Balance

--Sebastian

One of my key watchwords is "balance".  For instance I believe that temperamental conservatives and temperamental liberals both have excellent things to add to society and that they need each other to be most effective.  I'm not all about splitting the middle, I'm often quite sure that there is a right and wrong answer, but I'm sure that there are multiple fruitful approachs to a question.  This post by Joseph Britt (guest writing for Daniel Drezner) reminded me of one of things about foreign policy analysis that tends to get out of balance:  the alleged duality between "realist" and "idealist" concepts of foreign policy.  Now I realize that international relations professors use the two terms in highly specialized ways that are not closely related to how everyone else uses them.  I think it is a mistake to choose your jargon in such a way as to make such confusion easy, but that is a rant for another day.  In common parlance (and that may actually have more of a political effect than the international relations jargon anyway) the discussion seem to treat "idealist" foreign policy and "realist" foreign policy as opposite.  Carter is usually cast in the role of "idealist" and Nixon as "realist" for instance.  The problem is that the terms, especially as loosely used, are not opposites.  The reason they are sometimes seen as in tension is that realists often offer a pragmatic check on what idealists want to do.  It isn't a bad thing to try to know what you can and cannot do.  But focusing exlusively on means doesn't tell you what ends you ought to be striving for.  It is perfectly proper to be driven idealistically and let realistic assessments of the situation influence your methods. 

It isn't wrong to be an "idealist" unless you just ignore pragmatic concerns.  It isn't wrong to be pragmatic so long as you are willing to let idealism guide your general direction. 

Interestingly enough (because I'm sure the comparison will offend almost everyone) both Carter and Bush II offered policy directions which seemed to be largely idealistic, and also unwilling to adequately address the pragmatic concerns of their critics.  The key problem with both presidents is that they knew where they wanted to go, but didn't spend enough energy figuring out how to get there in an imperfect world.  Bush's key problem in Iraq is that he saw where he wanted to go, and (in my view correctly identified the first step) but did not plan further than that.  His strategic aim was correct (with Saddam presiding over a festering Iraq in the Middle East, the likelihood of needed change happening was slim) but he approached the problem from a purely tactical consideraton of getting rid of Saddam without implementing a strategic vision of what to do after Saddam was gone.  He did not address the concerns of cautionary realists.  It is possible to have a successful foreign policy without convincing the realists around you to do what you want, but that is very different from not even addressing their concerns.  Instead of saying "I will address the limitations you worry about in the following ways, and though you think it isn't enough to make it worthwhile, I am definitely addressing the area of concern", he basically said "I'm not going to worry about it".  Interestingly enough, the flip side of the problem is found in Bush I and Clinton.  Neither could get past momentary pragmatic concerns enough to really lead in foreign policy .  They might start on a problem, but would get so bogged down in technical concerns that they were often paralyzed into inaction or gave up too quickly.  Bush I gave up on crushing Saddam far too quickly.  Even if he didn't want to conquer Baghdad, he could still have supported the revolutionary attempts (which he had encouraged) when they finally came or at the very least destroyed Saddam's armies while they were fleeing (as opposed to the ones that were surrendering).  But both choices would have involved making things difficult for the 'coalition' of the First Gulf War.  Instead of trying to move forward and change coalition goals into a more idealistic vision, he basically gave up and let Saddam become the Arab hero who was able to successfully stand up to the US and walk away from it (leading to the dangerous myth of US lack-of-will which contributed to Osama bin Laden's miscalculations later). 

Idealistic foreign policy visions and realist concerns ought not be considered separate schools of thought which are distinct methods of forming policy.  Both are crucial ingredients to a well formed foreign policy. 

Not all complaints about the limited vision of self-identified "realists" are wrong, nor is it evident that the current administration's "idealism" is the wellspring of its policies as opposed to an ex post facto justification for them. Effective foreign policy requires an understanding of what you want to do, a strategy for getting it done, and the ability both to distinguish the battles that can be won from those that cannot and to distinguish the situations where America can impose its will from those in which we must respond to events. It is not an accident that the period of greatest American success in foreign policy have come when the people running it -- Marshall, Acheson, Nixon, Kissinger -- have had these things and something else that is mostly lacking today, an understanding that a foreign policy made with one eye on campaign politics is bound to run into trouble regardless of what doctrine it proclaims. The people, not their doctrines, make the policy.

(From the danieldrezner link above.)

Comments

[felixrayman]

Bush's key problem in Iraq is that he saw where he wanted to go, and (in my view correctly identified the first step)

He wanted to invade Iraq no matter what the rationale, cost, or consequences, and the first step was convincing a gullible public and press that Iraq was more of a threat than it was in reality. How is that "correct"?

They might start on a problem, but would get so bogged down in technical concerns that they were often paralyzed into inaction or gave up too quickly. Bush I gave up on crushing Saddam far too quickly.

Bush Sr:

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome

That is not "technical concerns", Sebastian. That is, again, called "reality".

(leading to the dangerous myth of US lack-of-will which contributed to Osama bin Laden's miscalculations later)

4 years down the road from the 9/11 attacks bin Laden is still free, Al Qaeda can still carry out terrorist attacks on an international scale, US forces have been forced out of Saudi Arabia, Israel has left Gaza, and Sharia law is being implemented in Iraq after a more secular regime was overthrown.

Who the hell miscalculated? What else could bin Laden have wished for when he planned his attacks, the West Bank and a pony?

Anyway, you need to define your terms correctly. "Realist" means you suck up to dictators when it is politically convenient while paying lip service to human rights. You know, Nixon, Reagan, Bush. Those guys. "Idealist" means you stand up for human rights everywhere, even if it means you are a one-term president rather than a two-term torturer with a "mandate".

[Jesurgislac]

I don't know if you read Body and Soul regularly, Sebastian, but Donald Johnson wrote a guest post recently on the topic of "idealists and realists": he based it on a New York Times op ed from 18th August.

[dmbeaster]

How about the possibility that instead of being idealistic but flawed like Carter, Bush II is simply marred by venality? In 2002, it was common wisdom that it would be nice to be rid of Saddam, or find better ways to marginalize him. So what to do? Bush and crew decided that the way to accomplish this was by warmongering, and that the imposition of wider policy goals by force was the way to go. And that the way to rope a democracy into this program was through deceit regarding the bogus WMD and Saddam's alleged Al Queda links.

Those are the attributes of venality -- not flawed idealism.

Nominally, a Bush policy goal was spreading peace and democracy, but you have to be a fool to think that peace and democracy are spread by wars and the imposition of policy by force or threat of force. And a fool to think that you spread such values by rooting your cause in deceit concerning the reasons for going. So just maybe that rhetoric is not the underlying motivation -- maybe its just another part of the marketing campaign. And that the subsequent inability to match actions to rhetoric springs from indifference in the first instance to those goals. And that the misuse of the rhetoric is another mark of venality.

