With all the Oprahfication and Obama-hugging and Hillary-crying, I don't see that John Edwards has been engaging in it.
And he's the one whose wife has cancer.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Map of Light Hair
Strange Maps calls it The Blonde Map of Europe, but a closer examination shows it to be the distribution of light hair in Europe, with the phrase undefined. There are 150+ comments, but reading #76 and #84 will tell you everything you need to know. There are links to the original study, with discussions of female attractiveness and sexual selection of traits.
There seems to be a general assumption that the progressive lightness as one travels north is a result of decreased sunlight due to increased distance from the equator. That may be the underlying cause, but the map looks to me to show a mutation of light hair on the Baltic coat of Sweden which spread out generations ago. No one seems to note this in the discussion.
Pressure
Do you work better under pressure? Work harder when there's a deadline? Do you resent external accountability while you are under it, but feel exhilarated when you successfully accomplish what might have been in doubt? Do you, when it comes down to it, need and actually desire brushing up against the hard edge of failure - motivating yourself with imaginings of what success and failure might mean?
Then you begin to see why economic conservatives believe that those things might be good for others, and good for people in general.
There are pressures too great, of course. While any obstacle might be overcome, combinations of them might be a bridge too far for all but the most exceptional people - clever, driven, resilient folk. Ayn Rand to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with having a society which insists on some measure of rescue or protection for those who have been dealt the most difficult hands. But conservatives believe that in general, we intervene too quickly to rescue, depriving people of the opportunity to succeed against the odds. False kindness allows the giver to feel special at the cost of a little cash, robbing the recipient of self-respect and joy.
The scriptures teach us to give to those who ask. Fair enough. But we should be actively seeking to give to those whose need overwhelms. Giving encouragement (and conservatives are sometimes very bad at this) may be the greater gift for the others.
Then you begin to see why economic conservatives believe that those things might be good for others, and good for people in general.
There are pressures too great, of course. While any obstacle might be overcome, combinations of them might be a bridge too far for all but the most exceptional people - clever, driven, resilient folk. Ayn Rand to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with having a society which insists on some measure of rescue or protection for those who have been dealt the most difficult hands. But conservatives believe that in general, we intervene too quickly to rescue, depriving people of the opportunity to succeed against the odds. False kindness allows the giver to feel special at the cost of a little cash, robbing the recipient of self-respect and joy.
The scriptures teach us to give to those who ask. Fair enough. But we should be actively seeking to give to those whose need overwhelms. Giving encouragement (and conservatives are sometimes very bad at this) may be the greater gift for the others.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Strange Phenomenon Among Democrats
(Instalanche: Welcome. The best way to browse here is to click on a random month in the archives, or one of the "extended comments" links on the right.)
I work in the dramatically liberal field of Human Services, and I do not bring up politics at work unless
A) The other person is aware of my conservatism and is comfortable with it, agree or not.
B) The other person is a repeat offender making bigoted statements about conservatives. Come to think of it, I seldom mention politics at those points, but make comments about reasoning or prejudice.
C) My comment is nonthreatening enough to dampen possible hostility. For example, a Will Rogers quote or a comment about Calvin Coolidge or politicians in general is seldom problematic.
Today, the day after the NH primary, had many Democrats making remarkably hostile comments to each other. I have not heard this before, and I have worked there since 1978.
I walked into a nearby office in which one resident was stating, with no little asperity "I think she's a vindictive bitch." Sensing some nastiness brewing, I tried to rescue the situation. "No, see, that's the part I like about her. I can visualize a Maggie Thatcher/Falklands scenario with Hillary. I like irritability, which is why I liked McCain and Thompson." No one thought that was in the least humorous, nor did my offering my Republican neck in sacrifice distract them.
I stumbled upon other angry, defensive people throughout the day. "But what has Obama done? What's his resume?" "I think that crying of hers was fake." "She was tired from campaigning, why wouldn't she cry?" It was fun for me, because I had whole new audiences for my line about having Obama at least run a golf tournament before we make him president, and mentioning that a Democratic strategist had recommended that Hillary appear more vulnerable just a few days ago. I thought many times during the day how the criticisms of Hillary are exactly - did I mention precisely? - what the most fevered of right wingnuts have been saying for over a decade. I didn't say that out loud, of course, but I marveled at it. Criticisms that aroused rage and accusation a decade ago even when watered down are now considered common knowledge among Democrats. Seemingly, half of them know that Hillary is corrupt and deceitful and say it more forcefully than Republicans were allowed to in polite conversation as recently as a year ago. The netroots even has people accusing Hillary of stealing the election with Diebold machines. I can only conclude that deceit and corruption were not considered a problem when they were used for uh, good causes.
Will it last? I rather doubt it. Like siblings who fight but defend each other to outsiders, it may all calm down for the general election. As a conservative, I'd love to see the light dawn on many, but I don't expect it. Something interesting in all this, though. Close elections in the primaries won't hurt Republicans at all - they will keep issues in the forefront. Media likes to focus on horserace news, which is never to conservatives advantage. But state-by-state close primaries won't do the Democrats any good at all. Pressure reveals truth.
Update: Much the same today. Psychologists were much worried about what it meant about NH that people would tell pollsters they voted for Obama when they hadn't. It was mentioned with meaningful glance that this used to be a Republican state. Oh sure. Like the behavior of Democrats is our fault. Sheesh.
I work in the dramatically liberal field of Human Services, and I do not bring up politics at work unless
A) The other person is aware of my conservatism and is comfortable with it, agree or not.
B) The other person is a repeat offender making bigoted statements about conservatives. Come to think of it, I seldom mention politics at those points, but make comments about reasoning or prejudice.
C) My comment is nonthreatening enough to dampen possible hostility. For example, a Will Rogers quote or a comment about Calvin Coolidge or politicians in general is seldom problematic.
Today, the day after the NH primary, had many Democrats making remarkably hostile comments to each other. I have not heard this before, and I have worked there since 1978.
I walked into a nearby office in which one resident was stating, with no little asperity "I think she's a vindictive bitch." Sensing some nastiness brewing, I tried to rescue the situation. "No, see, that's the part I like about her. I can visualize a Maggie Thatcher/Falklands scenario with Hillary. I like irritability, which is why I liked McCain and Thompson." No one thought that was in the least humorous, nor did my offering my Republican neck in sacrifice distract them.
I stumbled upon other angry, defensive people throughout the day. "But what has Obama done? What's his resume?" "I think that crying of hers was fake." "She was tired from campaigning, why wouldn't she cry?" It was fun for me, because I had whole new audiences for my line about having Obama at least run a golf tournament before we make him president, and mentioning that a Democratic strategist had recommended that Hillary appear more vulnerable just a few days ago. I thought many times during the day how the criticisms of Hillary are exactly - did I mention precisely? - what the most fevered of right wingnuts have been saying for over a decade. I didn't say that out loud, of course, but I marveled at it. Criticisms that aroused rage and accusation a decade ago even when watered down are now considered common knowledge among Democrats. Seemingly, half of them know that Hillary is corrupt and deceitful and say it more forcefully than Republicans were allowed to in polite conversation as recently as a year ago. The netroots even has people accusing Hillary of stealing the election with Diebold machines. I can only conclude that deceit and corruption were not considered a problem when they were used for uh, good causes.
Will it last? I rather doubt it. Like siblings who fight but defend each other to outsiders, it may all calm down for the general election. As a conservative, I'd love to see the light dawn on many, but I don't expect it. Something interesting in all this, though. Close elections in the primaries won't hurt Republicans at all - they will keep issues in the forefront. Media likes to focus on horserace news, which is never to conservatives advantage. But state-by-state close primaries won't do the Democrats any good at all. Pressure reveals truth.
Update: Much the same today. Psychologists were much worried about what it meant about NH that people would tell pollsters they voted for Obama when they hadn't. It was mentioned with meaningful glance that this used to be a Republican state. Oh sure. Like the behavior of Democrats is our fault. Sheesh.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Upcoming
Distractions have prevented me from doing the work I should on a couple of longer posts, but I haven't forgotten. "Just War Part V," about proportionality and last resort, "Are They Really That Bad?" about...well, you'll see, and some discourse on libertarians are all in partial stages of completion.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Vote Defensively
No surge for Thompson in the polls that have tended to be the most accurate. I vote for McCain in the morning.
Vote Defensively. There are a lot of liberals out there at the polls.
Vote Defensively. There are a lot of liberals out there at the polls.
They Just Want To Have Something To Say
Fellow Granite Stater Jay Tea over at Wizbang reports a distressing political discussion with someone who is fortunately, unlikely to vote. We have certainly all encountered similar citizens, and it is indeed disquieting to see the slender reeds on which many base their opinions.
There is a way of looking at this that inspires less anger. Many people just want to have something to say. We are sociable creatures, and many people are merely saying something they believe will make them appear observant, or reasonably intelligent, or experienced. It is a very minor status-grab in break-room conversation, to be at least not thought a dolt, or unfriendly. Thus, folks grab onto a bromide or two which they trot out for all occasions - that we can't legislate morality, or that women haven't received their due, or that politicians are crooked. These sentiments are seldom original, are usually overgeneralizations, and can be seen as place-holders for actual thoughts. People make generalizations I agree with sometimes as well, to which I usually give some mild encouragement, plus an added bit of something along the same lines for them to ponder further.
What is troubling is where they get these things. People making such statements are seldom trying to introduce complicated or radical ideas. They are just making conversation, and they choose among the cliches of popular culture something that they think suits them, like a handbag or a watch. We can compare it to picking up something shiny and attractive out of whatever is lying around. Thus - here we come upon an issue of great importance in the homely subject of dim, pleasant people blabbing on thoughtlessly: what is shiny and attractive that is lying around is nearly always easily traceable to an obvious source. This might be a common regional prejudice, or a trite religious sentiment, but quite often, it comes directly out of the conventional wisdom of the mainstream media or the popular culture. The person you are speaking with may not listen to the Sunday shows or read the paper, may not turn on NPR or read a news magazine, but they move in a culture which is suffused with the ideas of those who do.
