Category: Politics

I’m not fond of people who fill up my mailbox by forwarding jokes, so I don’t often link to humorous entries, but this “cartoon” found on Doug’s Dynamic Drivel is too good to miss, though I don’t really believe this war is about economics.

That might actually make sense. I’m afraid that this is truly a holy war to finally rid the world of evil once and for all. I was not happy when one of the major news channels labeled their coverage of recent events The War On Iraq. It truly makes one wonder if there is anything that can be done to avert it, if all protest is futile.

My first reaction when reading Jonathan’s response to my response on “sentimentality” was to assure him that I, too, hold many “depressing” novels in high regard. After all, I switched from being a physics major at the University of Washington to a literature major after being swept away by Thomas Hardy’s melancholic view of the world my senior year in high school. In some weird, romantic way I felt that Hardy offered more hope of finding the ultimate truths that lay at the heart of this puzzling universe than the alchemy of modern science.
As my comment on his site began to exceed the length of his entry, I decided that my own blog was probably the most appropriate place for a reply, especially since I still haven’t finished that great romantic novel of the 20th century, Catch-22.
I must admit I’m a little surprised by my own actions in defending the word and by my reaction to be labeled a “sentimentalist” after defending the word. I have enough college to realize that being “cynical,” or at least “ objective” is cool, so one side of me doesn’t want to be classified as being overly sentimental.
However, reassured by Jeff’s analysis of the word and after giving it more thought, it seems to me that the only problem with “sentimentality” is not recognizing it as such. To me, occasionally indulging in sentimentality is a part of being a healthy person.
Personally, I worry about friends who aren’t sentimental about their childhood, their children’s childhood, or their grandchildren. You’re supposed to be sentimental about these things, for God’s sake. Does anyone really think you’re supposed to be totally objective about your children? And grandchildren? You’d have to be a real Scrooge not to occasionally indulge the temptation to spoil grandchildren, wouldn’t you?
On the other hand, I’m all too aware some people’s childhoods are so bleak that there is nothing to be sentimental about. But I worry most about friends like this for it’s difficult to ever totally recover from the damage done in those years. One of my favorite students had been sexually abused by her father, and years later she seemed incapable of finding a man who would do anything but mistreat her. It was almost as if she was doomed to forever confirm her vision of abusive men. Unfortunately, she is but one of many whose lives have been forever besmirched by a miserable childhood or abusive parents. This is, in fact, my greatest worry about all the children being indoctrinated with hatred in Israel and Palestine. I wonder if they will ever be able to transcend their hatred and find anything like a lasting peace.
I find it preferable to see the world through rosy glasses rather than condemning myself to a life of misery. Of course, it’s probably wise, and certainly necessary, to realize when you’re indulging in sentimentality. For instance, there may well be few things less dangerous than a parent who comes into a parent conference thinking her child can do no wrong. Parents who lack any objectivity are more likely to end up damaging their child than helping him when faced with unpleasant realities.
On the other hand, parents who used to come into parent conferences bad-mouthing their child’s behavior always pissed me off far more than those who mistakenly stood up for everything their child did. It often didn’t take more than a moment to realize what the child’s real problem was and to realize how difficult it was going to be for that child to overcome the negative emotions his parents instilled in him.
The real tragedy of such situations is that once a person denies the possibility that they are a good person and that they can do good things, there is little likelihood that they will do those things. Far better to error on the side of optimism and the belief that you can change the world if you try.
I don’t mind being called a romantic and a liberal, and I guess I don’t mind being called “sentimental,” because ultimately I still believe in the ability of humans to transcend their lot in life and to create a world where all people have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” though I’m pragmatist enough to realize we haven’t yet found the means of insuring those rights here in America, much less in the world, and cynic enough to distrust those who wrap their own agenda in these words.

Jeff Ward may well have been right when he said, “I never bought into the idea that surrendering your voice was a way to commemorate an inauspicious anniversary. I think that’s a cop-out.” But if some conservatives have their way, we may all lose the voices of dissent.

