Guns don't kill people; people do
I'm not a big 2nd amendment guy. I don't own a guy, and I don't think I've ever pulled the trigger on anything but a pellet gun at scout camp. But I do think this is hilarious.
--JAN DEPAUW
UPDATE: Although it is true that I do not own a GUY, my original intention in the post was to declare that I do not own a GUN. Since I am too stupid to spell a three letter word correctly, it is probably for the best that I do not own either.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Cyber-flirtation alert
The debut of a dating service which teaches me that even economists and robots have feelings. Especially the women economists and robots.
--CASA DE DOLOR
UPDATE 2006.04.01 : Going on a date during General Conference seems like it would be weird. Going on a date on April Fools Day seems like it would be weird. But going on a date to General Conference on April Fools Day turns out to be pretty normal. Good, even. Maybe it's one of those double negative thingies...
The debut of a dating service which teaches me that even economists and robots have feelings. Especially the women economists and robots.
--CASA DE DOLOR
UPDATE 2006.04.01 : Going on a date during General Conference seems like it would be weird. Going on a date on April Fools Day seems like it would be weird. But going on a date to General Conference on April Fools Day turns out to be pretty normal. Good, even. Maybe it's one of those double negative thingies...
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Defining terrorism
[Editor's note: Cross-posted at Times & Seasons.]
By request, this morning I am going to talk about defining terrorism. The first important thing you need to realize is that there is no single widely accepted definition, either in academia or in the policy world. Everyone uses their own. So we're going to talk about how you can build your own definition of terrorism.
The second important thing to realize is that any definition of terrorism is going to make some people happy and some people unhappy. Your definition does not need to please everyone, but you should be able to defend it. To do this, you have to realize what it is you like about your definition. What quality (or qualities) about your newly built definition satisfy you? This is your standard, the yardstick with which you are measuring the goodness of any definition of terrorism.
Be explicit. If you like yours because it's very broad and inclusive, say so. If you like yours because it's narrow and exclusive, say so. And try to think about why you like that particular standard-- what's good about broadness, or narrowness, or whatever? Given your definition's virtues (and deficiencies), what is it good for? What makes it useful? What questions will it help you to answer? What are its limitations?
Your definition will also be judged by what it includes and what it excludes. It may exclude groups or acts which some people consider terrorism, and so they will judge your definition to be defective. It may include groups or acts which some people do not consider terrorism, with the same result. Again, remember that you cannot please everyone. All definitions are arbitrary to some degree. Pick a definition you like, and which you can defend.
So, let us begin.
We're going to be constructing your definition in a modular fashion. We're going to consider five individual elements of the definition separately. I am going to lay out some of the questions which must be answered by any definition of terrorism. Your answers to these five questions will guide you in the construction of your own definition.
1. How much action is required? Most people consider terrorism to be some variety of violent action. But definitions do not agree on the amount of violence which is required. Is a threat enough, or must there be a physical act? Must the action be successful, or is an attempt enough? If actual violence is required, does the violence need to involve injury to human beings, or is property damage enough? If property damage is sufficient, then how much property damage is required for you to consider an action to be terrorism? (What about graffiti? Is there a dollar amount of damage required? Or do you want to lean on established legal definitions and say that it must be a certain class of misdemeanor, or a felony?) If human injury is required, what level of injury do you require? (Hospitalization? Crippling? Death?)
2. How much organization is required? Can a single individual acting on his own be a terrorist? (Ted Kaczynski, for instance.) What about a single individual, who feels sympathy for a larger movement, and who acts to advance the goals of that movement, but is not a member of a larger organization? (Examples which might fit here include Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammed.) Or does terrorism require multiple people working together, as part of a formal organization?
3. Can actions by the state be considered terrorism? Although the word "terrorism" was coined to describe actions carried out by the revolutionary French state, most contemporary definitions of terrorism explicitly exclude state action. One notable exception is prominent leftist activist Noam Chomsky, whose writings on terrorism focus almost exclusively on the actions of states-- the United States and Israel in particular. Most other scholars and policymakers define terrorism as an action by non-state actors.