This is why those who pretend to objectivity in their reporting and commentary, but are actually quite selective in what they report, commit a great intellectual sin and bestow evil on the world. Their self-deception as to their own assumptions allows them to better persuade those who simply want something to bring up in conversation so that they are not thought foolish. Journalists polish some shiny and attractive objects on the path and kick a little covering soil on others. It is a great deceit not because of its boldness, but because of its quietness - a coquettish blush of a deception.
There is a way of looking at this that inspires less anger. Many people just want to have something to say. We are sociable creatures, and many people are merely saying something they believe will make them appear observant, or reasonably intelligent, or experienced. It is a very minor status-grab in break-room conversation, to be at least not thought a dolt, or unfriendly. Thus, folks grab onto a bromide or two which they trot out for all occasions - that we can't legislate morality, or that women haven't received their due, or that politicians are crooked. These sentiments are seldom original, are usually overgeneralizations, and can be seen as place-holders for actual thoughts. People make generalizations I agree with sometimes as well, to which I usually give some mild encouragement, plus an added bit of something along the same lines for them to ponder further.
What is troubling is where they get these things. People making such statements are seldom trying to introduce complicated or radical ideas. They are just making conversation, and they choose among the cliches of popular culture something that they think suits them, like a handbag or a watch. We can compare it to picking up something shiny and attractive out of whatever is lying around. Thus - here we come upon an issue of great importance in the homely subject of dim, pleasant people blabbing on thoughtlessly: what is shiny and attractive that is lying around is nearly always easily traceable to an obvious source. This might be a common regional prejudice, or a trite religious sentiment, but quite often, it comes directly out of the conventional wisdom of the mainstream media or the popular culture. The person you are speaking with may not listen to the Sunday shows or read the paper, may not turn on NPR or read a news magazine, but they move in a culture which is suffused with the ideas of those who do.
This is why those who pretend to objectivity in their reporting and commentary, but are actually quite selective in what they report, commit a great intellectual sin and bestow evil on the world. Their self-deception as to their own assumptions allows them to better persuade those who simply want something to bring up in conversation so that they are not thought foolish. Journalists polish some shiny and attractive objects on the path and kick a little covering soil on others. It is a great deceit not because of its boldness, but because of its quietness - a coquettish blush of a deception.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Unruffled
Being unruffled is so pleasant in and of itself, that it is worth practicing even when the situation does call for panic.
Penultimate Primary Post
Fred does not seem to be surging, though the reports are he did very well in the debate.
Two have asked who I would vote for if I were a Democrat. I have already noted that I would be suicidal. Applying the same logic I have before, I wonder what I would do, voting for floor instead of ceiling, and voting on the War in Iraq and the GWOT as my main issues. If we speculate that a Democrat elected would be immediately and intentionally tested more than once by terrorist organizations, some overtly, some more subtly, then the only one of the Democrats likely to pass any of those tests in Hillary. She might go as high as 50-50 on passing. Richardson may be the least corrupt - Barack "Rorshach" Obama is clean only by Illinois standards. It would also be nice if we let him run a golf tournament or something before we tried him out as president. Edwards is more deceitful than Clinton, though I don't think he is in her league for corruption.
Some conservatives have allowed that an Obama election might at least move Jackson and Sharpton off the top of the hill as black spokesmen, and that would be worth something. That's a roll of the dice, to my mind.
No decision. I stand whimpering in the face of this choice.
Vote Defensively. There are a lot of liberals out there at the polls.
Two have asked who I would vote for if I were a Democrat. I have already noted that I would be suicidal. Applying the same logic I have before, I wonder what I would do, voting for floor instead of ceiling, and voting on the War in Iraq and the GWOT as my main issues. If we speculate that a Democrat elected would be immediately and intentionally tested more than once by terrorist organizations, some overtly, some more subtly, then the only one of the Democrats likely to pass any of those tests in Hillary. She might go as high as 50-50 on passing. Richardson may be the least corrupt - Barack "Rorshach" Obama is clean only by Illinois standards. It would also be nice if we let him run a golf tournament or something before we tried him out as president. Edwards is more deceitful than Clinton, though I don't think he is in her league for corruption.
Some conservatives have allowed that an Obama election might at least move Jackson and Sharpton off the top of the hill as black spokesmen, and that would be worth something. That's a roll of the dice, to my mind.
No decision. I stand whimpering in the face of this choice.
Vote Defensively. There are a lot of liberals out there at the polls.
Friday, January 04, 2008
"Christmas Atheists"
Michael Novak has an article over at National Review about the different types of atheists. While the cautions he offers to atheists and theists about arrogance and proper humility are not original, they are well-put. I found his description of six types of atheist thought-provoking.
Novak has a book coming out this year, apparently. That should be interesting.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
New Hampshire Primary
If we view each vote not as a piece of victory, but a piece of information to those who will lead us, then helping your guy move from a 17% to an 18% share if he is going to lose to a candidate with 30% no longer looks like such a thoroughly useless exercise. My vote is my communication - to a point.
The current state of the Assistant Village Idiot's projected vote next week:
I prefer Fred Thompson on most issues, but my vote may not go that way. Unless he surges in the polls here after Iowa, I have no interest in moving him from 3% to 4% in NH. For the rest, it boils down to A) what you think are going to be the main issues over the next four years and B) whether you are looking at floor or ceiling in a candidate. I tend toward limited government, and limited goals with my vote. I might consider with some energy who might be a truly great president - that would be Fred, in my book - but I also look at "who is least likely to screw up issue X?" In the end, it is the latter question which directs my vote. I depend on the American people for American greatness. I depend on elected officials to avoid screwing things up. The Ron Paul supporters are basically claiming he offers more ceiling than any of the others. That may be true. But he also offers very little floor. It is not hard to imagine a major cock-up with Paul at the helm. Theory seems to distract him from reality.
If you are looking at floor rather than ceiling, and consider Iraq and the GWOT to be the most important issue, then McCain rather jumps out of the pack. He is least likely to seriously screw up the war on terror. If you consider the economy to be the main issue, then Romney edges McCain. McCain will veto more spending and twist more arms, but he will not fight to keep the tax cuts. I think Giuliani loses out on both those issues - offering neither the floor nor the ceiling of the others.
If you think appointing judges, SCOTUS and otherwise, is paramount, then Romney, Thompson, and McCain all offer both high floor and high ceiling. I don't know where Huckabee's floor is on anything, but he would likely be alright here. With all of them except Thompson, I do worry that their downticket judicial appointees are going to include some political appointments.
If you think national unity, and bringing us all together without the rancor of the last eight years is most important, then you are likely to vote Huckabee. I disrespectfully submit that you are also likely to buy swampland in Florida for your retirement home. The only thing that a Republican can do to get the usual progressive suspects to cease their incessant criticism is to give in to their demands. They are not the least interested in getting along.
If what you really want is someone who will verbally kick Democrat butt, then you want McCain for the war, or Thompson for everything else. Similarly, if you want to emphasize that progressives are basically children, and conservatives adults, you want the same two. As a President/VP combo, they might over time illustrate to the American middle that the MSM is biased and the netroots are just crazy. That would be worth a lot to me.
I'm noticing that Giuliani isn't scoring high on many of these. I like Rudy, and don't think he'd be terrible. I believe his move rightward is sincere, but perhaps not deep.
It is most likely that economic and judicial issues are going to be most important, which would suggest I am leaning toward Romney if Thompson isn't viable. I don't think it will play out that way. Iraq and the GWOT remain the areas that can go most wrong most quickly, and I am trading off the other areas.
I can't believe I am leaning McCain, but I am. If you vote defensively, it makes some sense.
In case anyone asks, if I were voting in the Democratic Primary I would be suicidal.
The current state of the Assistant Village Idiot's projected vote next week:
I prefer Fred Thompson on most issues, but my vote may not go that way. Unless he surges in the polls here after Iowa, I have no interest in moving him from 3% to 4% in NH. For the rest, it boils down to A) what you think are going to be the main issues over the next four years and B) whether you are looking at floor or ceiling in a candidate. I tend toward limited government, and limited goals with my vote. I might consider with some energy who might be a truly great president - that would be Fred, in my book - but I also look at "who is least likely to screw up issue X?" In the end, it is the latter question which directs my vote. I depend on the American people for American greatness. I depend on elected officials to avoid screwing things up. The Ron Paul supporters are basically claiming he offers more ceiling than any of the others. That may be true. But he also offers very little floor. It is not hard to imagine a major cock-up with Paul at the helm. Theory seems to distract him from reality.
If you are looking at floor rather than ceiling, and consider Iraq and the GWOT to be the most important issue, then McCain rather jumps out of the pack. He is least likely to seriously screw up the war on terror. If you consider the economy to be the main issue, then Romney edges McCain. McCain will veto more spending and twist more arms, but he will not fight to keep the tax cuts. I think Giuliani loses out on both those issues - offering neither the floor nor the ceiling of the others.
If you think appointing judges, SCOTUS and otherwise, is paramount, then Romney, Thompson, and McCain all offer both high floor and high ceiling. I don't know where Huckabee's floor is on anything, but he would likely be alright here. With all of them except Thompson, I do worry that their downticket judicial appointees are going to include some political appointments.
If you think national unity, and bringing us all together without the rancor of the last eight years is most important, then you are likely to vote Huckabee. I disrespectfully submit that you are also likely to buy swampland in Florida for your retirement home. The only thing that a Republican can do to get the usual progressive suspects to cease their incessant criticism is to give in to their demands. They are not the least interested in getting along.