It is correct that the Iraq post-war has been bungled, but is it correct that the mess is the result of actions by bunglers? I think not.

The policy has been shaped by men who think it appropriate to leave government as soon as possible to set up shop cashing in by consulting with business on how to cash in on the reconstruction. While those in government shape policy for the benefit of their profiteer soul mates. The contrast between the values of the men who shaped US post war efforts in WWII and those today in Iraq could not be more startling. Even rock-ribbed conservativers like MacArthur understood that unions in post-war Japan were essential to democracy. Bush and crew sent unschooled ideologues to man the CPA in some sort of Ayn Rand effort to remake Iraq into... what? America in the late 19th century when unregulated capitalism reined supreme in all its ugly glory?

Get real about the motivations of those who are shaping this policy. It is neither idealistic nor realisitc. Unless Bring Back the Era of Robber Barons counts as an ideology.

[CharleyCarp]

A fine post. I think you're not being particularly fair to either Clinton or Bush I: both acheived very significant gains for the interests of the United States. Neither was thrown out at home, trying to stretch out a double. I agree that the failure to support the '91 Shia uprising more quickly was a tragedy, but still think we don't know whether an Iran-friendly, jurisprudent-friendly Shia dominated state is going to be in our long term interests.

You don't identify Clinton's failure. I'm not sure what you think it is. He pushed Arafat and Israel as far as he could to get a deal, but the gap couldn't be closed. This was not a failure of Clinton's will or vision, but a problem that was, on the facts then extant, not solvable. If you think quicker involvement in the Balkans, or any involvement in Rwanda is the issue, I think you need to postulate the possibility that doing something different, in the context of the times, would have been better than what was done. Clinton's vision on Northern Ireland can hardly be disparaged. Or Haiti, certainly a project more idealist than realist.

I think Bush II and Carter are orders of magnitude different. In fact, I remember that at the time the knock on Carter was that he was personally wrapped up in all the details. In any case, I think the contrast between the transformative effects of Camp David and the transformative effects of Gulf War II look pretty favorable to Carter, especially if you put yourself in the position of one of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who cannot under any circumstances be said to be better off for the removal of the Baathist regime. Carter's body count was pretty low, iirc. Wilson is a better match, but too far outside our personal experience, I guess.

I don't know who, if anyone, actually believed Saddam's line about being an Arab hero for standing up to the west. My perception is that nobody liked him, and only listened quietly to his bragging out of fear of what would emerge from his absence. If Saddam 'won' though, you'd have to call UBL's victory positively smashing. Instead of calling him a criminal and a mass-murderer, and hunting him down like a dog, he was appointed the head of a quasi-State with which a superpower could be, and was, at war. He survived Tora Bora, and who knows how many near misses before and after, and his forces have fought the Crusader to a near standstill in Iraq.

Again, good post.

[CharleyCarp]

dm, I think venality is a fair charge. I also think, though, that they really did believe that Iraq would fold quickly and easily, that they would be greeted as liberators, and that a transitional regime could quickly give way to a stable democracy.

They thought all the realists would be proved wrong, and that the objections and lies would be forgotten, in the glory of the results. There are still a hard core of people -- 30% at least, who believe this, and that we're (a) winning in Iraq and (b) not now far off from where the President said we'd be, from the beginning.

[Tad Brennan]

Mr. Holsclaw--

Thanks for an excellent post.

I have a few disagreements here and there, and if I have time later I may try to offer them, but first I want to thank you for the time and thought you put into this.

This post is a fine example of what keeps me coming back to this site. (A balanced meditation on balance, on a site devoted to balance).

[Dantheman]

Very good post.

I strongly agree with the comparison between Bush the Younger and Carter, although suspect that they got to the point of being idealistic-to-a-fault in different ways (a topic for another time).

I also think that, while Carter was entirely straightforward about his aims and vision and naively assumed just setting them forth would get others to fall in behind him, Bush feels the need to attempt to convince others of his concerns pragmatically. However, when his stated pragmatic reasons turn to dust (WMD, links to 9-11, etc.), he keeps going without changing course. I am not sure which type of being divorced from reality is more dangerous.

[NeoDude]

To bad Carter didn't have a Rove...Rove is a uber-realist.

[bob mcmanus]

Very good.

Steve Clemons

I link this not for the post itself, but a very long comment by Dan Kervick, on of the more thoughtful commenters who limits himself to a few boards. Scroll down until you see "tongue in cheek."

The comment is about Wilson vs Kennedy, and two kinds of liberal idealism in foreign policy. Well worth reading.

[NeoDude]

Bush 2 is only committed to his base.

Rove's winning plan demands this...pluralism would only offend a successful strategy.

Appealing to the nation as a whole would offend the "spiritual leaders" of the Right.

[Jay C.]

Good post, Sebastian.
Although I mayself lean more towards the "venality" explanation to account for the Bush 43 Adminstrations' policies in Iraq (I see Afghanistan as an opportunity forced on us/them by events - Iraq was, IMO, a long-pre-planned deal) - the highlighting of the current manifest failures of "idealism" as a motivator in US foreign policy can only be a benefit.
However, I think Mr. Britt (in an other excellent post) tends to gloss over one principal factor which has underlain most of this Adminstration's actions (in Iraq and elsewhere); a factor which he articulates as:

"...an understanding that a foreign policy made with one eye on campaign politics is bound to run into trouble regardless of what doctrine it proclaims."

"Campaign politics" in my (admittedly cynical and highly colored) opinion has been the main (and in most cases, sole) motivation for this Adminstration's policies for the entirety of George W. Bush's tenure in office. Especially when it comes to the war in Iraq, there have been very few policies or programs that have not been designed or implemented without a careful analysis of how they will "play" with the "public". And I am putting quotes around "public" since there is little likelihood that either this Administration or the current GOP cares much, if at all, about the "public's" attitude or opinion on anything. (Except of course, for their activist and donor "bases" - those they care about a lot).

[Amos Newcombe]

You talk about idealism without reference to what the ideals are. To me, an ideal is, we don't invade other countries that haven't attacked us. To Bush, an ideal was, nation-building is something we should avoid. Idealism should have kept us out of Iraq, but Bush went in anyway because of the perceived threat: realism triumphed over his ideal. Our problems there today are due to (a) too much realism (based on an incorrect perception), (b) incompetently pursued.

[LankyB]

Bush is a visionary without competence. Disagree if you will, I think one sentence sums up his greatest strength, his greatest weakness, and his presidency to date.

[NeoDude]

If Bush really cared about democracy and liberty, he wouldn't treat it as if it were crap.

It seems as if the words "democracy" and "freedom" are dirty and disgusting words, coming out of his mouth.

The world hears this, many of us hears this...but his Base...they seem deaf.