There is still a gray area here, though, since several states sponsor violent extremist groups whose actions they do not completely control. How closely affiliated with a state can a group be without having their actions be considered a state action? For instance, the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades are considered to be a wing of the Fatah political party, which was in power when the Brigades were formed in the Second Intidada. (The Sinn Fein likewise has an armed wing-- the Provisional IRA-- but as Sinn Fein has become persuaded that they have a chance at governing, they have disavowed violent action. In 2005, the Provisional IRA itself renounced violence.) The Columbian state has also given official support at times to right-wing paramilitary groups using terrorist tactics, in order to fight against left-wing terrorists and guerillas. Again, the question is, how much support can a state offer and still deny responsibility?
4. Are certain intentions or goals required? Most definitions state that terrorism is an action which is intended to cause a psychological response-- fear. Many definitions also require terrorists to have political goals. This is especially important if you believe that a single individual, with no membership in any larger organization, can be a terrorist. Is a serial killer a terrorist? A mugger or bank robber? What about an extortionist? If not, what distinguishes such a criminal from a terrorist? What about an organization whose goals are so out-of-this-world that they can hardly be called political? Agents of the quasi-religious movement Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas on a Tokyo subway for reasons that are murky, but arguably include the desire to bring about the end of the world. Is this a political goal? If not, then what about Islamist terrorists who want to bring about the return of the Caliphate, or the Mahdi, or a unified global Islamic state? These goals are also religious, and no more likely to occur. Is this other-worldliness offset by other, more limited goals such as the overthrow of specific governments in the middle east, or the end of US financial and military support for Israel?
5. What targets are acceptable? Many scholars consider terrorism to be a phenomenon aimed at non-combatants. Military personnel are fair game, in this formulation, because they have chosen this profession and in so doing accepted the inherent risks. Violence directed toward military personnel is defined instead as a kind of unconventional warfare. On the other hand, what about attacking military personnel when they are sleeping in their barracks? What about attacking military personnel when they are out of uniform and off duty in a disco? Or why make the distinction at all? On September 11th, were the soldiers in the Pentagon less the victims of a terrorist attack than the civilians in the twin towers?
...
So, those are the five questions I have to ask. Other scholars might ask additional components, but I think that any serious definition of terror must include answers to at least these five questions. Use your answers to build your definition. Feel free to post yours in the comments, and to explain why you chose as you did.
--PROFESSOR DAVIDSON
UPDATE Craig S. posts a thought-provoking response over at Splendid Sun.
[Editor's note: Cross-posted at Times & Seasons.]
By request, this morning I am going to talk about defining terrorism. The first important thing you need to realize is that there is no single widely accepted definition, either in academia or in the policy world. Everyone uses their own. So we're going to talk about how you can build your own definition of terrorism.
The second important thing to realize is that any definition of terrorism is going to make some people happy and some people unhappy. Your definition does not need to please everyone, but you should be able to defend it. To do this, you have to realize what it is you like about your definition. What quality (or qualities) about your newly built definition satisfy you? This is your standard, the yardstick with which you are measuring the goodness of any definition of terrorism.
Be explicit. If you like yours because it's very broad and inclusive, say so. If you like yours because it's narrow and exclusive, say so. And try to think about why you like that particular standard-- what's good about broadness, or narrowness, or whatever? Given your definition's virtues (and deficiencies), what is it good for? What makes it useful? What questions will it help you to answer? What are its limitations?
Your definition will also be judged by what it includes and what it excludes. It may exclude groups or acts which some people consider terrorism, and so they will judge your definition to be defective. It may include groups or acts which some people do not consider terrorism, with the same result. Again, remember that you cannot please everyone. All definitions are arbitrary to some degree. Pick a definition you like, and which you can defend.
So, let us begin.
We're going to be constructing your definition in a modular fashion. We're going to consider five individual elements of the definition separately. I am going to lay out some of the questions which must be answered by any definition of terrorism. Your answers to these five questions will guide you in the construction of your own definition.
1. How much action is required? Most people consider terrorism to be some variety of violent action. But definitions do not agree on the amount of violence which is required. Is a threat enough, or must there be a physical act? Must the action be successful, or is an attempt enough? If actual violence is required, does the violence need to involve injury to human beings, or is property damage enough? If property damage is sufficient, then how much property damage is required for you to consider an action to be terrorism? (What about graffiti? Is there a dollar amount of damage required? Or do you want to lean on established legal definitions and say that it must be a certain class of misdemeanor, or a felony?) If human injury is required, what level of injury do you require? (Hospitalization? Crippling? Death?)