If what you really want is someone who will verbally kick Democrat butt, then you want McCain for the war, or Thompson for everything else. Similarly, if you want to emphasize that progressives are basically children, and conservatives adults, you want the same two. As a President/VP combo, they might over time illustrate to the American middle that the MSM is biased and the netroots are just crazy. That would be worth a lot to me.
I'm noticing that Giuliani isn't scoring high on many of these. I like Rudy, and don't think he'd be terrible. I believe his move rightward is sincere, but perhaps not deep.
It is most likely that economic and judicial issues are going to be most important, which would suggest I am leaning toward Romney if Thompson isn't viable. I don't think it will play out that way. Iraq and the GWOT remain the areas that can go most wrong most quickly, and I am trading off the other areas.
I can't believe I am leaning McCain, but I am. If you vote defensively, it makes some sense.
In case anyone asks, if I were voting in the Democratic Primary I would be suicidal.
Karl Rove's Favorite Authors
According to what he told Vanity Fair.
Who are your favorite writers?
In alphabetical order: Jorge Luis Borges, Gabor Boritt, Ray Bradbury, G. K. Chesterton, Winston Churchill, David Herbert Donald, T. S. Eliot, Joseph Ellis, Gary Gallagher, F. A. Hayek, Paul Horgan, Paul Johnson, Tom Lea, C. S. Lewis, Abraham Lincoln, John D. MacDonald, David McCullough, Merrill Peterson, Robert Remini, Andrew Roberts, William Shakespeare, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, Evelyn Waugh, and Robert Wiebe.
Who are your favorite writers?
In alphabetical order: Jorge Luis Borges, Gabor Boritt, Ray Bradbury, G. K. Chesterton, Winston Churchill, David Herbert Donald, T. S. Eliot, Joseph Ellis, Gary Gallagher, F. A. Hayek, Paul Horgan, Paul Johnson, Tom Lea, C. S. Lewis, Abraham Lincoln, John D. MacDonald, David McCullough, Merrill Peterson, Robert Remini, Andrew Roberts, William Shakespeare, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, Evelyn Waugh, and Robert Wiebe.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Wyman Christmas Letter - 2007
Don’t worry, Mom. I know Europe like the back of my hand
Far and away the line of the year. We were packing the car to head for Logan Airport for our fourth and last high school graduation trip to Europe. We took a last glance at our passports, fresh from the safe deposit box, to make sure everyone had the correct one. David noticed in dismay that his had expired. Tracy’s, too.
David made the executive decision that Chris and John-Adrian were going anyway, as they had a family wedding in Romania to attend. On the ride to Boston we were reviewing the maps, reservations, and schedules with the boys – who were suddenly more interested in the information than they had been just an hour before – trying to cram all the necessary data into their tender skulls on short notice. Dad is trying to be efficient. Mom is crying. The boys are becoming overloaded with flight times and hotel names. John-Adrian shrugs and smiles “Don’t worry Mom. I know Europe like the back of my hand.”
Well, that’s a foolishly overconfident thing to say, but it is precisely the sort of attitude that gets J-A through hard times. Chris, who had originally chosen a week in Munich to precede the week in Romania, saved the day by suggesting that they bypass Germany altogether and head straight for Oradea, where they at least spoke the language.
And everything eventually worked out. They crossed international borders the cheaper, Romanian way by bribing conductors rather than buying tickets; they made all flights on time; we got to know John-Adrian’s girlfriend Samantha better; and David developed a tooth abscess that he is happy he got treated in America rather than Romania.
Everything Can’t Go On Top
Tracy’s parents aren’t as mobile as they were, and Tracy does some organizing when she visits. Cleaning out the big freezer was perhaps the most exciting part, debating whether any food more than two years old can be salvaged (Shellfish, no; Pecans, maybe). As Ann sees all these buried treasures reemerge, she wants to be sure she doesn’t forget them this time, and pushes for them to be restacked “on top.” But everything can’t go on top, and that applies to more than freezers. That also applies to our chronic difficulties organizing our schedules as well, I suppose. Especially Tracy, who still accomplishes everything of any importance in the family. David naps.
Nana and Pops (with an s)
We have a first grandchild, Emily Adelaide Wyman, born November 6 – only fifteen minutes away! Tracy has long wanted to be called Nana, and two sons already call David Pops, so the names just fell into place. It has been quite touching to watch Jonathan and Heidi be such solicitous parents, and gratifying to hold a granddaughter and see a new generation start. The four sons don’t seem to mind having been suddenly relegated to second tier, as they have relegated us to second tier in the presence of Emily as well.
Digger, you’re going to be a Texas dog.
Chris was more than a little pleased to be accepted at UTI Houston for Auto Technician school. This August, he drove straight through in 39 hours in an ancient Saab, accompanied by his faithful hound and a friend with whom he was going to share driving. Unfortunately, the friend had his license suspended two days before departure and spent most of the trip sleeping. When awake, he wanted to look for skateboard parks.
Chris is getting the best grades of his entire academic career and loves the warm Texas weather. But Digger, never one to adjust well to new things (see previous Christmas letters – we think the dog is autistic), still doesn’t like going down the exterior stairs at the apartment complex and has to be forcibly dragged daily. Though he does like being with Chris, and that is enough. Apparently, a young woman named Brittany also likes being with Chris, and he requested their picture be enclosed (girl in green top). In view of that, we figured we had better include a picture of J-A and his girlfriend Samantha as well (girl in flowered dress). J-A is attending University of Phoenix online, living back home, and working two jobs. Sam will be going to cosmetology school in July.
His definition of “fine” is not the same as yours.
An uneventful year for Ben: only one shooting, one dead body in the parking lot (separate incidents), only one car died just after he bought it, only one flood, one mass arrest after a stakeout at his apartment complex, and the apartments across from him burned down just before he moved in, instead of just after. This wonderful new apartment he moved into to accommodate Chris and Digger was described to him as “fine” by a friend at work. Ben’s friend Erin produced the quote above.
Then, when he went for his physical, the doctor only wanted to have him worked up for violent allergies, instead of MS, heart problems, or exotic neurological conditions. Unfortunately, he actually does have violent allergies, unlike the conditions in previous years that turned out to be false alarms. Dust, many trees, and several animals he expected to be allergic to. Chocolate was an emotional blow, however.
His short comic films, including the “Arthur the Intern” series and “The Office” series, can be viewed at his website
Far and away the line of the year. We were packing the car to head for Logan Airport for our fourth and last high school graduation trip to Europe. We took a last glance at our passports, fresh from the safe deposit box, to make sure everyone had the correct one. David noticed in dismay that his had expired. Tracy’s, too.
David made the executive decision that Chris and John-Adrian were going anyway, as they had a family wedding in Romania to attend. On the ride to Boston we were reviewing the maps, reservations, and schedules with the boys – who were suddenly more interested in the information than they had been just an hour before – trying to cram all the necessary data into their tender skulls on short notice. Dad is trying to be efficient. Mom is crying. The boys are becoming overloaded with flight times and hotel names. John-Adrian shrugs and smiles “Don’t worry Mom. I know Europe like the back of my hand.”
Well, that’s a foolishly overconfident thing to say, but it is precisely the sort of attitude that gets J-A through hard times. Chris, who had originally chosen a week in Munich to precede the week in Romania, saved the day by suggesting that they bypass Germany altogether and head straight for Oradea, where they at least spoke the language.
And everything eventually worked out. They crossed international borders the cheaper, Romanian way by bribing conductors rather than buying tickets; they made all flights on time; we got to know John-Adrian’s girlfriend Samantha better; and David developed a tooth abscess that he is happy he got treated in America rather than Romania.
Everything Can’t Go On Top
Tracy’s parents aren’t as mobile as they were, and Tracy does some organizing when she visits. Cleaning out the big freezer was perhaps the most exciting part, debating whether any food more than two years old can be salvaged (Shellfish, no; Pecans, maybe). As Ann sees all these buried treasures reemerge, she wants to be sure she doesn’t forget them this time, and pushes for them to be restacked “on top.” But everything can’t go on top, and that applies to more than freezers. That also applies to our chronic difficulties organizing our schedules as well, I suppose. Especially Tracy, who still accomplishes everything of any importance in the family. David naps.
Nana and Pops (with an s)
We have a first grandchild, Emily Adelaide Wyman, born November 6 – only fifteen minutes away! Tracy has long wanted to be called Nana, and two sons already call David Pops, so the names just fell into place. It has been quite touching to watch Jonathan and Heidi be such solicitous parents, and gratifying to hold a granddaughter and see a new generation start. The four sons don’t seem to mind having been suddenly relegated to second tier, as they have relegated us to second tier in the presence of Emily as well.
Digger, you’re going to be a Texas dog.
Chris was more than a little pleased to be accepted at UTI Houston for Auto Technician school. This August, he drove straight through in 39 hours in an ancient Saab, accompanied by his faithful hound and a friend with whom he was going to share driving. Unfortunately, the friend had his license suspended two days before departure and spent most of the trip sleeping. When awake, he wanted to look for skateboard parks.
Chris is getting the best grades of his entire academic career and loves the warm Texas weather. But Digger, never one to adjust well to new things (see previous Christmas letters – we think the dog is autistic), still doesn’t like going down the exterior stairs at the apartment complex and has to be forcibly dragged daily. Though he does like being with Chris, and that is enough. Apparently, a young woman named Brittany also likes being with Chris, and he requested their picture be enclosed (girl in green top). In view of that, we figured we had better include a picture of J-A and his girlfriend Samantha as well (girl in flowered dress). J-A is attending University of Phoenix online, living back home, and working two jobs. Sam will be going to cosmetology school in July.