[DDR]

Neodude: If Bush really cared about democracy and liberty, he wouldn't treat it as if it were crap

Do you recommend he follow the examples of the UK, France, Germany or Italy?

Or are you thinking more the FDR internment camps model?

[NeoDude]

DDR,

Neither, I'm suggesting someone with better "moral character"...I don't think even the Iraqis believe Bush's democracy talk.

I mean, let’s not forget…Bush comes from the same political culture that saw Clinton’s blow-job as sufficient for impeachment…yet this same self-righteous culture views Bush’s lies concerning war--divine.

Right-Wing nihilism is ripe among the American Fundamentalists and their fellow-travelers.

[Donald Johnson]

Jesurgislac linked to my guest post on this at Body and Soul--rather than repeat my whole rant, I'll make one obvious Chomskyesque point. East Timor is the perfect example for seeing whether or not there really is a distinction between the "realists" and the so-called "idealists" in foreign policy. It was invaded by Indonesia in 1975 and subjected to an extraordinarily brutal occupation that may have wiped out one third of the population in the first five years. The invasion received very little press--there was brief flurry of interest around 1979-1980,and a little more press in 1991 because one particular massacre at that time was witnessed by the Western press, and a little bit of coverage in 1996 because Ramos-Horta and Bishop Belo got the Nobel Peace Prize. None of this made East Timor a household word. So basically the US government could do what it wanted without having to worry about bad PR at home. You have five successive Presidents from both parties, realists and idealists alike. And what you find is that they all sided with Indonesia. Clinton finally changed course when the public spotlight became a little too bright in 1999, but up to that point everyone acted like Henry Kissinger.

When it comes to human rights, there simply isn't that big a difference between realists and idealists in the foreign policy establishment. Without public pressure, they'll all give innocent people the shaft if it's convenient to do so. Idealists tend to be the people who shout more loudly about the crimes of our enemies, by and large. I'd call this hypocrisy, but I can see where labels like "realist" and "idealist" would have more appeal if you're part of the foreign policy inner circle.

I suppose there are important differences between the two on non-human rights issues, but even here the labels are misleading. The kind of people who think of themselves as tough-minded realists among the Democrats were often the ones who uncritically swallowed the Bush claims about WMD's. Reagan was a starry-eyed idealist when he wanted to believe Gorbachev was a sincere reformer, and Reagan was right.

Oops. That was two points.

[Happy Jack]

Good post.

I have to point out that Carter wasn't completely an idealist. Shoveling out a few billion to a dictator was pragmatic at the time.

After all, if there's no Egyptian army jumping in, the chances for a ME war are exponentially lowered.

[Ugh]

OT - did anyone see the WaPo's article today on Chinese muslims held at gittmo 20 months after the pentagon determined they were innocent?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301362.html

[Kent]

Good point, Donald.

Very good post, Sebastian. Thanks.

[dmbeaster]

Charley Carp:

I also think, though, that they really did believe that Iraq would fold quickly and easily, that they would be greeted as liberators, and that a transitional regime could quickly give way to a stable democracy.

I would say it was more like daydreams than beliefs, and also assumes that installing Chalabi counts as "democracy."

The only distinction I would make relates to the bolded language -- I think that this is something they casually believed, but that as a basic matter, they were not really that concerned in the first instance in making sure these goals were met. Actions speak louder than words on this one.

One very good example relates to the post-war looting, which was absolutely devasting to the reconstruction effort. This was an issue that was expressly worked up by lower level State Dept personnel based on prior experience (Panama, etc.) but deliberately ignored pre-war, and then when it started to happen, was ignored again with Rumsfeld joking about it as if it didn't really matter.

The second example I would give is the long tortuous run to turning over control and having elections, which was primarily the result of Sistani/UN pressure and which the Bush administration had to be dragged to against their desires. Under their timetable, elections would not have occurred until sometime in 2006. Shocking in hindsight.

This is the mark of people who just don't care that much about making sure democracy emerges.

[abb1]

both Carter and Bush II offered policy directions which seemed to be largely idealistic

Um, remind me again, please - what countries did Mr. Carter invade and how many hundreds of thousands people did he kill?

How can Mr. Bush be called 'idealistic'? Idealistic, according to the dictionary means: "of high moral or intellectual value; elevated in nature or style". Does it sound like Mr. Bush to you, like the guy who started a war of aggression, committed the supreme crime, according to the Nuremberg Tribunals? The guys and his policies are despicable and contemptible.

[rilkefan]

OT - SH, do you have an opinion about Volokh's recent balancing act on gay conversion and disease?

[NeoDude]

Did Carter ever lie to get the U.S. into a war?

That has got to change the comparison, somehow.

And I think the world finds Carter more credible than Bush...Bush certainly has a credibility problem on the whole "devotion to idealism and human rights" stance.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I haven't read Volokh in a couple of days, but considering his very pro-gay posts of the past, I would be surprised if I were deeply offended by what he is saying now. (Risking a serious foot-in-mouth attack by not checking first).

[Gary Farber]

Volokoh posts here and here and here. Let's just say that my view is that these weren't at all times up to the standard of felicitious phrasing one would like to hope for.

Particularly, perhaps, on the whole, to the whole, yes, they are trying to convert people thing: "If I'm right, the movement thus is trying to convert those who have a bisexual orientation but act purely heterosexually — or would act purely heterosexually, if we're talking about people who haven't started having sex yet — into also experimenting with homosexuality."

[Gary Farber]

This is also, um, perhaps not his finest: "And if that's true, then gays and lesbians (though not necessarily each gay and lesbian) are trying to get others who have been behaviorally heterosexual, but who might be open to homosexual behavior, to try homosexual behavior."

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Perhpas inartfully phrased, but does anyone deny that an aim of gay rights activists is to make a social culture which is more welcoming, with the very likely effect that some in-the-closet people feel free to cease unhappy heterosexual relationships and take up what they hope will be happier gay relationships?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I think the problem is with 'convert'. I would think of it as less of a conversion and more of an acknowledgment of reality.

[covaithe]

The definitions of idealism and realism mentioned here do seem important, but in the spirit of making terms of jargon clear and distinct from the connotations of everyday usage, I think it's worth emphasizing what others have pointed out: that idealism per se is not necessarily a good thing. Ones ideals must actually be themselves good. Putting it another way, Hitler is clearly an idealist by this definition.

(Please note that I'm not actually comparing anyone to Hitler or Nazis; hopefully that will avoid the curse of Godwin's Law.)

[rilkefan]

When I read the first V post, I thought, well, he's not exactly being careful in his rhetoric, but all in all it comes out in a sane place. But the dangerous-gay-sex post, in conjunction with "conversion", and then his defensive crouch when criticized, add up to some degree of creepiness in my view.

Ending attempted threadjack.