2. How much organization is required? Can a single individual acting on his own be a terrorist? (Ted Kaczynski, for instance.) What about a single individual, who feels sympathy for a larger movement, and who acts to advance the goals of that movement, but is not a member of a larger organization? (Examples which might fit here include Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammed.) Or does terrorism require multiple people working together, as part of a formal organization?
3. Can actions by the state be considered terrorism? Although the word "terrorism" was coined to describe actions carried out by the revolutionary French state, most contemporary definitions of terrorism explicitly exclude state action. One notable exception is prominent leftist activist Noam Chomsky, whose writings on terrorism focus almost exclusively on the actions of states-- the United States and Israel in particular. Most other scholars and policymakers define terrorism as an action by non-state actors.
There is still a gray area here, though, since several states sponsor violent extremist groups whose actions they do not completely control. How closely affiliated with a state can a group be without having their actions be considered a state action? For instance, the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades are considered to be a wing of the Fatah political party, which was in power when the Brigades were formed in the Second Intidada. (The Sinn Fein likewise has an armed wing-- the Provisional IRA-- but as Sinn Fein has become persuaded that they have a chance at governing, they have disavowed violent action. In 2005, the Provisional IRA itself renounced violence.) The Columbian state has also given official support at times to right-wing paramilitary groups using terrorist tactics, in order to fight against left-wing terrorists and guerillas. Again, the question is, how much support can a state offer and still deny responsibility?
4. Are certain intentions or goals required? Most definitions state that terrorism is an action which is intended to cause a psychological response-- fear. Many definitions also require terrorists to have political goals. This is especially important if you believe that a single individual, with no membership in any larger organization, can be a terrorist. Is a serial killer a terrorist? A mugger or bank robber? What about an extortionist? If not, what distinguishes such a criminal from a terrorist? What about an organization whose goals are so out-of-this-world that they can hardly be called political? Agents of the quasi-religious movement Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas on a Tokyo subway for reasons that are murky, but arguably include the desire to bring about the end of the world. Is this a political goal? If not, then what about Islamist terrorists who want to bring about the return of the Caliphate, or the Mahdi, or a unified global Islamic state? These goals are also religious, and no more likely to occur. Is this other-worldliness offset by other, more limited goals such as the overthrow of specific governments in the middle east, or the end of US financial and military support for Israel?
5. What targets are acceptable? Many scholars consider terrorism to be a phenomenon aimed at non-combatants. Military personnel are fair game, in this formulation, because they have chosen this profession and in so doing accepted the inherent risks. Violence directed toward military personnel is defined instead as a kind of unconventional warfare. On the other hand, what about attacking military personnel when they are sleeping in their barracks? What about attacking military personnel when they are out of uniform and off duty in a disco? Or why make the distinction at all? On September 11th, were the soldiers in the Pentagon less the victims of a terrorist attack than the civilians in the twin towers?
...
So, those are the five questions I have to ask. Other scholars might ask additional components, but I think that any serious definition of terror must include answers to at least these five questions. Use your answers to build your definition. Feel free to post yours in the comments, and to explain why you chose as you did.
--PROFESSOR DAVIDSON
UPDATE Craig S. posts a thought-provoking response over at Splendid Sun.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Friends
I'm updating the ol' blogroll this morning. Here are the blogs of five women I know from Boston. I'm not sure why it is that I know several women and zero men from my ward who have blogs, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that we men are losers.
Anyway, LINKS!
A Day in an Often Overwhelming Life is written by Kelly, who used to live just the other side of Davis Square from me, but who now has gone to seek her fortune. Good luck, Kelly!
Sylvia has a "methinks," not a blog, called FishieFishies. Bill Gates has conspired to prevent me from commenting on her site, but some day I shall figure out how to do it. (Until then, no one will find out the connection I see between J. Golden Kimball, Teancum, and secret superpowers.)
I don't bump into Cathy as often as I used to, but now that I know she has a blog, I can bump into her here in virtual reality. Her blog is called The Indomitable Optimist, and I'm glad I found it!