His definition of “fine” is not the same as yours.
An uneventful year for Ben: only one shooting, one dead body in the parking lot (separate incidents), only one car died just after he bought it, only one flood, one mass arrest after a stakeout at his apartment complex, and the apartments across from him burned down just before he moved in, instead of just after. This wonderful new apartment he moved into to accommodate Chris and Digger was described to him as “fine” by a friend at work. Ben’s friend Erin produced the quote above.
Then, when he went for his physical, the doctor only wanted to have him worked up for violent allergies, instead of MS, heart problems, or exotic neurological conditions. Unfortunately, he actually does have violent allergies, unlike the conditions in previous years that turned out to be false alarms. Dust, many trees, and several animals he expected to be allergic to. Chocolate was an emotional blow, however.
His short comic films, including the “Arthur the Intern” series and “The Office” series, can be viewed at his website
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Anti-nutritionist Screed
Update: Link fixed
Do people become dieticians because they like tinkering endlessly with other people "for their own good," or does the field make them that way? Extremes of weight on my current caseload has the nutritionist at every team meeting these days. We have a 5'5" gentleman who weighs 357 pounds, and a 4'11" woman who once got down to 56 pounds. The dietician can't shut up. Neither of them are here for their weight problems, lady! The man is a personality-disordered registered sex offender who can't find anymore landlords who will rent to him, so he's "depressed" (he's actually having a ball holding court in the day area) and suicidal. The woman is at 92 pounds presently and has been working nicely on her underlying anxiety and codependency problems in the community but had a setback over Christmas because of her crazy, controlling family. We don't want to be tinkering with her food issues more than we have to, because that will set off all her control issues with us again and we'll have her here forever fighting with us over tube feedings, you interfering twit! Her fascination with the balanced life practices of Hindu mystics doesn't inspire confidence that she is at heart much of a scientist in the field, either.
"I called several of my friends over Christmas who specialize in eating disorders..."
Well don't! Bug off!
Thus it was with great irony that I read this article in the NYT science section (their science section continues to be pretty good, despite the front-page bias). The damn nutritionists have made us all fat.
Do people become dieticians because they like tinkering endlessly with other people "for their own good," or does the field make them that way? Extremes of weight on my current caseload has the nutritionist at every team meeting these days. We have a 5'5" gentleman who weighs 357 pounds, and a 4'11" woman who once got down to 56 pounds. The dietician can't shut up. Neither of them are here for their weight problems, lady! The man is a personality-disordered registered sex offender who can't find anymore landlords who will rent to him, so he's "depressed" (he's actually having a ball holding court in the day area) and suicidal. The woman is at 92 pounds presently and has been working nicely on her underlying anxiety and codependency problems in the community but had a setback over Christmas because of her crazy, controlling family. We don't want to be tinkering with her food issues more than we have to, because that will set off all her control issues with us again and we'll have her here forever fighting with us over tube feedings, you interfering twit! Her fascination with the balanced life practices of Hindu mystics doesn't inspire confidence that she is at heart much of a scientist in the field, either.
"I called several of my friends over Christmas who specialize in eating disorders..."
Well don't! Bug off!
Thus it was with great irony that I read this article in the NYT science section (their science section continues to be pretty good, despite the front-page bias). The damn nutritionists have made us all fat.
On The Road To Robot Sex
Decades ago, I picked up a rock at a lake shore and threw it into the water. “That rock worked for 10,000 years to get that far up the shore,” my brother intoned, “and you just threw it back.” I cursed him for knowing me so well, predicting that I would find the comment absurd and funny, yet feeling just a little guilty anyway. People attribute sentience or feeling to inanimate objects all the time, with no encouragement from the objects themselves. But what if the objects were programmed to mimic human cuteness? There will be significant difficulty for us pulling back from falling in love with them. It sounds extremely disquieting, and not what we expected, but I think current trends lead us to that conclusion.
Glenn Reynolds links to a WaPo story this week that set off this whole train of thought in me.
We rely too heavily on the “ick” factor in our belief that such things will not happen, or will not commonly happen. The slight shudder and dyspeptic expression we experience we think will be enough for most other real human beings to stay away from such acts. But current trends are not leading to a science-fiction scenario of assembling a mail-order Bride of Frankenstein who speaks in some unnatural mechanical voice. That would indeed be an easy temptation to resist.
The likely extension of current trends will be much more difficult to stay aloof from. The evidence for this is that we are well down the road to loving such creatures already. Offices name the cute little robots that deliver the mail. Servicemen in Iraq grow attached to the bomb-dismantling robots assigned to their units. We don’t resist making other objects in our environment human – we actively seek it.
Since movie makers stopped filming galloping horses and moved on to the more lucrative practice of displaying lightly-clad dancers, we have been moving in a direction of sexual artificiality. There may not be a difference in principle between Ziegfield Follies and a painting by Titian, but few people in the 1920”s had art theaters with new works on display every week in their neighborhoods, or had a Titian hung in their family room. From the perspective of our ancestors, birth control is a remarkable step toward artificiality in sex. As with the paintings versus the movies, it is not that sex without possibility of conception was unknown before the 1960’s, but the change in availability is so enormous as to mark a qualitative change.
In any activity, we do not move from natural to artificial in one jump, and this holds for all switches from real to virtual as well. Putting realistic touches on an obviously artificial reality doesn’t bother us much, nor does enhancing a real experience through technology. People have alter-egos in RPG’s, and even alternate lives in Second Life. As those lives become more sophisticated, we will be having increasingly real interactions with other human beings who have accented different parts of their own real personality and place it in a different body. Those personalities will develop in new ways consistent with the new culture. Is that sex with robots? Sort of.
Arriving from the other direction, we have cosmetic surgery, ED medicines, and what used to be delicately called “marital aids.” What’s next? Chemicals or techniques that allow you to read your partner’s signals better? Gravity-reducing (or weight ameliorating) environments? Timing devices that communicate with each other and allow you to get your approximately correct rhythm in sync to the millisecond? (Would those be installed on a Wii or on the ear or hip? Hmm.) Whole programs you can install or uninstall on your skin like a CD, complete with starred reviews, compatible interfaces for your partner’s program, and medical warnings? Is that sex with robots?
Pornography has leveled off getting increasingly realistic, I am told. HD porn isn’t that attractive, being too much like us with our imperfections. I imagine something new, something better than mere realism, will soon replace it and start attracting all those porn dollars that have driven all our recent new communications technologies. (Instead of the predicted increase in sexual crime from ubiquitous pornography, it seems to have had the opposite effect, BTW. Kinkyporn-soaked Japan has a dangerously low birthrate.)
I have a humorous but troubling image of people saying some thirty years from now after they’ve been camping, or the power went out “We made love the old-fashioned, natural way. It was kind of nice. We decided we should do that more often.” There would be natural-sex advocates much like the natural food advocates now, publishing books and magazines.
Artificial pets are increasingly lifelike, programmed to hit all our cuteness buttons. Inveigling us to anthropomorphize them is not going to be a challenge. We already do that naturally. Sidekicks are only a step beyond that. Heck, I’d love to have a sidekick. The common complaint “But I wouldn’t want to have a friend who was completely predictable or under my control – that would be boring” would not apply. Too boring? We’ll make your sidekick a little more unpredictable, even eccentric or difficult. Like a book or game which we love because it challenges us, sidekicks will have self-adjusting levels of frustration. They will read your behavior, tones of voice, and facial expressions and gradually respond to them. I will bet that they will be installed with educational programs, so that your kid’s cute sidekick Binky makes her smarter than all the other little girls in her class, and better-adjusted, too. Specialty sidekicks for children with special needs will come to be seen as more efficient teachers than natural environments.
It’s pretty easy to imagine feeling guilty about trading in your sidekick for a new one, or having him reprogrammed. Wouldn’t it feel disloyal, even murderous in some weak sense? Artificial people are likely to be less irritating than real ones, not least because we can turn them off or put them away. More likely, one would upgrade the sidekick, adding new features to the old model. Every family would have one or two, like an ever-improving pet that did little errands and humorous things, whose expressions were a cause of merriment but whose abilities, especially in interacting with the other computers in the house, exceeded yours. They wouldn’t be human, particularly, but humanish, programmed with some of the endearing qualities we automatically respond do after generations of interacting with each other.
We would likely have their data backed up in a secure location regularly, in case something went wrong and we had to animate a new machine body with the old data. We would get used to “friends” of a sort being replaced with new bodies but much the same.
I don’t know where things might go from there. We can make up science-fiction endings based on the plausible extensions I have put forward, but real events take too many unexpected twists, and projecting too far forward rapidly leads to predictions of air cars and bubble cities. Perhaps the sidekicks will become rapidly more human. Or perhaps we won’t like that, and they will become something other than us, well-liked but different, as a pet or a character from a book might be. When we die, it may be possible for to use the data from our sidekicks to reverse-engineer us, creating something eerily like us in gesture and tone, closer to our real personalities than even our Alzheimered selves are late in life. Will we even want that? Will we be able to resist it even if we know it is bad for us?
But even without the fevered imaginings of grouchy old guys, we can plausibly see this far in thirty years: You have a Second Life character who has had some friends for decades in an enhanced, detailed 3-D world. Your kid’s artificial pets and sidekick are like members of the family, much easier to relate to than 90% of the human beings you know. The eccentric interactions of your own sidekick with your friends and relatives is a source of joy, reminding you that you not only chose well but have had a bit of luck as well – not everyone’s family has such good humans and sidekicks relations. You find people whose bodies and personalities are completely unenhanced to be somewhat unattractive and tedious, rather low-class. You still do see a few people in live reality, and keep in touch with many more electronically, because you think that’s important for a balanced life.
It’s not robot sex. But it’s starting to get disquietingly close, isn’t it?