Not surprisingly the recent debate over terrorism and America’s reaction to it has again stirred controversy on the rights of free speech. The Houston Chronicle ran two different articles, or at least linked to them, that offered opposing views on the right of free speech in academics.

Apparently this particular debate centers on Professor Robert Jensen who was critical of American anti-terrorist efforts after 9/11. In a recent article entitled “There’s still time for Americans to stop insanity” he argues that

… the so-called "war on terrorism" is primarily a war to project U.S power around the world. Its goal is to extend and deepen U.S. control, especially in the energy-rich Middle East and Central Asia. Ordinary people have not benefited, and will not benefit, from this war or the economics that drive it.

Although the piece lacks the kind of hard evidence to make a strong argument, his thought-provoking ideas raise questions that some politicians would prefer not to have to answer.

He also argues that oil is the primary motivation behind our anti-terrorist activities:

These failed attempts to build a case for war only highlight what has long been clear: The war in Afghanistan and a possible war in Iraq are about U.S. dominance, at two levels. The first involves the specific resources of those regions. In the case of Afghanistan, the concern is pipelines to carry the oil and natural gas of the Caspian region to deep-water ports. In Iraq, it’s about controlling the country with the world’s second-largest oil reserves.

This certainly doesn’t seem like a particularly new charge, though it was probably an unpopular opinion to express on September 8th. A more controversial charge, though, is that America is an “empire” like Rome or Britain trying to expand our empire through war:

Beyond those direct interests, the logic of empire requires violence on this scale; when challenged, imperial powers strike back to maintain credibility and extend control. U.S. control is through mechanisms different from Rome or Britain in their imperial phases, but there can be no doubt that we are an empire.

Earlier editorials by Professor Jenson apparently sparked controversy at his university when administrators objected to his writings, which led to charges by colleagues that the administration did not support free speech among its teachers.

The professors’ protests, in turn, inspired an editorial called “The college professors who are wailing about post–Sept. 11 threats to their First Amendment rights are actually ardent opponents of free speech.” by Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute that seems to me to threaten the very foundations of freedom of speech in our country. In essence, this editorial argued that the only way professors should be guaranteed freedom of speech is by being on the faculty of a privately-owned university, that any professor who worked for a public university had no right to say anything that may offend the taxpayers who are paying his salary.

While conceding that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, Ghate argues that “a professor has the freedom to teach any view he wishes but has no right to demand that Harvard employ him.” In other words, say what you want, but we have the right to fire you if you say it.

According to Ghate, denying universities the right to fire professors whose views they disagree with strips the owners of a university:

of their right to choose which ideas their wealth supports. Why? So that professors who consistently teach the evil of individualism, capitalism, the profit motive—and America—can espouse their views without the burden of having to seek the voluntary consent of those forced to sponsor them.

Ignoring for a moment the faulty generalization that professors generally oppose individualism, capitalism, and the profit motive, I wonder how much freedom of speech we would have in America if any employer, let alone universities, were allowed to fire a person simply because that person wrote a letter to the editor expressing an unpopular idea. Would that mean that only the self-employed would be allowed to have freedom of speech? What kind of guarantee of freedom of speech would that be?

But Ghate doesn’t stop here, he goes much further, arguing that:

public education as such is antithetical to free speech. Whether leftists are forced to pay taxes to fund universities from which their academic spokesmen are barred, or non-leftists are forced to pay taxes to fund professors who condemn America as a terrorist nation, someone loses the right to choose which ideas his money supports.

From here, Ghate leaps, miraculously, to the conclusion that:

To protect free speech, therefore, universities would have to be privatized. The owners of a university could then hire the faculty they endorsed, while others could refuse to fund the university if they disagreed with its teachings. But since privatization would threaten the left’s grip on the universities, it vehemently opposes this solution. In the name of free speech, the left denounces as "tyranny of the almighty dollar" the sole means of actually preserving free speech.

Do we think Ghates is really stupid enough to believe that the American public will give up their universities and sell them to private companies? Or, is this merely a red-herring, allowing him to state the real point of his editorial?

Finally, he summarizes by arguing that:

So we must not be fooled by the professors’ cries about threats to their freedom of speech. Freedom is precisely what they don’t want. Their grumblings are simply smokescreens to prevent us from seeing that we are right in objecting to being forced to finance their loathsome ideas.