Anyone following the Belle-squeamish-men-suck controversy at Unfogged and Crooked Timber?

Oops, back to work.

[bob mcmanus]

"But focusing exlusively on means doesn't tell you what ends you ought to be striving for. It is perfectly proper to be driven idealistically and let realistic assessments of the situation influence your methods."

See, I am not even sure how to do the calculus of means, of assets and capabilities.

We had a much larger defense budget in the 50s and 60s, I would guess a larger foreign aid budget, and a much more activist foreign policy. Also 2-5% IIRC greater percentage of federal taxes per GDP.

For example, we sign a treaty with a nation, establish a military base there, sell the nation arms, development and infrastructure, creating jobs back home, boosting the economy and tax base. This was a pattern the created American hegemony during the 50s and 60s. To a certain extent, whether it was idealism or realism, the imperium partly paid for itself. And calculus of means can be very complicated. Kinda dynamic scoring.

So when somebody says it is "impossible" to turn Iraq into a secular friendly republic, I am not sure if they mean militarily, economically; because the limitations of domestic politics, diplomatic limitations, or because of conditions in Iraq.

It is like many other items on the agenda. Do we have the "means" to provide universal health care, or do we not? One factor in calculation would be votes in the Senate; another would be some very complicated economic guesses.

[Gary Farber]

I can think of any number of ways to read those Volokoh posts, and I suspect he's let his "I Am A Contrarian Thinker" button be hit too hard. But my own reaction was not unlike Rilkefan's.

"Anyone following the Belle-squeamish-men-suck controversy at Unfogged and Crooked Timber?"

Of course. She's right, they're wrong. Pretty much. Next? :-) (Here's where I can fill in my usual "why does no one attempt to threadjack with a link to one of my posts?"; but let's take that as given.)

[Slartibartfast]

After a brief scanning of the latest of said controversy, I have these comments:

1) Childbirth doesn't bother me, but

2) I draw the line at doing my wife's episiotomy. I worked with a guy that did that, and just hearing about it gave me a bad case of the heeby-jeebies.

So, either I have cutting-on-other-people issues, or I'm rude, unwashed Gaston to CT's Belle.

[Slartibartfast]

or both, I guess.

[hilzoy]

The Belle et al controversy: read the NYT piece, thought 'I must write about this, if I ever find the time', read what other people had written, thought 'gee, they said it all'. Ezra Klein has good advice.

Some people have the oddest reactions to stuff, reactions that are completely unpredictable. This being true, I imagine that someone, somewhere will have the reaction described in the NYT piece in a completely innocent way. And just as I'd sympathize with someone who, as a result of some unlikely chain of events, inexplicably ended up with an aversion to ice cream, I sympathize with these guys.

But the general tone of the piece -- lots of men feel this way, and (the tell-tale line) maybe women should think before letting their husbands/boyfriends/etc. into the delivery room -- made it seem likely to me that that's not what the doctor was talking about. Yes: at a time of excruciating pain, when you're in labor, you should above all else be worried about your s.o.'s likely emotional response to the sight of you all bloody and stuff, since apparently he can't be -- bothered? trusted? -- to think this one out for himself. It's insulting to men, I think, as well as making bizarre demands of women.

[hilzoy]

Slarti -- I may not be recalling the comment threads correctly, but I don't think anyone was objecting to guys who correctly predict that they won't be able to deal with, e.g., an episiotomy.

(OT even more: back when I was younger, I used to be amused by the, um, visceral nature of guys' response to the very thought of castration. I only really ever understood it when I first heard about episiotomies, which gave me the very same impulse to grab the relevant portions of my anatomy and protect them with my life that I had been amused by in my male friends. I mean, I had this completely physical, visceral "yeeaaargh! no!!!!!" reaction. I never gave guys a hard time about that again.)

[LizardBreath]

The OB handed the husband a knife and told him to do the episiotomy? Jeez. I mean, I trust my husband and all, but anyone cutting me had better have a degree in something other than English.

[Gary Farber]

There was this room of ancient, near Stone Age, well, primitive genital-operating tools that I walked into in Chicago's Field Museum, in 1982, I think it was. It was fascinating to watch women and men enter, and as they approached one display or another, and read about what they were looking at, do the Genital Grab Of Protection, respectively.

No, I'm not planning on volunteering to do surgery on anyone; I've done a little nasty first aid in my time (the compound fracture with the bone sticking out was one of the harder to deal with, after the fact), but that was unavoidable, and I generally try to avoid volunteering for anything having to do with blood leaving someone's body that's not in a nice little tube or syringe.

But if I had to, I have no reason to believe it would have a long-term effect on my sexual desires or activities. I could, of course, be wrong. But, then, I also disagreed with Ogged's generalizations about relationships necessarily losing sexual heat from familiarity, although I base that largely on my own subjective experience.

[Tad Brennan]

hilzoy--

thanks for your sympathy. I never really have figured out what "castration" means, but it has always had a vaguely painful sound to it. One of the sadder parts about episiotomy is the fact that the medical literature is pretty mixed about whether they even achieve the intended end, sc. reduce trauma and speed post-partum healing.

Having been through two child-births with my wife--a very long dead-locked delivery that went to a caesarian at the last minute, and a very quick mid-wife-conducted VBAC, I can say that both were very, very intense experiences, but not ones that left me scarred for life, or any less romantically obsessed with my wife.

(On the other hand, it did make me think that this is a *ridiculous* way to perpetuate the species, and we have *got* to come up with a better way in the next few centuries. Women die in childbirth; I remember feeling this desperate vulnerable anger that I could lose my wife in the very process of gaining a child. It all turned out okay for us; for many people it still doesn't. In a few centuries, people are going to look back and shake their heads at the folly of incubating embryos inside of women, sort of like the way we do at the idea of wooden dentures. How unbelievably clumsy! Say, honey, do you mind rocking the tank?)

But the main point is--the guy's reaction is just *not* something women should have to worry about. This NYT article is an amazing example of an "it's all about me" mind-set on the part of guys. I mean, if you wanted to try to describe what it means to treat women as sex-objects, wouldn't it be something like this? Namely, that no matter what a woman is involved in doing--whether teaching a course, or building a road, or reproducing herself, or whatever--the first and central thought that is in the guy's mind is "yeah but how does that make me feel about having sex with her?"

[Slartibartfast]

The OB handed the husband a knife and told him to do the episiotomy?

IIRC it was scissors, which is even more cringe-inducing. The fellow in question happens to be a paramedic, so no big surprise. I'm pretty sure it was something they'd discussed beforehand. He's seen a great deal worse on the job; one day on the way to work he stopped to help a guy who'd crashed into a car on his motorcycle; by all accounts he'd seen a lot of them. I never knew that fracturing both femurs was pretty much a given in such encounters, for instance.