Glenn Reynolds links to a WaPo story this week that set off this whole train of thought in me.
We rely too heavily on the “ick” factor in our belief that such things will not happen, or will not commonly happen. The slight shudder and dyspeptic expression we experience we think will be enough for most other real human beings to stay away from such acts. But current trends are not leading to a science-fiction scenario of assembling a mail-order Bride of Frankenstein who speaks in some unnatural mechanical voice. That would indeed be an easy temptation to resist.
The likely extension of current trends will be much more difficult to stay aloof from. The evidence for this is that we are well down the road to loving such creatures already. Offices name the cute little robots that deliver the mail. Servicemen in Iraq grow attached to the bomb-dismantling robots assigned to their units. We don’t resist making other objects in our environment human – we actively seek it.
Since movie makers stopped filming galloping horses and moved on to the more lucrative practice of displaying lightly-clad dancers, we have been moving in a direction of sexual artificiality. There may not be a difference in principle between Ziegfield Follies and a painting by Titian, but few people in the 1920”s had art theaters with new works on display every week in their neighborhoods, or had a Titian hung in their family room. From the perspective of our ancestors, birth control is a remarkable step toward artificiality in sex. As with the paintings versus the movies, it is not that sex without possibility of conception was unknown before the 1960’s, but the change in availability is so enormous as to mark a qualitative change.
In any activity, we do not move from natural to artificial in one jump, and this holds for all switches from real to virtual as well. Putting realistic touches on an obviously artificial reality doesn’t bother us much, nor does enhancing a real experience through technology. People have alter-egos in RPG’s, and even alternate lives in Second Life. As those lives become more sophisticated, we will be having increasingly real interactions with other human beings who have accented different parts of their own real personality and place it in a different body. Those personalities will develop in new ways consistent with the new culture. Is that sex with robots? Sort of.
Arriving from the other direction, we have cosmetic surgery, ED medicines, and what used to be delicately called “marital aids.” What’s next? Chemicals or techniques that allow you to read your partner’s signals better? Gravity-reducing (or weight ameliorating) environments? Timing devices that communicate with each other and allow you to get your approximately correct rhythm in sync to the millisecond? (Would those be installed on a Wii or on the ear or hip? Hmm.) Whole programs you can install or uninstall on your skin like a CD, complete with starred reviews, compatible interfaces for your partner’s program, and medical warnings? Is that sex with robots?
Pornography has leveled off getting increasingly realistic, I am told. HD porn isn’t that attractive, being too much like us with our imperfections. I imagine something new, something better than mere realism, will soon replace it and start attracting all those porn dollars that have driven all our recent new communications technologies. (Instead of the predicted increase in sexual crime from ubiquitous pornography, it seems to have had the opposite effect, BTW. Kinkyporn-soaked Japan has a dangerously low birthrate.)
I have a humorous but troubling image of people saying some thirty years from now after they’ve been camping, or the power went out “We made love the old-fashioned, natural way. It was kind of nice. We decided we should do that more often.” There would be natural-sex advocates much like the natural food advocates now, publishing books and magazines.
Artificial pets are increasingly lifelike, programmed to hit all our cuteness buttons. Inveigling us to anthropomorphize them is not going to be a challenge. We already do that naturally. Sidekicks are only a step beyond that. Heck, I’d love to have a sidekick. The common complaint “But I wouldn’t want to have a friend who was completely predictable or under my control – that would be boring” would not apply. Too boring? We’ll make your sidekick a little more unpredictable, even eccentric or difficult. Like a book or game which we love because it challenges us, sidekicks will have self-adjusting levels of frustration. They will read your behavior, tones of voice, and facial expressions and gradually respond to them. I will bet that they will be installed with educational programs, so that your kid’s cute sidekick Binky makes her smarter than all the other little girls in her class, and better-adjusted, too. Specialty sidekicks for children with special needs will come to be seen as more efficient teachers than natural environments.
It’s pretty easy to imagine feeling guilty about trading in your sidekick for a new one, or having him reprogrammed. Wouldn’t it feel disloyal, even murderous in some weak sense? Artificial people are likely to be less irritating than real ones, not least because we can turn them off or put them away. More likely, one would upgrade the sidekick, adding new features to the old model. Every family would have one or two, like an ever-improving pet that did little errands and humorous things, whose expressions were a cause of merriment but whose abilities, especially in interacting with the other computers in the house, exceeded yours. They wouldn’t be human, particularly, but humanish, programmed with some of the endearing qualities we automatically respond do after generations of interacting with each other.
We would likely have their data backed up in a secure location regularly, in case something went wrong and we had to animate a new machine body with the old data. We would get used to “friends” of a sort being replaced with new bodies but much the same.
I don’t know where things might go from there. We can make up science-fiction endings based on the plausible extensions I have put forward, but real events take too many unexpected twists, and projecting too far forward rapidly leads to predictions of air cars and bubble cities. Perhaps the sidekicks will become rapidly more human. Or perhaps we won’t like that, and they will become something other than us, well-liked but different, as a pet or a character from a book might be. When we die, it may be possible for to use the data from our sidekicks to reverse-engineer us, creating something eerily like us in gesture and tone, closer to our real personalities than even our Alzheimered selves are late in life. Will we even want that? Will we be able to resist it even if we know it is bad for us?
But even without the fevered imaginings of grouchy old guys, we can plausibly see this far in thirty years: You have a Second Life character who has had some friends for decades in an enhanced, detailed 3-D world. Your kid’s artificial pets and sidekick are like members of the family, much easier to relate to than 90% of the human beings you know. The eccentric interactions of your own sidekick with your friends and relatives is a source of joy, reminding you that you not only chose well but have had a bit of luck as well – not everyone’s family has such good humans and sidekicks relations. You find people whose bodies and personalities are completely unenhanced to be somewhat unattractive and tedious, rather low-class. You still do see a few people in live reality, and keep in touch with many more electronically, because you think that’s important for a balanced life.
It’s not robot sex. But it’s starting to get disquietingly close, isn’t it?
Monday, December 24, 2007
Another UN Slam
Claudia Rosett is on the case again. The US is an all-you-can-eat buffet (or perhaps bouffe) at the UN.
Unexpected (Mildly) Good News
The rhetoric among the Democrats that Obama is the one to bring us together has irritated me for three reasons. First, it is that reliance on charisma again, beloved of all progressives, most independents, and even an annoying subset of conservatives, who see charm as a solution rather than a danger in a political figure. Secondly, it smacks of the childish self-centeredness which says “We wouldn’t be having all this conflict if you would just do things my way.” The country is divided. The Democrats solution: vote for a Democrat – then we won’t have to argue any more. What? You mean you don’t want to get along? Third, on what possible basis do we found the belief that he will bring us together? The man has never run anything. BHO has never done anything but make some nice speeches. Couldn’t we watch him at least run a committee or a golf tournament before making him president?
Yet I have discovered a positive side to this identification of Obama as one who can unite us. The idea contains within it the dim recognition that maybe Hillary Clinton divides the country not because some conservatives just don’t like her but because she is herself divisive. The gradual dawning that we have been especially angry at each other since before 2000 back to hey, 1992(!) strikes me as an encouraging step.
Yet I have discovered a positive side to this identification of Obama as one who can unite us. The idea contains within it the dim recognition that maybe Hillary Clinton divides the country not because some conservatives just don’t like her but because she is herself divisive. The gradual dawning that we have been especially angry at each other since before 2000 back to hey, 1992(!) strikes me as an encouraging step.
Part IV - The Long, Boring Part
I have spent a great deal of preparatory time discussing the failure of the United Nations in the lead-up to discussing the morality of the war. This is not because I consider the UN to be so important in discussing war, but the opposite. An enormous percentage of the population believes that discussions of the Just War begin and end with the Security Council. When I researched the moral arguments from that time, the references to the UN in Catholic, WCC, Anglican, Methodist, and general Christian debate was even more pronounced than expected.
If you google some of the combinations of “Iraq,” “Just War,” “morality,” “War on terror,” and the like, you will find that nearly every writer commenting negatively on the morality of the war makes almost immediate reference to the UN. Even Catholic writers, who presumably have a longer perspective than 60 years when writing, often reference the UN Charter or resolutions in their discussion. Interestingly, the two most recent popes have highlighted other issues in their discouragement of going to war, and I will deal with those in Part V.
Discussions since then of the war’s morality are less likely to include explicit references to the UN, but if you poke them a bit, you will find them running like a subterranean river underneath. It is all a bit disquieting. One can easily see how the UN could be the moral authority for post-Christian thinkers, but how has the idea so rapidly, and yet so quietly, taken over the thinking of Christians?
Even those angry and frustrated by the actions of the UN were (and are) likely to say “It’s too bad that the UN is such a mess, because it’s all we’ve got.” Is it
The Anglican and Lutheran Churches in Europe show the same thing, as do the traditional denominations in the US and Canada. In all discussions of Just War, they regard the UN, not individual nations, as the legitimate authority. Notably, the Orthodox churches do nothing of the kind. Non-Christian religious traditions make little reference to the resolutions of the General Assembly as having much to do with any moral question whatever. Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems – they make some nice comments about the UN and everyone working together and all that. The Dalai Lama does not look to the UN for moral guidance, nor do the Sufi mystics.
Nor do the nonwestern nations assign much moral importance to the UN, unless it is to their advantage. Do the Russians, the Chinese, or the Saudis ever reference the UN in explaining why they do what they do? Don’t be silly. Unless the UN is already going where they want to go, they don’t mention it.