I have been on a double date with Mary, and I am forced to admit that I spent the whole time arguing with her about Kentucky Fried Chicken and the genetics of poultry. (And now you all know why I am still single.) Check out Mary + Her Mental Health for easter egg memories and other fun stuff.
Stacer's Journal is the creation of Stacey, from whom I bought the DVD of Ocean's 11 for seven dollars. Best purchase I ever made. Stacey does the kind of writing that I wish I could do-- and gets paid for it! I'm envious, but hopeful that I can crib some secret tips from her blog.
I'm sure I have other friends out there in the ether, whose blogs I will stumble upon some day. But if any of you, my imaginary readers, can help me in my quest, I would be much obliged.
--SAN GIOVANNI UMILIATO
UPDATE
One more friend! Maria, at whose house I once won a game of Trivial Pursuit, has also departed Boston, but is not forgotten. Her blog is called Miss Hass's Happenings. Since Maria recently became an aunt, her blog is a great place to go for pictures of babies And everybody likes that.
I'm updating the ol' blogroll this morning. Here are the blogs of five women I know from Boston. I'm not sure why it is that I know several women and zero men from my ward who have blogs, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that we men are losers.
Anyway, LINKS!
A Day in an Often Overwhelming Life is written by Kelly, who used to live just the other side of Davis Square from me, but who now has gone to seek her fortune. Good luck, Kelly!
Sylvia has a "methinks," not a blog, called FishieFishies. Bill Gates has conspired to prevent me from commenting on her site, but some day I shall figure out how to do it. (Until then, no one will find out the connection I see between J. Golden Kimball, Teancum, and secret superpowers.)
I don't bump into Cathy as often as I used to, but now that I know she has a blog, I can bump into her here in virtual reality. Her blog is called The Indomitable Optimist, and I'm glad I found it!
I have been on a double date with Mary, and I am forced to admit that I spent the whole time arguing with her about Kentucky Fried Chicken and the genetics of poultry. (And now you all know why I am still single.) Check out Mary + Her Mental Health for easter egg memories and other fun stuff.
Stacer's Journal is the creation of Stacey, from whom I bought the DVD of Ocean's 11 for seven dollars. Best purchase I ever made. Stacey does the kind of writing that I wish I could do-- and gets paid for it! I'm envious, but hopeful that I can crib some secret tips from her blog.
I'm sure I have other friends out there in the ether, whose blogs I will stumble upon some day. But if any of you, my imaginary readers, can help me in my quest, I would be much obliged.
--SAN GIOVANNI UMILIATO
UPDATE
One more friend! Maria, at whose house I once won a game of Trivial Pursuit, has also departed Boston, but is not forgotten. Her blog is called Miss Hass's Happenings. Since Maria recently became an aunt, her blog is a great place to go for pictures of babies And everybody likes that.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Welcome, T&S readers!
Howdy there! I am proud to be guest-blogging over at Times & Seasons, which has long been my favoritest Mormon group blog. Hooray!
And now, T&S readers, permit me to introduce you to my own humble blog. House of Payne International is a phony group blog. The posts all have different names at the bottom, but they're all me. I just like psuedonyms.
I mostly write about politics, especially US foreign policy and international relations, but I also have plenty of posts on comic books, science fiction, and other nerd stuff. Here is a list of some of my favorite posts:
1. I figure out that Mormons are probably all literal descendents of Israel
2. A review of the greatest book in the history of the English language (and the second greatest)
3. Considering the self-organizing properties of the right-wing blogosphere
4. I link to my cartoon website
5. Preparing for the electoral apocalypse
6. Two rare instances of Bush-criticism
7. Thoughts on immigration, legal and illegal
8. This is still how I feel about the Iraq War
9. George Clooney wants me to know that he doesn't like me, either
10. An earlier greatest-hits list
You may notice as you peruse the archives that I took most of 2005 off. Consider it a sabbatical. After the 2004 presidential election, I found that I just didn't have much to say. But now I'm back, and ready to once more shout my opinions into an uncaring void. Hooray!
--FABULOUS J
Howdy there! I am proud to be guest-blogging over at Times & Seasons, which has long been my favoritest Mormon group blog. Hooray!