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti -- I may not be recalling the comment threads correctly, but I don't think anyone was objecting to guys who correctly predict that they won't be able to deal with, e.g., an episiotomy.

I didn't see that either; simply was noting that I have limits. I'm sure my limits would be exceeded well short of an episiotomy, but I do get the willies around other people getting cut. I've watched ER nurses scrubbing out a rather large laceration on the back of my arm (two layers of 28 stitches, IIRC) and watched them stitch me up, no problem. Stitching other people up, that's where I get the willies.

[Tad Brennan]

slartibartfast--

yeah, the extreme *specificity* of the willies is very striking. I worked in an operating room, trained as a paramedic, have no general problem with seeing blood. But anything to do with *knees* and I practically lose it. I remember almost fainting at a dinner party once when the host simply *described* a skiing accident she had had.

[Tad Brennan]

my point is: there is no general and overall toughness quotient or squeamishness quotient we can attribute to individuals; it's more like a structured array of this degree of coping wrt this kind of trauma in this area of the body or this bodily fluid. Some very, very tough people go weak in the knees on some pretty trivial things.

[Slartibartfast]

I also have a nearly disabling fear of heights, which makes rock-climbing a bit of an extra challenge.

[Donald Johnson]

These castration discussions are what keep me coming here. So cut it out, so to speak.

[Phil]

The more charitable characterization, Tad, is a concern by those men over maintaining intimacy over the course of their marriage, a lack of continued intimacy being of course a potential important contributing factor to speeding a relationship towards its end.

Is it dickish to put pressure on women to have to worry about their partners' mental well-being and libido when they're about to deliver children? Yes, yes it is. Does that mean the feelings don't exist in the men? No, no it doesn't.

Of course, it's all academic for me, so there you go.

[hilzoy]

I am not, in general, squeamish, but anything to do with eyes undoes me. My best friend, who's a doctor, isn't squeamish either, but one day, about six months or so into the part of medical training in which you actually do stuff to people, someone came in with a hangnail (!) and she completely lost it. Although in that case, I think it was less hangnails in particular than the accumulation of stress plus the lack of sleep.

[Tad Brennan]

yeah, I have a brother who is unfazed by knee issues, but freaks about eyes. I can understand that. Clearly there are going to be some population-level generalities; people on the whole are going to be more sensitive about proximal body-parts than distal ones, well-enervated ones than relatively nerveless ones, etc.

And speaking of incredibly primitive hold-overs of the days when we didn't know better--when are the medical schools going to stop training people in such a barbaric and counter-productive fashion?

[hilzoy]

I had never heard of anyone having a thing about knee injuries. I'm lucky I'm unfazed by knees, since it helped me to keep my head when I split mine open (took off untorn, blood-soaked jeans, and eek! there was the cartilage over my kneecap! A part of my body I had hoped never to actually see. Lucky me got to have 36 stitches in three separate layers. What a delight.)

[Tad Brennan]

hilzoy--

ahhhhh!....plonk.

sound of me fainting.

I told you--it's not just *seeing* this stuff, it's even hearing it *described*. So what do you do? You *describe* it to me. Thanks a lot. Wait till I cue up my best eye-trauma stories.

But no, that would not be considerate.

[hilzoy]

OK, I'll make up for it: rumor has it there has been a coup in Burma. I hope to God it's true.

[hilzoy]

and I had failed to register the 'merely described' part. Sorry.

[rilkefan]

FWIW I find Belle's argument weak, appeal-to-emotional, insensitive, and lump-them-all-togethery. What seems to me to be a reasonable consensus is reached in the Unfogged comments.

[Josh]

one day on the way to work he stopped to help a guy who'd crashed into a car on his motorcycle; by all accounts he'd seen a lot of them. I never knew that fracturing both femurs was pretty much a given in such encounters, for instance.

It's not. I know several people who've hit or been hit by cars on motorcycles, and none of them have broken both femurs. The only guy I know who broke even one femur did that on a racetrack. (Now, tying this back into the other part of the thread, I did know a guy who would have been much happier if he'd been wearing a cup when he got hit by a car...)

[Gary Farber]

"I know several people who've hit or been hit by cars on motorcycles...."

Does anyone have a pointer to a photo of one of these cars on motorcycles? It sounds like an impressive trick, and it must be far more common than I would have imagined.

[hilzoy]

So no one is interested in the possible demise of one of the world's truly ghastly regimes? (Admittedly, if the rumor is true, in favor of someone who is supposedly no rose, though less dreadful.)

[Tad Brennan]

hilzoy--

I'm interested, I'm interested.

I did a quick trawl of various news sources on the web, and found nothing. What's your source?

[rilkefan]

Thought you were retracting the comment re Burma with "merely" for some reason.

[Gary Farber]

"So no one is interested in the possible demise of one of the world's truly ghastly regimes?"

I'm extremely interested. So far they're just extremely vague reports. I make rather an effort to not pass on simple rumor, myself, not about anything seriously, at least.

[bob mcmanus]

"OK, I'll make up for it: rumor has it there has been a coup in Burma. I hope to God it's true."

1. Been out of the loop today, negotiating with electricians. Appears my new mega-computers have eaten all my amps, and I need to rewire. Multi-thousands. Asking handyman Slatibartfast or whoever if they would try to add new station and main breaker boxes themselves, and run some new 30-40 amp lines.

2. Burma is interesting, and good news, but not important. However, the Badr brigade killing 20 of Moqtada Sadr's men and burning down his office is....news.

3. Yglesias, and events, have finally convinced me. Incompetence my butt. WTF were we thinking invading Iraq?

[Gary Farber]

As it happens, though, I posted a small something else about Burma earlier today.

[Gary Farber]

"Burma is interesting, and good news, but not important."

Bob, isn't that more than a little blithe? These are human beings who happened to be "not important"? Um, you may wish to do a diagnostic on your empathy chip.

[felixrayman]

So no one is interested in the possible demise of one of the world's truly ghastly regimes?

Meet the new boss....

I am exactly as excited by this news as I was when I heard that they were going to tear down Abu Ghraib and, in its place, build....a new prison.

[Tad Brennan]

Thanks for the link, Gary Farber.

Based on the IHT story, I'm afraid I have to agree with felixrayman (in fact, those very same Who lyrics came to mind....)

It'll be great if more comes of it, but all by itself the story does not suggest sweeping change, much less improvements.

Wait & see.

[bob mcmanus]

Sorry, Gary, I am a horrible human being. I have not lost a lot of sleep over Burma. I empathize with Tibetans and Iraqis and all sorts of Africans and many Americans and others and all my empathy is used up. It is not unlimited. I am not ashamed to say I have not followed Sri Lanka closely either.

And of course I meant strategically important to American interests. As Don Johnson says way above we all are "realists" sometimes.

