few if any Constitutional limitations on who can, legally, serve in America's Constitutional institutions. People who don't have enough political support obviously don't. But even secessionists can - and have - been elected, if they win enough support. In the EU, it is possible that political movements that lack a sufficient "European spirit" will be considered illegitimate and outlawed. No, not right away (though some political movements will be outlawed right from the get go and, after all "who could possibly object" to outlawing NAZI parties, right?). Indeed, rather than being an obstacle to such a thing, the EU's draft Constitution promotes and encourages that path to be taken.
One of the number of things that puzzles me fairly often is that EUrope is considered more worldly, knowledgeable, more adept at managing their international (and even domestic) affairs than the hayseed Americans are. This is a very widely held assumption, even among intelligent, well-educated Americans: that we have a lot to learn and they have a lot to teach, given their greater experience. Well, as with a lot of such conventional wisdom, the historical record contradicts it. Lets look at the empirical evidence and stack up the record of major European countries (go ahead and ignore Germany, though; that's really too easy) over the last two centuries, from the Napoleonic Wars to the present. Compare their record in managing their relations with ours. Yep, you'll find some doozies we've bungled ourselves into (often by taking the advice of our sophisticated, more worldly, betters. I'm sure Vietnam sprang to mind. Well, had we followed our inclinations at the beginning rather than listening to the French. . .yes, our bad for doing that - but a lesson lost on those who persist in thinking that taking the advice of the French represents the height of wisdom).
Theirs is a record mainly of catastrophe, that the hick has to bail them out of (and each time do pretty well by, if I do say so myself). This seems to be another such thing.
My Advice for My European Readers: Get yourself dual-citizenship and the possession of a passport of a non-EU country. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Belize, whatever. Even if you don't want to move now, get the passport now. That way, if things go tits up, well, you won't be trapped. Don't wait till you think you're going to need it. These things can take a long time to acquire and by the time you feel you have to rush to get one, it'll be too late. If you never need it, then rather than consider the effort wasted, count your blessings.
My Advice for My American Readers: Learn the words to this song (text) and teach it to your children. Do not have any glee or smug self-satisfaction while doing so (this is not something to be happy about. It's really rather depressing). I do mean teach it to your children. Their's a good chance they'll be the ones living it, in fifteen or twenty years. If they aren't, consider yourself blessed.
I'm sure that this advice seems melodramatic to some. But only to those who are willing to forget the historical pattern.
I'm planning to post later today something on domestic policy matters, so that'll be a change of pace for those who are looking for something other than "All EU, All the Time".
A pretty good Time piece. Looking forward, there is this:
In January, Rumsfeld proposed giving the special-operations command the highly prized authority to propose and carry out missions for the first time. He then asked Congress to increase the SOF budget some 30%, to almost $7 billion, and to expand the number of commandos roughly 10% over the next several years. But Rumsfeld isn't stopping there: a senior U.S. military official told TIME that Rumsfeld has ordered more special-forces personnel to be "forward deployed"—that is, stationed overseas—and some will be given the same kind of civilian cover that intelligence agents get in order to stay closer to the action. "The global nature of the war, the nature of the enemy and the need for fast, efficient operations in hunting down and rooting out terrorist networks around the world have all contributed to the need for an expanded role for the special-operations forces," said Rumsfeld at a January briefing. "We are transforming that command to meet that need."
And this important distinction:
"There are certain things we can do, and there are certain things we can't," said a top special-forces officer who served in Afghanistan. "We can't take and hold ground. But there are some things we can do, and finally the civilian commanders have learned the proper mix."
Which is one reason why, as magical as the combination of highly trained Special Operations personnel combined with local auxiliaries and lavish close air support can be, there will always be a Regular Army-O. That doesn't take away from the amazing things that can be done now, but, as the saying goes, "a man's got to know his limitations."
A deft editorial in the Telegraph puncturing many of the arguments of those who want Britain (or other countries) to adopt the Euro and agree to ever greater EU authority.
It's quite telling on the rather specious pro-Euro arguments, especially those made comparing that currency to the dollar (the fairly often repeated argument that a single currency works for America, so why not Europe?) Well - the EU is not America, and those forming the European Union don't want it to be (except in the sense that it gives them more centralized political power); they explicitly reject the "Anglo-American" political and economic model. But judging the success or failure of the Euro on economics is not likely to persuade those who advocate it, because:
It is not, of course, remotely surprising that the European monetary union as we know it is fundamentally flawed since, as is openly avowed by its continental promoters, its raison d'etre is not economic but political. There is nothing remotely disreputable about this: what is disreputable is to deny it.
Which is too true, and which is a good segue into the next editorial, which starts thusly:
It was never really about the economics; even Tony Blair now tacitly admits it. For all the economese jargon, the 18 volumes, the complex equations, the issue of the British and the euro is really about who we are as a people.
Launching his campaign to win over public opinion last week, the Prime Minister returned to his favourite theme. What was truly at stake, he said, was whether Britain was to remain involved with Europe. Those who opposed the euro - and, even more so, those calling for a referendum on the constitution - really wanted Britain to leave the EU. Well, now was the time to have that debate.
On one level, Mr Blair is simply wrong. It is perfectly feasible to remain in the EU while keeping the pound, as his Government has been demonstrating these past six years. It is possible, too, to leave the EU while remaining within the single market: this, broadly, is what Norway and Switzerland do. And, of course, it is open to us to reject the constitution, and then demand an acceptable form of associate status as the price for letting everyone else adopt it through the existing structures.
This one's onto the rhetorical sleight-of-hand usually employed by the Europhiles against those who are opposed to further integration:
If ever we get a referendum - either on the euro or on the constitution - it is easy to imagine the Prime Minister seeking to turn the poll into an "in or out" question. He knows how difficult it is to win a referendum against the status quo; hence his new tactic, given its first canter during his exchanges with Iain Duncan Smith at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, of portraying the Tories as the revolutionaries who want to reverse 30 years of EU membership.
and it closes with this very apt observation:
On the one hand, he is travelling around the country telling us that we face a vital choice about whether we are in Europe at all; on the other, he tells us with a straight face that the EU constitution is too small a matter to warrant a referendum. His stance is, in the correct sense, incredible. There is only one way to settle this matter, and that is to let the people decide.
If the Prime Minister wins such a vote, the rest of us should accept the result with good grace. But if he will not let us vote, then he will have conceded defeat before the debate has even begun.
The EU Constitution "too small a matter" to have a referendum on? That seems to stretch credulity to the breaking point.
Update: President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, head of the group that drafted the proposed EU Constitution admits it is flawed but wants countries to ratify it in spite of their misgivings, because he and his chummers spent so much effort writing it.
Well, it is a reason. It's not a good reason, but it's a. . .creative one.