And now, T&S readers, permit me to introduce you to my own humble blog. House of Payne International is a phony group blog. The posts all have different names at the bottom, but they're all me. I just like psuedonyms.
I mostly write about politics, especially US foreign policy and international relations, but I also have plenty of posts on comic books, science fiction, and other nerd stuff. Here is a list of some of my favorite posts:
1. I figure out that Mormons are probably all literal descendents of Israel
2. A review of the greatest book in the history of the English language (and the second greatest)
3. Considering the self-organizing properties of the right-wing blogosphere
4. I link to my cartoon website
5. Preparing for the electoral apocalypse
6. Two rare instances of Bush-criticism
7. Thoughts on immigration, legal and illegal
8. This is still how I feel about the Iraq War
9. George Clooney wants me to know that he doesn't like me, either
10. An earlier greatest-hits list
You may notice as you peruse the archives that I took most of 2005 off. Consider it a sabbatical. After the 2004 presidential election, I found that I just didn't have much to say. But now I'm back, and ready to once more shout my opinions into an uncaring void. Hooray!
--FABULOUS J
Sunday, March 26, 2006
If the mountain will not come to Mohammed,
Mohammed will go tell it on the mountain
Earlier this afternoon one of my roommates and I watched a show on the History Channel about the history of Islam. They dedicated at least a half hour to telling us what jihad means (hint: it doesn't mean killing infidels) and discussing the correctness of Osama Bin Laden's interpretations of Koranic verse (hint: he's wrong).
That's all well and good, but whenever I see something like this on TV or read it in the papers, I must admit there's a part of me that gets a little irked. Why? Well, let me explain.
A bunch of guys somewhere over in the middle east agree that Islam means submission and the Koran teaches that it's imperative to kill or conquer people who think differently than they do. Then they start acting on this idea and blowing people and things (and themselves) to kingdom come. As a reaction to this, other guys get on the TV and the radio, and in the newspaper, saying that Islam means peace and the Koran teaches us tolerance and not killing. Fine. Good. All right.
But why is it that they are always saying this to the victims? We're not the ones that need to hear this. Tell it to the folks back in the middle east who disagree with this non-violent interpretation. Convince them. They're the ones who need to be persuaded that Islam means peace and jihad means an inner struggle against the desire to sin. Not me. I'm not the one blowing people up.
Some people of a different political persuasion would disagree with me on this point. American soldiers are over in the middle east killing people, including some very innocent people. Americans do need to be convinced that Islam means peace, they would argue, because if they are not, they will keep fighting wars with Muslims.
Well, I would of course take issue with the implicit moral equivalency between terrorists and soldiers. But there is nothing new in this comparison, and nothing to be gained from my taking issue, so let us move on.
Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that the reason the United States has fought two wars with Muslim states in recent years is that Americans believe Islam is violent and threatening, and that convincing them of Islam's pacific nature would prevent further wars. Let us then ask why Americans believe this. Is it because their leaders teach them this? Well, George W. Bush makes a point of saying "Islam means peace" whenever the subject comes up.
So why do Americans believe that Muslims are commanded to conquer and subdue the infidels? Because some (indeterminate but non-trivial) number of Muslims believe this, and some (smaller but still significant) number act on this belief. Actions speak louder than words. If Americans think of Islam as a threat, it is because some Muslims act threatening.
As long as there are people shouting "Allahu akbar!" as they detonate themselves on public transportation, some Americans will persist in believing that Islam is not a religion of peace. No number of talking heads saying otherwise will be sufficient. On the other hand, in a world where terrorists do not claim that they are fulfilling Allah's will by killing infidels, I think it would take very little effort to persuade Americans that Muslims are peaceful, which would mean we wouldn't be doing all this regime-changing.
So, again, we come to the same conclusion. The guys on TV who are telling me about the true meaning of Islam and the correct interpretation of the Koran are preaching to the wrong guy.
Go tell it to Osama.
--DAOUD AL-RAHIMI
Mohammed will go tell it on the mountain
Earlier this afternoon one of my roommates and I watched a show on the History Channel about the history of Islam. They dedicated at least a half hour to telling us what jihad means (hint: it doesn't mean killing infidels) and discussing the correctness of Osama Bin Laden's interpretations of Koranic verse (hint: he's wrong).