In other words, we need to shut these people up; they have no right to object because they aren’t rich enough to be heard. Save that right for the Bushes and Cheneys of the world who have gotten rich off oils and arms, correct?

The real issue that is never discussed here, apparently because Ghate doesn’t really believe in it, is the inherent value of freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers believed truth could be arrived at only by hearing all views and by then deciding what the truth was. Universities in the past have agreed with that view, thus providing special protection for the exchange of ideas in that environment. If opposing ideas are not allowed in schools, where will they be allowed? If truth is denied there, will it disappear under the rhetoric of majority rule?

If forced to, I, too, could come up with a rant on how idiotic it would be to invade Iraq by ourselves, but I would find that kind of appeal insulting to my readers even if a majority of readers, though surely not my readers. are more apt to be moved by emotional appeals than by logical appeals. Let’s face it, it would be tempting to just say “shrub is a dumb bastard” and leave it there, and those who already agreed with us would agree with us. We could all stand around and pat ourselves on the back and say how smart “we” are and how dumb “they” are.

Of course, the problem would still be there, now, wouldn’t it? And our children and our brothers and sisters would still be sent off to die in a foreign land while oil executives continued to cash in on our myopic policies.

In reality, playing to emotions is a deadly game, one more likely to aggravate the problem than to solve it. We need to use logic, not just emotion, to seek answers to the complex problems we face.

Luckily, after reading a number of the ever-burgeoning warblogs, I happened to follow some links on Jeff Ward’s Visible Darkness to discover this treasure of logic by Robert Horn entitled “Traps Of Traditional Logic & Dialectics: What They Are And How To Avoid Them.” Professor Horn introduced some fallacies I hadn’t heard of before. I’ve even bookmarked his page for future reference since it’s unlikely I’ll be able to remember all of these fallacies without occasionally refreshing my memory. If you’re interested in sound reasoning, I recommend you do the same.

In this short paper he describes a number of common fallacies. First, he lists seven traps that derive from mistakes in traditional logic. See if you haven’t found some of them in current arguments about invading Iraq.:

The Forever Changeless Trap. In this trap we think of the current condition as being the same forever.
The Process-Event Trap. This trap leads us into the error of thinking in terms of object-like "events" where we would do better to think in terms of processes.
The Solve It by Redefining It Trap. This could be called the Definition Can Do It Trap in that it attempts to solve problems by redefinition alone.
The Independent Self Trap. In this trap we separate organism from environment, ourselves from our interdependence with others.
The Isolated Problem Trap. In the grip of this trap we regard problems as unconnected to their wider contexts.
The Single Effect Trap. In this trap we think that we can cause a single effect with no "side-effects."
The Exclusive Alternatives Trap. Traditional logic tends to make us think in terms of either-or analysis. Many situations demand that we juggle more than two alternatives.

Many of these fallacies can be found in current arguments about the war, but “The Independent Self Trap” somehow seems most relevant. Horn describes this trap thusly:

If I have fallen into the Independent Self Trap I will imagine that I am totally separate and distinct from other people. I will have forgotten my interconnectedness and interdependence with others. Traditional logic programming tells us a thing can not be itself and something else (A is not not A). The axiom of contradiction emphasizes difference. This trap determines the kind of action that a person or organization takes when it fails to consider the people who will be deeply affected by it.

and he goes on to explain that:

Political leaders who fail to touch base with their allies before making important decisions about vital issues may have fallen into thinking that their country could operate alone, an independent self. While this is possible, alliances suffer from lack of trust, and more subtle and coordinated programs such as major economic policies are more difficult to put into effect. One possibility for avoiding this trap in analysis is to sketch out a list of parties likely to be affected and their likely points of view before approaching the problem.

Ring any bells? Have we heard many details about this side of the argument? Or, has it been largely ignored because of the “argument” that America has been right on recent decisions while Europe has been unable to come up with a unified effort to solve any of the major problems facing us? I wonder how many people who were "right" have ended up divorced, still "right" but very much alone and unhappy?