[bob mcmanus]

Gary, exactly what are you saying? That if I do not devote an equal amount of resources, attention and emotion, to each and every suffering human in the world I am generally callous and uncaring? Or just not good enough for you?

No, I cannot say the Burmese people were important to me personally or as a citizen, nor can I think of a reason they should be. They could be, if on a random, whimsical, or personal reason I chose to make Burma my particular cause. As may have been noticed, I am in enough pain over Iraq and the Middle East, especially the female populations.

I said it was a "good thing". If somebody's life improves somewhere without moral complications, it is. You are being stupidly offensive, and I ask for an apology.

[Slartibartfast]

I told you--it's not just *seeing* this stuff, it's even hearing it *described*. So what do you do? You *describe* it to me. Thanks a lot. Wait till I cue up my best eye-trauma stories.

Oooh...is OW about to turn into the Penthouse Forum of injury porn? I do have more stitches than anyone I know who hasn't been thrown through a plate-glass window, so I've got some stories for you. If you'll please enter your credit card number...

It's not. I know several people who've hit or been hit by cars on motorcycles, and none of them have broken both femurs.

This guys a paramedic, so naturally he's got no idea what he's talking about.

[rilkefan]

Slart, window-crashing is a good job if you can get it... and live in Pynchon's _Vineland_.

[Tad Brennan]

ahhh...
I should have known a rilkefan would be a pynchonfan.

Spent far too much of my own teen-age years reading Gravity's Rainbow....

[Josh]

This guys a paramedic, so naturally he's got no idea what he's talking about.

Did I say that? No I did not. But if something is "pretty much a given", wouldn't you be at least a little bit surprised to find a number of counterexamples?

(This study (PDF) says that of the 1809 motorcycle accidents studied in Singapore, the most common type of lower limb injury was fracture, most commonly of the tib-fib, followed by the ankle. Only 6.8% of the lower limb fractures were of the femur. Obviously they're not focusing exclusively on impacts with cars, though.)

[rilkefan]

Not actually a pynchonfan, sadly - man's got chops but I only made it about 200-300 pages into _GR_ before finding it all too much muchness.

If Pynchon drew two characters less likely to mesh conversationally than Gary and bob, I missed it.

[Slartibartfast]

Not interested, Josh. If it were me making the claim, maybe, but given that I'm just passing it on, sorry, no. If I ever run into him again, though, I'll tell him you disagree.

[Josh]

Er, Slart? Are you under the impression that I'm spoiling for a fight or something?

[bob mcmanus]

"but I only made it about 200-300 pages into _GR_ before finding it all too much muchness."

Finished GR, can't pretend to understand it all, but the feeling I got from it was that Pynchon was one of the few post-war writers who had something new and interesting to say.
About paranoia and prediction, for instance. As opposed to Gaddis or Coover or Gass. My generation of great novelist wanna-bes.

"V" and "Crying of Lot 49" are pretty readable books, if a little dark.

[hilzoy]

Speaking of nothing in particular: can any of you who frequent conservative sites more than I do answer two questions:

(a) what's the big deal about Juan Cole having speculated that if Steven Vincent and his translator were romantically involved, that could have been what got him killed? (True.)

(b) when people write things like "Let's be honest... The real problem is the media has brought on a constant drumbeat of bad news. The accentuate the negative, and ignore the positive." (cite), do they actually believe it? (I'd ask myself, but I think I'd probably be banned, and honestly, I don't really want to intrude on a site that pretty clearly was not set up with me in mind, just to ask a question that would just be taken as rude. The thing is, I am actually curious.)

[hilzoy]

Sorry -- the comment in (b) was about the war, and why it's losing popularity.

[Tad Brennan]

do they believe that's the real problem?

Yeah, I think so. I mean, at least some of the people who say it, sincerely believe that media coverage is either the, or at least a major, problem.

And I think it's because they don't understand the Vietnam War.

They have been fed this line of nonsense which says that the US military was just on the verge of winning the whole thing in Vietnam when the US media (and the liberals and the peaceniks and Jane Fonda and etc.) swooped in and stole our rightful victory.

That bears very little relation to the reality of why we could not win in Vietnam. But if you have completely bought into that line, then you might well fear the same thing happening again this time. (Even though this time the media is largely in the hands of the WH and its allies.)

They're still fighting the last war...

[hilzoy]

I really, really, really can't wait for the day that the memory of Vietnam has faded so completely that it has become one of those wars, like the Spanish-American War, that most people only vaguely know exists from history books. The knowledge that almost no Democratic elected officials will come out in favor even of a plan like my sharp drop in the number of troops for fear that they will be labeled 'defeatist' and turned into McGovern is no fun at all.

I suspect you're right, though. But I still wonder about the source of their convictions about what they are not being told.

[Tad Brennan]

Remember the Maine!

[Gary Farber]

Speaking of dropping troop levels. Does one possibly sense a nascent consensus developing?

[bob mcmanus]

"Speaking of dropping troop levels. Does one possibly sense a nascent consensus developing?"

Has this turned into an open thread? Gary hasn't apologized yet, but I do so care for the bleeding crowd.

As I understand it, the National Guard and/or Reserves are limited by law to rwo overseas tours, and that law must be changed summer of 2006. Is anyone willing to bet that Congress will send the dudes to Iraq for a third tour?

In addition, historically the third combat tour just kills retention. At least it did Vietnam.

Yglesias keeps saying keeping troop levels at current deployment is simply impossible, but I don't think he ever provides a numerical analysis. I would welcome a link to a better analysis.

I think the consensus says must be 100k by summer of 2006, and 50k by 2008. Even if Iran were to invade across the border, I don't think we could get troops over there for a couple years.

But I consider the situation volatile and unpredictable, and our leadership even more so. Want some grins, scroll down comments here for "oldman's" predictions

American Legion

Escalation, new war, intimidation/putsch, American Civil War II, most likely all of the above.

[bob mcmanus]

It is also the worst Presidential collapse I have seen since 1973. Scandals, big war going badly, gas prices going up, housing starting to deflate, polls going against him...with three more years to go. It may get interesting, tho not as much as Oldman thinks.

[Kevin Donoghue]

hilzoy: what's the big deal about Juan Cole having speculated that if Steven Vincent and his translator were romantically involved, that could have been what got him killed? (True.)

I check Martin Kramer to see if Juan Cole has made any mistakes; he detests Cole and provides a free ColeWatch service. Its’s a sort of Luskin-Krugman thing with the difference that Kramer is by no means stupid. Cole’s comments about Stevens gave Kramer a chance to sound off about Cole’s swollen ego, nastiness to a murder victim (on Kramer’s reading), Arab attitudes to women and even Cole’s years as a Bahai missionary.

No doubt RedState and the like have grabbed that material and lavishly embroidered it.