That's all well and good, but whenever I see something like this on TV or read it in the papers, I must admit there's a part of me that gets a little irked. Why? Well, let me explain.
A bunch of guys somewhere over in the middle east agree that Islam means submission and the Koran teaches that it's imperative to kill or conquer people who think differently than they do. Then they start acting on this idea and blowing people and things (and themselves) to kingdom come. As a reaction to this, other guys get on the TV and the radio, and in the newspaper, saying that Islam means peace and the Koran teaches us tolerance and not killing. Fine. Good. All right.
But why is it that they are always saying this to the victims? We're not the ones that need to hear this. Tell it to the folks back in the middle east who disagree with this non-violent interpretation. Convince them. They're the ones who need to be persuaded that Islam means peace and jihad means an inner struggle against the desire to sin. Not me. I'm not the one blowing people up.
Some people of a different political persuasion would disagree with me on this point. American soldiers are over in the middle east killing people, including some very innocent people. Americans do need to be convinced that Islam means peace, they would argue, because if they are not, they will keep fighting wars with Muslims.
Well, I would of course take issue with the implicit moral equivalency between terrorists and soldiers. But there is nothing new in this comparison, and nothing to be gained from my taking issue, so let us move on.
Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that the reason the United States has fought two wars with Muslim states in recent years is that Americans believe Islam is violent and threatening, and that convincing them of Islam's pacific nature would prevent further wars. Let us then ask why Americans believe this. Is it because their leaders teach them this? Well, George W. Bush makes a point of saying "Islam means peace" whenever the subject comes up.
So why do Americans believe that Muslims are commanded to conquer and subdue the infidels? Because some (indeterminate but non-trivial) number of Muslims believe this, and some (smaller but still significant) number act on this belief. Actions speak louder than words. If Americans think of Islam as a threat, it is because some Muslims act threatening.
As long as there are people shouting "Allahu akbar!" as they detonate themselves on public transportation, some Americans will persist in believing that Islam is not a religion of peace. No number of talking heads saying otherwise will be sufficient. On the other hand, in a world where terrorists do not claim that they are fulfilling Allah's will by killing infidels, I think it would take very little effort to persuade Americans that Muslims are peaceful, which would mean we wouldn't be doing all this regime-changing.
So, again, we come to the same conclusion. The guys on TV who are telling me about the true meaning of Islam and the correct interpretation of the Koran are preaching to the wrong guy.
Go tell it to Osama.
--DAOUD AL-RAHIMI
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Noam Chomsky's secret shame
I will be the first to admit that I have feelings which are not entirely positive about my school. At this point, though, school and I have pretty much learned to live with each other.
There is one thing, though, that never fails to bring up the bile. And that is when someone, upon learning where I go to school, says, "Oh, you must know Professor Chomsky!" At this point, I must carefully control my facial muscles, to prevent them from assuming a snarling rictus of fury. Then I politely inform the person that Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics, and not political science. So I have no contact with the man.
So it was with unspeakable delight that I read a story this morning about Chomsky's hypocrisy. (h/t: Dean.) It seems that the anti-capitalist hero of pot-smoking America-haters everywhere is a capitalist. Imagine that.
There's plenty more, and it's damning, but not surprising. The man clearly has few scruples. In the fall of 2001, I attended one of Mr. Chomsky's talks. He said that the American invasion of Afghanistan would cause the deaths of millions of Afghans by starvation, and further that this was the purpose of the invasion.
(I should not need to add that he was very wrong on both counts. Americans labored very hard to save the lives of people who would have died of starvation that winter had the Afghan civil war continued without our intervention. The warlords there are not so tender-hearted as we are.)
At this moment I knew two things. First, Noam Chomsky is not a serious thinker or writer about international politics. Second, Noam Chomsky is not a friend of America. And so it is with great pleasure that I find him being exposed as a hypocrite: the dedicated Marxist who is just as dedicated to acquiring capital, and preventing the government from taking it away through taxes.