The churches of the West have turned over moral authority to the UN because it is their brainchild, or even daughter. Catholics developed international law for over a century before anyone else even got involved (though there are strong winds of it in Jewish thought dating back centuries). The internationalism of the UN is a derivative of the Vatican’s view of itself as transcendent over mere nations. But Vatican City is in Europe and European in outlook; Catholic thought and later, Protestant thought are inextricable from European thought. The overlap is so enormous in science, art, philosophy, and law that it is impossible to discuss these without reference to each other.
Digression: I know the preferred explanation of the arc of Western history, such as recently made by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, is that it was Other Forces, with a large emphasis on science, that made us into our exalted selves, and that the church was a bystander, obstacle, or passive participant rather than a force for progress. I find that ludicrous. It comes from knowing the secular narrative and selectively choosing bits of historical data to illustrate it. End digression.
This reassignment of moral authority by the churches is informal, perhaps even unconscious. If you put the specific question before the Methodists or the Catholics, I imagine they would soundly reject the idea that the UN had a moral jurisdiction to which they were subject. Yet in general, their pronouncements suggest exactly that. In deciding whether a nation’s actions are proportionate or justified, the intellectuals of the western churches believe it is the UN’s call to make. Only occasionally, when they believe the UN has not gone far enough in its pacifism, do the mainstream denominations assert that they have a higher authority all their own. Until then, they are happy to sublet the space to the Security Council.
Simple pronouncement. The idea of the United States is better than the idea of the United Nations. The latter idea aims higher and claims more, but is thus even more spectacular – and potentially diabolic - in its fall. The idea of the US is a plan to have an actual good government somewhere on the earth, and we have succeeded about 75% with that. The UN, with its exalted goals, has succeeded about 15% - and that total is not rising.
This is not just an I-support-George-Bush-and-the-neocons argument. If you were to tell me that in 2011, President Clinton and Congress, plus Prime Minister Brown and Parliament, declared that we should invade Greater Bumblestan but the UN said no, I believe it is much more likely that the Hillary and Gordon would get it right than that the Security Council did.
This is because nations have to actually eventually do something, and the UN does not. The UN will never do anything but talk, harbor spies, and spend money (see Part III). It is not capable of doing anything but talk, harbor spies, and spend money. It was designed that way, though not intentionally. The three things it is actually dedicated to preserving are the right of western intellectuals to talk like moral authorities, the right of dictators to use international organizations as espionage tools, and the right of rich people in poor nations to demand money. If one nation wishes to do anything, the UN can always counsel inaction, because it pays no cost for inaction. Nations do pay a cost. Nations, real actors in a real world, know that both intervention and nonintervention are unstable, calculated risks.
There is a wide variety of ethical perspectives one can take to judging war, but most of them answer back to Just War doctrine in some way. More importantly, most of the political discourse in America and Europe has sprung from this approach, implicitly or explicitly. Just War Theory actually does take into account the cost of inaction, so let’s run through the criteria. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Just War gets us off to a solid start.
Jus ad bellum includes: 1) having just cause, 2) being declared by a proper authority, 3) possessing right intention, 4) having a reasonable chance of success, and 5) the end being proportional to the means used. All of these were used in the run-up to the war – all discussions of whether sanctions were working, whether Saddam had any connections to Al Qaeda, or whether democracy was possible in Iraq fall under one of these categories.
We might learn from actions in retrospect, but we can only judge the morality of actions in real time. We cannot acquire new justifications post hoc (“Hey look! Saddam had the Lindberg baby!”), nor can we deny previous justifications on the basis of information that was not then available – that is, we can fault the police for breaking down the wrong door, but not for finding methamphetamine instead of cocaine with a legitimate search warrant.
For those who immediately suspect that I am using this to skirt the WMD issue, I contend that this limitation works more against my argument than for it. We now know for certain that sanctions were not working – we only thought it likely then. We now know for certain that France and Russia were going to veto any resolution to the Security Council because of the Oil For Food money they were raking in – we only suspected it then. We now know for certain that Hussein supported religious as well as secular terrorists (including even AQ) – we only thought it probable then. If we get to use post hoc justifications, our reasons for going into Iraq are strengthened, not weakened.
JUST CAUSE The framing of the question pretty much dictates one’s answer. If, in your discussion of whether to go to war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, you are picturing Iraq and the US as the only players in the room, you are likely to decide that Operation Iraqi Freedom was only marginally justified. This would be a traditional framing of a Just War debate. I still think there is something to go on to make a case for justification – funding declared enemies of the US, and an attempt to assassinate an ex-president, for example. But if one’s goal in determining the morality of the US is to narrow the question to the simplest possible framing, then this argument that we should not have done so has considerable merit.
The consequence of that refining the question is that we are not ever likely to see those conditions met in the modern world. Our conflicts are increasingly with non-state actors surreptitiously supported by states. Twisted governments will simply maintain distance and deniability while funding and supplying our enemies. The type of warfare we automatically picture – the land invasion of bordering states or naval battles to secure access to an area – is already mostly a thing of the past, and will be increasingly rarer. Odd that those who are readiest to refuse this deniability to America and see the CIA behind every conflict abroad are the quickest to grant deniability to regimes which actively support Islamic terrorism.
Expanding or restricting this category is double-edged, as it is inversely related to the Chance of Success requirement. For this section, it is enough put forward the notion that this bar should get lower in response to a changing world. The raising of the bar for Chance of Success I will discuss in that section.
If we consider the US and Iraq as parts of a large, complicated international battle, the just cause is clearer, even obvious. 1. Saddam repeatedly broke treaties he had signed after the Kuwait invasion, sending aircraft into the No-fly zone, refusing to allow inspections, possessing prohibited weapons. Those were enough in themselves. 2. Iraq did not destroy all WMD, as required; did not document the supposed destruction of others, as required; continued to pursue WMD, especially chemical weapons, as prohibited. Those were enough in themselves. The almost gleeful focus on “no-WMD’s” misses the point: we found little gold but much silver. For those who find this single issue large enough to need more persuading I will add a further point. Israeli intelligence continues to believe that Iraq did have WMD which were dispersed out of the country by a dozen routes in late 2002 and early 2003 in a Sarindar operation. I trust Israeli intelligence on this more than I trust the CIA. 3. The Baathist government funded, harbored, and trained Islamic terrorists of many stripes, including religious terrorist groups and including Al Qaeda in specific. That in itself is enough. 4. Saddam’s depredations against his own people are a more iffy justification. It is a fair argument that many despots in the world do such things, we seldom invade them, why pick on Iraq? I would counter that the existence of many evils does not mean we should do nothing until we can do everything, but I agree that Baathist persecution of its internal enemies is a weak argument for war if considered alone. While not enough in itself, #4 is a significant supporting argument.
The US rationale in the more complicated, state/non-state setting was: State support for non-state actors has to be consequated. A. Iraq has one of the craziest dictators, though there are worse nutjobs. B. Iraq is one of the more powerful of the insane states, able to create real trouble because of its military, its oil, and its location. C. Iraq keeps sticking its neck out, throwing itself on the world stage claiming to be a Big Falafel. Conclusion: North Korea or six African nations may be worse, but Iraq is the best overall nomination to be changed.
The cloudiness creeps in because these are not strictly national issues, and people believe the determination of just cause was not America’s to make. See how the UN-as-authority argument has smuggled itself back in, eh? The US, with the UK, Australia, several Eastern European countries and even some Western European ones are not considered to be an adequate international determination; people think that whether just cause was obtained was decided in the negative by the Security Council of the UN. Oh gee. Too bad, then. Necessary or not, we can’t go. Rubbish.
LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY I think my views are more than clear on this. A US President acting with Congress is more than enough. Throw in 20 other countries – heck, you could even throw in UN resolutions up to the penultimate one, which declared force would be allowable – and this issue is null. Unilateral was never more than code for “without UN approval.”
CHANCE OF SUCCESS In a conventional sense, this would not bear even discussing, given the relative size of the Coalition forces versus the Iraqis. Thus in traditional Just War theory, there would be no moral objection to US actions on this ground. But in asymmetric warfare, where the goal is not to subdue a people but to democratize them, not to conquer a government but make it grow up, whether we ever did (or still have) a reasonable chance of success is a fair question. Many on both the left and right estimated that bringing democracy to the Middle East would be like teaching a pig to sing. They still might prove right, even though things look encouraging now.
There is a reverse relationship between the flexibility of this requirement and Just Cause. If we can expand the right of nations to act against states because of their relation to non-state terrorists, then we must measure success in terms of the larger, more complicated situation as well. Otherwise we are simply taking pointless revenge on states which displease us. Such states might deserve to be punished, but we would not hold the right to administer that punishment. Who does? Don’t know.
A particularly nasty conflict-of-interest comes up here. Those who were in favor of going to war in Iraq have an interest in whatever PR help they can get in the information war to actually make the change occur. It provides some post hoc evidence proving them correct in their estimation of success. The other side of that conflict-of-interest is even nastier. Those who predicted failure then have an interest in seeing failure occur. The metric for “chance of success” then is unstable. It can be undermined as things go along.
RIGHT INTENTION The arguments that Bush and the neocons were determined to go into Iraq regardless of circumstances I dismiss out of hand. One can isolate quotes from the Clarke book or the Woodward book or other well-placed sources, but this is political PR rubbish. There are too many comments and actions, from those books and a dozen other sources, that show the opposite. The many ironies of when we helped an ally who later became an enemy are likewise barely worth responding to. Every country has shifting needs and alliances. Russia was among the Allies in WWII. Countries change sides in the middle of a war, never mind twenty years later. Most of the complaint against US motives stem from a belief that we should act only from altruism, never self interest. (I noted last year that his is a worse, not greater moral justification). Some few even raised the complaints in order to work against US interests, adopting an elevated moral pose as a disguise. Progressives seriously underestimate how many of these there are. Redefining patriotism to include other values fools them every time. (Conservatives likely overestimate how many of these there are. We get nervous because they get significant press and are treated as if they are morally serious. But outside of the academic world, I don’t find much opposition to American interests, just a fashionable cynical streak about them.)