[Phil]

Bob, don't sweat Gary's comment. This is the same Gary who said he didn't want to see news about murders or kidnappings on the networks because he just didn't care about those people, so I'd take his approbation with a grain of salt. Of course, he then comes over here and tries to get strangers to give him money to operate his website, so he appears to have a rather curious conception of how empathy works.

[Slartibartfast]

(a) what's the big deal about Juan Cole having speculated that if Steven Vincent and his translator were romantically involved, that could have been what got him killed? (True.)

Dunno; hadn't seen that stretch. I'd only seen Vincent's wife's letter to Cole, which...I'd hate to be the guy on the other end of that. Cole's speculation to the side, it's just as much of an arguable point that Vincent brought this on himself by attempting a sham conversion to Islam followed by a sham marriage. I wouldn't argue either one of those points without a bit more in the way of evidence, which I don't expect to see more of, really, unless we catch the fellows that did it and they confess. And that seems rather like a long shot.

[Slartibartfast]

That was rather uncalled-for, Phil. I think that, our differences of opinion aside, Gary's one of the more decent people I've run into on the internet, and he frequently has interesting things to say. So this particular well-poisoning isn't going to work, methinks.

[Slartibartfast]

Uh...actually, even not putting our differences of opinion aside, Gary's one of the more decent people I've encountered on the Internet. I guess I intended to convey that my respect for him is, if anything, sharpened by disagreement.

[Kevin Donoghue]

A further point on hilzoy’s question re Cole: he may have been unwise to base his comments on a report in the Daily Telegraph, which has a reputation for pushing stories which serve the British establishment. The real motive for Vincent’s murder may have been political. Dan Hardie ">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/08/11/not-another-one/#comment-88956"> made this point in a CT thread:

This killing is an embarrassment for the British Government in general and the British Army in particular because a) Vincent was murdered ‘on their watch’ and b) he had just made detailed and angry criticisms of the British administration in Basra, notably that the British were permitting Iraqi police forces to be infiltrated by Shi’ite radicals, who were then killing political opponents- and Vincent himself appears to have been murdered by men in Iraqi police uniform.

Who, then, has a motive to smear the late Steven Vincent? To spell it out for the morons on the Right: the British Government. Given that the Scotsman and the Sunday Times, one anti-war and one pro, have run near-identical stories on Vincent, I would guess that press officers in either (or both) the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office have been ‘briefing’ that ‘that dumb Yank was shagging his translator and that’s why he got shot’. That’s how the British Civil Service (and senior military) play things: tough and, if need be, dirty.

Cole returns to the topic today, responding to the letter from Vincent’s widow. He stresses that he didn’t say Vincent was sleeeping with his interpreter; he wouldn’t have to be – just being alone with her could be enough to get him killed. His widow believes he never was alone with her. If true, that strengthens Dan Hardie’s case.

[Slartibartfast]

Hardie's committed an error, there. Just because someone has motive to do a thing, doesn't mean they're the only ones with motive, and certainly doesn't actually mean they did that thing. I've certainly got motive to do damage to my homeowners' insurance company, but then again so do thousands of others. If their corporate headquarters were to, just for the sake of argument, be taken down in the middle of the night by a truck-full of nitroglycerine made from fat liposuctioned from the thighs of wealthy women, am I automatically the one that did it?

[Tyler Durden]

Slarti, the 327th rule of Fight Club is that you don't talk about the stolen liposuctioned fat. Which we used to make soap, not nitro. The frozen orange juice and gasoline was for the explosives.

Damn, I talked about it.

[Slartibartfast]

Frozen orange juice plus gasoline equals napalm, doesn't it? I haven't quite memorized the official Fight Club cookbook.

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, Durden's comments in Fight Club WRT soap was something like that soap-making and explosive manufacturing go hand in hand.

[CharleyCarp]

Finding Bob a Pynchon fan has just vastly improved my day. The first part of GR is the toughest -- the later stuff rocks.

Lot 49 hasn't aged as well as I'd hoped.

On Viet Nam, it's amazing how much whining there is about the media and protesters. Weinberger and Powell have since crafted the cure for this. It is (a) win fast; (b) win big; and (c) win clear. And if you can't be pretty damn sure you're going to do all three, stand down (unless you really have no choice).

Look, I'd love to win the lottery. Thing is, I don't buy tickets. How much whining about how I didn't win the lottery, again this week, should anyone be expected to put up with?

Rumsfeld Bush and Cheney didn't want to shell out for a ticket. They thought, I guess, that they could win the lottery anyway. It didn't work. Quit whining about it.

[Tad Brennan]

"quit whining about it"

Ah, but there you have the key to the Bush family world-view: entitlement. The first Bush was *entitled* to a clean win against Saddam. And he was *entitled* to a second term. The fact that he was unjustly deprived of those things by being outmaneuvered in Iraq and outvoted at home only deepened the sense of entitlement.

So to remedy that round of injustice, his son was *entitled* to his day on the throne, and entitled to a second term. And he is entitled to his own splendid little war that will put to rights the wrong done to his daddy (while also outdoing him, too).

And he *certainly* shouldn't have to work for any of these things. I mean, it's hard. It's just, really, really hard.

You see, when a family feels this degree of entitlement to the control of a nation's government, they have decided they are titled nobility. Their mere name and parentage, absent any talent or ability, should earn them glory, martial success, popular devotion, and the prayers of the masses.

And when you wake up in a world that doesn't always cooperate with your monarchist fantasies, you don't think you'd whine, too? It's hard, it's really hard!

(Of course Jeb is *kicking* himself for having gone along with that primogeniture thing).

And, yes, this is part of why I am *deeply* opposed to Hillary in 2008, or ever.

[Kevin Donoghue]

Hardie's committed an error, there. Just because someone has motive to do a thing, doesn't mean they're the only ones with motive, and certainly doesn't actually mean they did that thing.

The "thing" Hardie was discussing was the Daily Telegraph's angle (echoed by the Scotsman and the Sunday Times) on the murder of Vincent. Who, apart from the suspects he mentions, had a motive to spin the story that particular way? The murderers, in order to make the thing look non-political? Maybe, but why would they choose British newspapers, particularly? If you are merely saying it's just a theory, well, thanks for pointing that out. But I wasn't planning to bet the house on it anyway.

Over lunch I was wondering what this had to do with this thread. The best connection I can make is that here is a tragic case of life imitating art. Vincent had so much in common with Pyle, the central character of A Quiet American: he set out full of enthusiasm for the rescue of a country which he didn't know all that much about and ended up trying to rescue a woman.

When the novel was filmed for the first time Graham Greene was hopping mad because Pyle's ruthlessness was airbrushed out. (Not so in the recent version where his involvement with terrorism is made explicit.) Greene was making the same point as Donald Johnson does above: the idealistic component of American policy is, to a large extent, a front for a realism just as brutal, at times, as earlier forms of imperialism.