Horn goes beyond these traditional traps and outlines “six potential dialectic traps:”

The More Is Better Trap. In this trap we assume that anything can be solved by application of more resources.
The Force Can Do It Trap. In the grips of this trap we think in terms only of forcing a solution on the situation.
The Conflicts Create Productive Change Trap. A direct implication of dialectical thought is the idea that you can create change by creating conflict and that conflict will produce beneficial results.
The Inevitable Antagonism Trap. In this trap we assume that there is inevitable conflict between persons, organisms, groups, nation-states.
The No Limits Trap. This trap assumes limitless resources and arenas for action.
The There’s Got to Be a Winner Trap. This trap is the misapplication of the idea of a winner and loser to situations where it is not applicable.

Again, several of these would seem to apply, but one, “The Force Can Do it Trap” jumps to the forefront:

In personal relationships people sometimes think that they will somehow force their affections on someone else; that their persistence and insistence will overcome the resistance of the other. Or that in a difference of opinion the other will back down. (Note: this usually occurs together with the erroneous formal logic assumption that there will be no other consequences, no side effects.) The Force Can Do It Trap is the assumption that we should immediately turn to the use of some form of power or strength to change a situation, other people, or ourselves. As we grow up, we find that exerting our strength on occasion will help us overcome a physical obstacle. We wrestle and push other little kids and they get out of our way. From these simple origins, we generalize a cluster of ways to "force" a solution on a situation.

International relations is the supreme arena where the Force Can Do It Trap is played out. Sovereign nation-states act on the basis of their perceived "vital national interests" with military forces either in direct combat or with threats of the use of force. When uninfluenced by other considerations, this Force Can Do It Trap often leads the country into unanticipated consequences that are often disastrous. Leaders fail to anticipate the opponent’s will to endure. They fail to anticipate the inflationary effect of wars or military buildups on the economy. They sometimes fail to anticipate that a war will be unpopular with the populace upon whom they depend for support. Thus this attitude becomes a trap for those who only anticipate its most immediate favorable consequences. It is a dialectic trap that easily relies on the formal logic Single Effect Trap.

Now, it’s not my goal to oversimplify the argument or put words in Robert Horn’s mouth. I’ll leave that to the conservative warbloggers. In reality, I have no idea how Robert Horn feels about invading Iraq. So, keep in mind that he ends this discussion with the following caveat. (You did read the article yourself, right?)

Nothing in this discussion should be construed to indicate that the author thinks that force should never be used. Force is an appropriate response, for example, in self-defense where no other alternatives are available. We must distinguish dialectical "force" from a more neutral understanding of what we are doing when we "add energy to a situation in the appropriate amount." For example, if you want to get your ideas across, you must speak up. You mobilize the necessary energy, no more and no less. You are not using force in the dialectical sense. Now suppose instead of simply speaking up, you were to shout down someone you viewed as your opponent. You are then using force in the dialectical sense.

Again, I agree with Horn. Although I found it outrageous when Americans supported Iraq in its fight against Iranian-inspired Moslems in its own country, you know, when they used the mustard gas on their own people, I reluctantly supported the first war against Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. Like the conservatives, I reluctantly agreed we had to take action against Bin Laden and his organization after the attack on the World Tower. To let that act go unpunished would have sent the wrong message to Islamic radicals and would have encouraged further aggression. But, wasn’t that precisely why the rest of the world joined us in a mutual condemnation?

However, there doesn’t seem to be any smoking gun in our attack on Iraq. Yes, we made a mistake when we didn’t take Saddam out in the first war, but you can’t retry him on the same crime now. That’s against American law isn’t it? If there’s “evidence” enough to support a renewed attack, that evidence certainly hasn’t been presented to the American people. More to the point, it hasn’t been convincing to the leaders of foreign countries, many of whom must have been privy to information too “restricted” to reveal to mere citizens.

If we require a jury of our peers to convict us of a crime, how can we now reasonably argue that it’s enough that We, and we alone, find Saddam guilty while the rest of the international jury says that there is not enough evidence?

If we don’t stand for justice and international law, what do we stand for?