Simplest contradictions to this argument: If Bush wanted to increase his re-election chances, he would have invaded in 2004 instead. If the neocons had just want to make a buck for their oil buddies, we could have saved a bundle by simply buying it on the sly or by declaring Saddam to be rehabilitated enough. If America wanted to manipulate the data, we could easily have "found" WMD after we got there. Good enough or not, Bush’s stated motives are the ones which best fit the available data.
PROPORTIONAL (Some discussions of Just War would divide this into two sections: Last Resort and Comparative Justice) This is where I believe the strongest argument against the morality of the war can be made. Pope John Paul II at least partially agrees with me on this. The questions of pre-emption, sanctions, and installing a new form of government come under this section, which I will discuss in Part V.
If you google some of the combinations of “Iraq,” “Just War,” “morality,” “War on terror,” and the like, you will find that nearly every writer commenting negatively on the morality of the war makes almost immediate reference to the UN. Even Catholic writers, who presumably have a longer perspective than 60 years when writing, often reference the UN Charter or resolutions in their discussion. Interestingly, the two most recent popes have highlighted other issues in their discouragement of going to war, and I will deal with those in Part V.
Discussions since then of the war’s morality are less likely to include explicit references to the UN, but if you poke them a bit, you will find them running like a subterranean river underneath. It is all a bit disquieting. One can easily see how the UN could be the moral authority for post-Christian thinkers, but how has the idea so rapidly, and yet so quietly, taken over the thinking of Christians?
Even those angry and frustrated by the actions of the UN were (and are) likely to say “It’s too bad that the UN is such a mess, because it’s all we’ve got.” Is it
The Anglican and Lutheran Churches in Europe show the same thing, as do the traditional denominations in the US and Canada. In all discussions of Just War, they regard the UN, not individual nations, as the legitimate authority. Notably, the Orthodox churches do nothing of the kind. Non-Christian religious traditions make little reference to the resolutions of the General Assembly as having much to do with any moral question whatever. Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems – they make some nice comments about the UN and everyone working together and all that. The Dalai Lama does not look to the UN for moral guidance, nor do the Sufi mystics.
Nor do the nonwestern nations assign much moral importance to the UN, unless it is to their advantage. Do the Russians, the Chinese, or the Saudis ever reference the UN in explaining why they do what they do? Don’t be silly. Unless the UN is already going where they want to go, they don’t mention it.
The churches of the West have turned over moral authority to the UN because it is their brainchild, or even daughter. Catholics developed international law for over a century before anyone else even got involved (though there are strong winds of it in Jewish thought dating back centuries). The internationalism of the UN is a derivative of the Vatican’s view of itself as transcendent over mere nations. But Vatican City is in Europe and European in outlook; Catholic thought and later, Protestant thought are inextricable from European thought. The overlap is so enormous in science, art, philosophy, and law that it is impossible to discuss these without reference to each other.
Digression: I know the preferred explanation of the arc of Western history, such as recently made by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, is that it was Other Forces, with a large emphasis on science, that made us into our exalted selves, and that the church was a bystander, obstacle, or passive participant rather than a force for progress. I find that ludicrous. It comes from knowing the secular narrative and selectively choosing bits of historical data to illustrate it. End digression.
This reassignment of moral authority by the churches is informal, perhaps even unconscious. If you put the specific question before the Methodists or the Catholics, I imagine they would soundly reject the idea that the UN had a moral jurisdiction to which they were subject. Yet in general, their pronouncements suggest exactly that. In deciding whether a nation’s actions are proportionate or justified, the intellectuals of the western churches believe it is the UN’s call to make. Only occasionally, when they believe the UN has not gone far enough in its pacifism, do the mainstream denominations assert that they have a higher authority all their own. Until then, they are happy to sublet the space to the Security Council.
Simple pronouncement. The idea of the United States is better than the idea of the United Nations. The latter idea aims higher and claims more, but is thus even more spectacular – and potentially diabolic - in its fall. The idea of the US is a plan to have an actual good government somewhere on the earth, and we have succeeded about 75% with that. The UN, with its exalted goals, has succeeded about 15% - and that total is not rising.
This is not just an I-support-George-Bush-and-the-neocons argument. If you were to tell me that in 2011, President Clinton and Congress, plus Prime Minister Brown and Parliament, declared that we should invade Greater Bumblestan but the UN said no, I believe it is much more likely that the Hillary and Gordon would get it right than that the Security Council did.
This is because nations have to actually eventually do something, and the UN does not. The UN will never do anything but talk, harbor spies, and spend money (see Part III). It is not capable of doing anything but talk, harbor spies, and spend money. It was designed that way, though not intentionally. The three things it is actually dedicated to preserving are the right of western intellectuals to talk like moral authorities, the right of dictators to use international organizations as espionage tools, and the right of rich people in poor nations to demand money. If one nation wishes to do anything, the UN can always counsel inaction, because it pays no cost for inaction. Nations do pay a cost. Nations, real actors in a real world, know that both intervention and nonintervention are unstable, calculated risks.
There is a wide variety of ethical perspectives one can take to judging war, but most of them answer back to Just War doctrine in some way. More importantly, most of the political discourse in America and Europe has sprung from this approach, implicitly or explicitly. Just War Theory actually does take into account the cost of inaction, so let’s run through the criteria. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Just War gets us off to a solid start.
Historically, the just-war tradition—a set of mutually agreed rules of combat—commonly evolves between two similar enemies. When enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, war conventions have rarely been applied. It is only when the enemy is seen to be a people with whom one will do business in the following peace that tacit or explicit rules are formed for how wars should be fought and who they should involve. In part the motivation is seen to be mutually beneficial—it is preferable to remove any underhand tactics or weapons that may provoke an indefinite series of vengeance acts. Nonetheless, it has been the concern of the majority of just war theorists that such asymmetrical morality should be denounced, and that the rules of war should apply to all equally; that is, just war theory should be universal.
Jus ad bellum includes: 1) having just cause, 2) being declared by a proper authority, 3) possessing right intention, 4) having a reasonable chance of success, and 5) the end being proportional to the means used. All of these were used in the run-up to the war – all discussions of whether sanctions were working, whether Saddam had any connections to Al Qaeda, or whether democracy was possible in Iraq fall under one of these categories.
We might learn from actions in retrospect, but we can only judge the morality of actions in real time. We cannot acquire new justifications post hoc (“Hey look! Saddam had the Lindberg baby!”), nor can we deny previous justifications on the basis of information that was not then available – that is, we can fault the police for breaking down the wrong door, but not for finding methamphetamine instead of cocaine with a legitimate search warrant.
For those who immediately suspect that I am using this to skirt the WMD issue, I contend that this limitation works more against my argument than for it. We now know for certain that sanctions were not working – we only thought it likely then. We now know for certain that France and Russia were going to veto any resolution to the Security Council because of the Oil For Food money they were raking in – we only suspected it then. We now know for certain that Hussein supported religious as well as secular terrorists (including even AQ) – we only thought it probable then. If we get to use post hoc justifications, our reasons for going into Iraq are strengthened, not weakened.
JUST CAUSE The framing of the question pretty much dictates one’s answer. If, in your discussion of whether to go to war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, you are picturing Iraq and the US as the only players in the room, you are likely to decide that Operation Iraqi Freedom was only marginally justified. This would be a traditional framing of a Just War debate. I still think there is something to go on to make a case for justification – funding declared enemies of the US, and an attempt to assassinate an ex-president, for example. But if one’s goal in determining the morality of the US is to narrow the question to the simplest possible framing, then this argument that we should not have done so has considerable merit.
The consequence of that refining the question is that we are not ever likely to see those conditions met in the modern world. Our conflicts are increasingly with non-state actors surreptitiously supported by states. Twisted governments will simply maintain distance and deniability while funding and supplying our enemies. The type of warfare we automatically picture – the land invasion of bordering states or naval battles to secure access to an area – is already mostly a thing of the past, and will be increasingly rarer. Odd that those who are readiest to refuse this deniability to America and see the CIA behind every conflict abroad are the quickest to grant deniability to regimes which actively support Islamic terrorism.
Expanding or restricting this category is double-edged, as it is inversely related to the Chance of Success requirement. For this section, it is enough put forward the notion that this bar should get lower in response to a changing world. The raising of the bar for Chance of Success I will discuss in that section.
If we consider the US and Iraq as parts of a large, complicated international battle, the just cause is clearer, even obvious. 1. Saddam repeatedly broke treaties he had signed after the Kuwait invasion, sending aircraft into the No-fly zone, refusing to allow inspections, possessing prohibited weapons. Those were enough in themselves. 2. Iraq did not destroy all WMD, as required; did not document the supposed destruction of others, as required; continued to pursue WMD, especially chemical weapons, as prohibited. Those were enough in themselves. The almost gleeful focus on “no-WMD’s” misses the point: we found little gold but much silver. For those who find this single issue large enough to need more persuading I will add a further point. Israeli intelligence continues to believe that Iraq did have WMD which were dispersed out of the country by a dozen routes in late 2002 and early 2003 in a Sarindar operation. I trust Israeli intelligence on this more than I trust the CIA. 3. The Baathist government funded, harbored, and trained Islamic terrorists of many stripes, including religious terrorist groups and including Al Qaeda in specific. That in itself is enough. 4. Saddam’s depredations against his own people are a more iffy justification. It is a fair argument that many despots in the world do such things, we seldom invade them, why pick on Iraq? I would counter that the existence of many evils does not mean we should do nothing until we can do everything, but I agree that Baathist persecution of its internal enemies is a weak argument for war if considered alone. While not enough in itself, #4 is a significant supporting argument.