[Gary Farber]

"I said it was a 'good thing'. If somebody's life improves somewhere without moral complications, it is. You are being stupidly offensive, and I ask for an apology."

Bob, it certainly was not my intent to either insult you or upset you. Beyond that, I'm not clear how I offended you, and if you'd like to explain further to me, I'll certainly listen with a friendly and respectful attitude and an attempt at an open mind (easy to do with the holes in my head, theoretically).

Regarding Professor Cole, Mark Kleiman has just dressed him down, and if anyone would like to call Mark a right-winger of any sort, that would be interesting.

"This is the same Gary who said he didn't want to see news about murders or kidnappings on the networks because he just didn't care about those people, so I'd take his approbation with a grain of salt."

Now, Phil, if I were uncharitable, I'd get very huffy, point out that this is a clear and overt lie, and demand that you either quote such alleged words from me, or withdraw it and apologize.

But I'll presume that you are carelessly misremembering what I wrote, and ask you to nonetheless see if you might be so kind as to find such alleged words from me, and please post them, if you can. I'm sure that if you can't, you'll be a gentleman in your further response.

In case anyone else is wondering, I of course never said any such thing. What I've written about at times is my ever-long-standing division between the kind of news stories that affect masses of people and catch them up in long-term trends -- stories about war, political developments, science, the sort of things commonly discussed on ObWi and that I discuss on my own blog (along with endless mere oddness, weirdness, silliness, or things of mere personal interest to me, of course) -- and stories that primarily affect only those involved directly and their loved ones -- fires, murders, tornados, weather in general, bus crashes, missing people, and so one.

Now, if you can find any instance of my ever saying I didn't care about the latter people, I will be surprised.

If anyone finds this sort of distinction of news into two types of news strange or inexplicable or objectionable, I'd simply be curious to hear so.

I have been known to say that I "don't care" much about the latter kind of news stories. I'm quite sure I've never in my life said I don't care about the people.

And I'd like to think that the distinction between "people" and "news stories" is quite clear. It really wouldn't do to confuse them, since news stories don't tend to laugh, smile, cry, give birth, love, and so on. Whereas I find that people commonly do. We write and edit news stories; we don't write and edit people. And so on.

As to my comment to Bob, I was raised, despite a generally irreligious upbringing and life, on such principles as tikkun olam, "healing the world," and that if a single life is taken, a world is destroyed, and that sort of thing. And, naturally, I tend to view how other people view other peoples -- whatever the ethnicity or nationality or grouping involved -- by at least one point, considering, "now, how would I feel about that act or statement if I Xed out the [BLANKS] and filled in [THE JEWS]? It's kind of an empathy check.

So when I see people insulting Muslims qua being Muslim, say, I think "gee, what if they were saying "Jew" instead of "Muslim." It's not really a necessary exercise at this point of my life, having been doing so as long as I can remember, but it's certainly part of my automatic background test of any statement or act. What if it were the Jews in Darfur? Or Burma? Or wherever. Etc.

So I hear "Burma isn't important" as the equivalent of "you Jews in the Holocaust: you're not important."

And so I tend to think that every people, every ethnicity, every religion, every sexuality, every tribe, every grouping, etc., are all, each, terribly, preciously, important. Everyone has or had a mother, a father, and often sisters and brothers and children and nephews and nieces and cousins.

And each orphan is terribly, completely, important.

So when I read anyone I think well of saying "they're not important," I catch my breath.

And I try not to be rude or unkind, but to merely ask them if they might want to reconsider such a remark, thinking surely they are only being careless, as we almost all are in common speech with some frequency; certainly I say plenty of careless things; it's no sin at all.

And so I might say something I intend to be respectful and light, such as:

Bob, isn't that more than a little blithe? These are human beings who happened to be "not important"? Um, you may wish to do a diagnostic on your empathy chip.

And if that came across as unfeeling on my own part, somehow, or as insulting, or derogatory, or harsh, or anything else unkind, then I do regret that and apologize to you for that.

(As a side-note, one reason I find time-stamping so crucial is that it at least gives some small additional information that I think helps -- very slightly -- to lessen unfortunate interchanges; it's helpful to see if someone is posting in heat, every three seconds, or has taken a night to reconsider things, or what. Timing really matters in communication and making sense of it, and stripping away one more bit of information from a medium that is already going through a fairly thin tube of what can be conveyed is, in my view, destructive towards better communication, albeit in a small way. But when all we have is ASCII, even a small stripping can hurt badly.)

As for the rest of the things you translated what I said into -- "I am a horrible person," etc. -- well, Bob, I never said them, and I'm sorry I said things that you could translate into such other things.

Does this help at all, or are you still feeling that I am being "stupidly offensive"? If so, let's talk more, please.

As for Phil's comment, it's entirely possible we do have different ways of approaching empathy. Probably not, but I really can't tell at the moment, from the evidence. If you thought you were demonstrating a proper sense of empathy to me in your comment, pray forgive me if I do my best to not follow your example. My only question would be: if the entire point of that comment wasn't simply and purely nothing more than a personal attack on me (and beg pardon if it seemed directly quite nasty to me), what information would you say you were otherwise attempting to communicate?

[Gary Farber]

Oh, and Phil? About this? "...so I'd take his approbation with a grain of salt."

I don't think that words means what you think it means. But if not, really, I do hold Bob in warm regard, no matter that our views do tend to come from rather different places, and if you were somehow, confusingly, recognizing that, thank you.

[Phil]

I gotta say, I couldn't care less who this woman is, any more than I care about any of those other women I've either never heard of, or whose names I've seen mentioned as crime victims, which I've then gone on to, as is always the case with simple crimes that don't affect a larger issues, completely ignore.

Advocating more, but less racist, nonsense, is still advocating nonsense, and life is to short for me to care about fires, murders, car accidents, kidnappings, littering cases, jaywalkings, mass murders, or whatever hell else local tv and tabloids care about. Focusing on that crap hurts America. Stop hurting America.

Posted by: Gary Farber | June 16, 2005 11:39 AM

If there's some more charitable interpretation of "I couldn't care less who this woman [or any other crime victim] is," and "life is to short for me to care about fires, murders, car accidents, kidnappings, littering cases, jaywalkings, [and[ mass murders," I'm happy to hear it, Gary. Maybe by "this woman" you meant "this news story," since you vociferously claim that you could never, ever everevereverever confuse the two.

I guess maybe since they involve individuals rather than groups and there's nothing political to be made of them, it's easier not to care about them, or something? At least easy enough that it doesn't trigger the "What do you mean, they aren't important?" breath-catching.

But, hey, thanks for the catch an "approbation."

[Slartibartfast]

Who, apart from the suspects he mentions, had a motive to spin the story that particular way?

Your failure to imagine no others with motive doesn't constitute an actual absence of motivated others. Furthermore, motive does not equal guilt.