Now that he's been outed, maybe he can finally admit what so many of us have long suspected: His capitalism-o-phobia was only a ruse to cover his own secret capitalist yearnings. Come on out of that closet, Noam. Being a capitalist is nothing to be ashamed of. It's beautiful, it's natural.
It will be difficult for some of your followers to accept your money-philia, but who are they to tell you who or what to love? And could it be that some of those anti-business hippies are suffering from the same secret shame?
Maybe it's time for a tearful confession, perhaps on Oprah. It might sound something like this:
There, now. That's not so bad, is it?
--JOHANNES CLERK
I will be the first to admit that I have feelings which are not entirely positive about my school. At this point, though, school and I have pretty much learned to live with each other.
There is one thing, though, that never fails to bring up the bile. And that is when someone, upon learning where I go to school, says, "Oh, you must know Professor Chomsky!" At this point, I must carefully control my facial muscles, to prevent them from assuming a snarling rictus of fury. Then I politely inform the person that Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics, and not political science. So I have no contact with the man.
So it was with unspeakable delight that I read a story this morning about Chomsky's hypocrisy. (h/t: Dean.) It seems that the anti-capitalist hero of pot-smoking America-haters everywhere is a capitalist. Imagine that.
One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky's work has been class warfare. The iconic MIT linguist and left-wing activist frequently has lashed out against the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich," and criticized the concentration of wealth in "trusts" by the wealthiest 1%. He says the U.S. tax code is rigged with "complicated devices for ensuring that the poor -- like 80% of the population -- pay off the rich."
But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of US$2-million, decided to create one for himself. ...
Chomsky favours massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
There's plenty more, and it's damning, but not surprising. The man clearly has few scruples. In the fall of 2001, I attended one of Mr. Chomsky's talks. He said that the American invasion of Afghanistan would cause the deaths of millions of Afghans by starvation, and further that this was the purpose of the invasion.
(I should not need to add that he was very wrong on both counts. Americans labored very hard to save the lives of people who would have died of starvation that winter had the Afghan civil war continued without our intervention. The warlords there are not so tender-hearted as we are.)
At this moment I knew two things. First, Noam Chomsky is not a serious thinker or writer about international politics. Second, Noam Chomsky is not a friend of America. And so it is with great pleasure that I find him being exposed as a hypocrite: the dedicated Marxist who is just as dedicated to acquiring capital, and preventing the government from taking it away through taxes.
Now that he's been outed, maybe he can finally admit what so many of us have long suspected: His capitalism-o-phobia was only a ruse to cover his own secret capitalist yearnings. Come on out of that closet, Noam. Being a capitalist is nothing to be ashamed of. It's beautiful, it's natural.
It will be difficult for some of your followers to accept your money-philia, but who are they to tell you who or what to love? And could it be that some of those anti-business hippies are suffering from the same secret shame?
Maybe it's time for a tearful confession, perhaps on Oprah. It might sound something like this:
"Good afternoon. Throughout my life, I have grappled with my own identity, who I am. As a young child, I often felt ambivalent about myself, in fact, confused.
...from my early days in school until the present day, I acknowledged some feelings, a certain sense separated me from others. But because of my resolve and also thinking that I was doing the right thing, I forced what I though was an acceptable reality onto myself, a reality which is layered and layered with all the, quote, good things and all the, quote, right things of typical adolescent and adult behavior.
...
At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is.
And so my truth is that I am a capitalist American, and I am blessed to live in the greatest nation, with a tradition of civil liberties, the greatest tradition of civil liberties in the world, in a country which provides so much to its people."
There, now. That's not so bad, is it?
--JOHANNES CLERK
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Geoffrey Chaucer hath a blog
Best parody blog ever. Not that there's a lot of competition, actually. Sort of a puzzle, isn't it? I guess it's hard to keep up the act for long. The obvious exception, of course, is the redoubtable Ayn Clouter, but she is a synthesis of Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter, which is really a new character entirely.
--REDBEARD
(h/t: Ace.)
Best parody blog ever. Not that there's a lot of competition, actually. Sort of a puzzle, isn't it? I guess it's hard to keep up the act for long. The obvious exception, of course, is the redoubtable Ayn Clouter, but she is a synthesis of Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter, which is really a new character entirely.
--REDBEARD
(h/t: Ace.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