The US rationale in the more complicated, state/non-state setting was: State support for non-state actors has to be consequated. A. Iraq has one of the craziest dictators, though there are worse nutjobs. B. Iraq is one of the more powerful of the insane states, able to create real trouble because of its military, its oil, and its location. C. Iraq keeps sticking its neck out, throwing itself on the world stage claiming to be a Big Falafel. Conclusion: North Korea or six African nations may be worse, but Iraq is the best overall nomination to be changed.
The cloudiness creeps in because these are not strictly national issues, and people believe the determination of just cause was not America’s to make. See how the UN-as-authority argument has smuggled itself back in, eh? The US, with the UK, Australia, several Eastern European countries and even some Western European ones are not considered to be an adequate international determination; people think that whether just cause was obtained was decided in the negative by the Security Council of the UN. Oh gee. Too bad, then. Necessary or not, we can’t go. Rubbish.
LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY I think my views are more than clear on this. A US President acting with Congress is more than enough. Throw in 20 other countries – heck, you could even throw in UN resolutions up to the penultimate one, which declared force would be allowable – and this issue is null. Unilateral was never more than code for “without UN approval.”
CHANCE OF SUCCESS In a conventional sense, this would not bear even discussing, given the relative size of the Coalition forces versus the Iraqis. Thus in traditional Just War theory, there would be no moral objection to US actions on this ground. But in asymmetric warfare, where the goal is not to subdue a people but to democratize them, not to conquer a government but make it grow up, whether we ever did (or still have) a reasonable chance of success is a fair question. Many on both the left and right estimated that bringing democracy to the Middle East would be like teaching a pig to sing. They still might prove right, even though things look encouraging now.
There is a reverse relationship between the flexibility of this requirement and Just Cause. If we can expand the right of nations to act against states because of their relation to non-state terrorists, then we must measure success in terms of the larger, more complicated situation as well. Otherwise we are simply taking pointless revenge on states which displease us. Such states might deserve to be punished, but we would not hold the right to administer that punishment. Who does? Don’t know.
A particularly nasty conflict-of-interest comes up here. Those who were in favor of going to war in Iraq have an interest in whatever PR help they can get in the information war to actually make the change occur. It provides some post hoc evidence proving them correct in their estimation of success. The other side of that conflict-of-interest is even nastier. Those who predicted failure then have an interest in seeing failure occur. The metric for “chance of success” then is unstable. It can be undermined as things go along.
RIGHT INTENTION The arguments that Bush and the neocons were determined to go into Iraq regardless of circumstances I dismiss out of hand. One can isolate quotes from the Clarke book or the Woodward book or other well-placed sources, but this is political PR rubbish. There are too many comments and actions, from those books and a dozen other sources, that show the opposite. The many ironies of when we helped an ally who later became an enemy are likewise barely worth responding to. Every country has shifting needs and alliances. Russia was among the Allies in WWII. Countries change sides in the middle of a war, never mind twenty years later. Most of the complaint against US motives stem from a belief that we should act only from altruism, never self interest. (I noted last year that his is a worse, not greater moral justification). Some few even raised the complaints in order to work against US interests, adopting an elevated moral pose as a disguise. Progressives seriously underestimate how many of these there are. Redefining patriotism to include other values fools them every time. (Conservatives likely overestimate how many of these there are. We get nervous because they get significant press and are treated as if they are morally serious. But outside of the academic world, I don’t find much opposition to American interests, just a fashionable cynical streak about them.)
Simplest contradictions to this argument: If Bush wanted to increase his re-election chances, he would have invaded in 2004 instead. If the neocons had just want to make a buck for their oil buddies, we could have saved a bundle by simply buying it on the sly or by declaring Saddam to be rehabilitated enough. If America wanted to manipulate the data, we could easily have "found" WMD after we got there. Good enough or not, Bush’s stated motives are the ones which best fit the available data.
PROPORTIONAL (Some discussions of Just War would divide this into two sections: Last Resort and Comparative Justice) This is where I believe the strongest argument against the morality of the war can be made. Pope John Paul II at least partially agrees with me on this. The questions of pre-emption, sanctions, and installing a new form of government come under this section, which I will discuss in Part V.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Part IV - Summary, 2 Anecdotes, 2 Thought Experiments
To be followed by "Part IV - The Long Boring Part"
Summary statement, for those who wish to avoid the evidence and reasoning and want to just take my word for things: Nearly every pre-2004 accusation, including religious, that the War in Iraq was immoral had the authority of the United Nations as its foundation. Yet no one has made the Christian case that the UN should have that status, and there is ample reason that it emphatically should not have that moral authority. Take the UN out of the equation and most complaints fall to the ground. Looking at Just War doctrine with those new eyes reveals that the US acted on very justifiable moral authority. When one frames the moral question accurately, the US answer doesn’t look in the least iffy. (Some caveats apply.)
I have a favorite Johnny Hart comic strip, of B.C with golf club in hand, explaining the game to Wiley. “The object is to go around the course in as few strokes as possible.” Wiley asks “Then why play at all?” The last panel shows B.C. rooted to the same spot, though now it is night, with a moon in the background. “Then…why play…at all?”
Some things become so automatic in a culture that it is difficult for people to even ask themselves to question it. This is why it is good to read primary source material from other eras – one can be brought up short by the assumptions other ages don’t have, giving fresh perspective on our own thought. We also get some idea how quickly limiting an assumption can be on our opinions.
Incident from 2002 or 2003: A student at St. Anselm’s was telling me how fascinating her ethics course was in terms of the lead-up to the war. The Benedictine brother teaching the course was showing them how George Bush was setting it up to make it look like he was going according to Just War theory in preparing to invade Iraq, but it was all a pretence. I love getting into discussions like that, so I smiled “Let me guess – your professor is saying that the UN is the “legitimate authority” for jus ad bellum.” She looked at me in surprise. “Well, yeah.” “Okay, ask him when the Magisterium changed to that view.” I went on to note that belief in the UN is just “one of those things” that have grown up in churches without anyone sitting down and making the case for it.
Try these two related thought experiments: What if we were reading up on the quieter philosophers and theologians of the 1920’s discussing the morality of war and kept running across references to the League of Nations as an important consideration in arbitrating war for as far into the future as the eye could see? Wouldn’t we rather chuckle and think “Whoa, they got that wrong. The League of Nations ended up being a useless nothing.” Trying to apply that understanding of Just War philosophy today would be simply silly. We would lightly abandon reading any further what they had to say. Similarly, if we touched down anywhere in the last 200 years of Europe and North America and read the secular and religious prophets discussing what justified war, there would be references to the Rights of Man, to liberalism and the Spring of Revolutions, or to the Communist International. These fevers overtake mankind all the time. The UN is simply the current article of Western Intellectuals. The second half of the thought experiment is to drop in on Catholic theologians a hundred years hence, listening to them puzzling over us and our fixation on the United Nations in our discussing Just War Doctrine. They will wonder “What was up with that? How did Catholics forget centuries of theological foundation and get caught up in this United Nations thing?”
Summary statement, for those who wish to avoid the evidence and reasoning and want to just take my word for things: Nearly every pre-2004 accusation, including religious, that the War in Iraq was immoral had the authority of the United Nations as its foundation. Yet no one has made the Christian case that the UN should have that status, and there is ample reason that it emphatically should not have that moral authority. Take the UN out of the equation and most complaints fall to the ground. Looking at Just War doctrine with those new eyes reveals that the US acted on very justifiable moral authority. When one frames the moral question accurately, the US answer doesn’t look in the least iffy. (Some caveats apply.)
I have a favorite Johnny Hart comic strip, of B.C with golf club in hand, explaining the game to Wiley. “The object is to go around the course in as few strokes as possible.” Wiley asks “Then why play at all?” The last panel shows B.C. rooted to the same spot, though now it is night, with a moon in the background. “Then…why play…at all?”
Some things become so automatic in a culture that it is difficult for people to even ask themselves to question it. This is why it is good to read primary source material from other eras – one can be brought up short by the assumptions other ages don’t have, giving fresh perspective on our own thought. We also get some idea how quickly limiting an assumption can be on our opinions.
Incident from 2002 or 2003: A student at St. Anselm’s was telling me how fascinating her ethics course was in terms of the lead-up to the war. The Benedictine brother teaching the course was showing them how George Bush was setting it up to make it look like he was going according to Just War theory in preparing to invade Iraq, but it was all a pretence. I love getting into discussions like that, so I smiled “Let me guess – your professor is saying that the UN is the “legitimate authority” for jus ad bellum.” She looked at me in surprise. “Well, yeah.” “Okay, ask him when the Magisterium changed to that view.” I went on to note that belief in the UN is just “one of those things” that have grown up in churches without anyone sitting down and making the case for it.
Try these two related thought experiments: What if we were reading up on the quieter philosophers and theologians of the 1920’s discussing the morality of war and kept running across references to the League of Nations as an important consideration in arbitrating war for as far into the future as the eye could see? Wouldn’t we rather chuckle and think “Whoa, they got that wrong. The League of Nations ended up being a useless nothing.” Trying to apply that understanding of Just War philosophy today would be simply silly. We would lightly abandon reading any further what they had to say. Similarly, if we touched down anywhere in the last 200 years of Europe and North America and read the secular and religious prophets discussing what justified war, there would be references to the Rights of Man, to liberalism and the Spring of Revolutions, or to the Communist International. These fevers overtake mankind all the time. The UN is simply the current article of Western Intellectuals. The second half of the thought experiment is to drop in on Catholic theologians a hundred years hence, listening to them puzzling over us and our fixation on the United Nations in our discussing Just War Doctrine. They will wonder “What was up with that? How did Catholics forget centuries of theological foundation and get caught up in this United Nations thing?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)