Obsidian Wings

On civility.

Constant Reader hilzoy made a post in comments which I liked so much that I'm putting it up here as a post of its very own. I've gussied up the layout a bit, but made no other changes.

Moe

About civility: I think C. S. Lewis gets it right.

The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. (Mere Christianity, p. 106)

I think that if one really tries to live by this, one will be inclined to say many fewer harsh things, and those one does say will in general not be said in a way that is needlessly divisive. And if one is aware that really trying to be charitable does not ensure success, then one will also think hard before saying harsh things, in order to be sure that one does not allow oneself to be motivated by the desire to think ill of one's opponents. One will also try to see even really bad people as both comprehensible and redeemable, and if one is in a position to do so, one will try to reach out to them. And one will take seriously the possibility that one is mistaken about them, and even hope that one is.

That being said, I don't think that the answer is not to speculate about people's motives or character. I think I should try to be charitable, to consider seriously the possibility that I am wrong, and to express myself in a way that leaves that possibility open. But I also think that the character of our leaders in particular is extremely important, and that it would not serve us well to stop thinking about this. Moreover, I think that we have enough information to draw some conclusions about their character, and that we can also speculate where we lack conclusive evidence, as long as we are clear that that is what we are doing. But we should always try to remember that politicians are people like everyone else, as liable to confusion and weakness as the rest of us, and that it is no more permissible to say hateful things about them for the hell of it, than it would be to do this to someone we actually know.

At least, that's what I think.

Short debate, really.

Come on, with a title like this - Nader, Dean to Debate if Ralph Should Run - the answer's bloody obvious, isn't it? Nader says yes, Dean says no, Nader says yes and sneers, Dean says no and gets a little flushed, Nader screams Yes, Dean shouts No, Nader starts shoving metal spikes through a rag doll ritually prepared to represent the Democratic Party, Dean pulls out the holy water, silver nitrate and a long wooden stake, they both assume their Crinos form, the Classic Star Trek fight music starts up and we end up with a trashed sound set and a bunch of gibbering radio engineers.

(pause)

Actually, on second thought all of that sounds kind of interesting. July 9th, is it?

More Veep speculation

Dan Drezner is commenting on various reactions to the possibility that Senator Kerry will pick Representative Gephardt as his running mate. My advice is of course highly suspect - I'm a Republican, after all, and we're tricksey and sly, yes, yes, my preciouss - I think that my opinion's still relevant, and my opinion is that Gephardt is very, very likely to get the nod. As I understand it, Kerry knows and likes the man - which is... well, I was going to say "reportedly not his reaction to Edwards", but I can't find the link now, so take some extra salt with that - and I'm getting the general impression that the Kerry campaign is doing its level best to avoid surprises and mistakes. Gephardt may not be the best choice, but he's certainly a known quantity.

Now watch me go be proved wrong within 24 hours...

Moe

Too Sensitive for Serious Debate?

Everyone from David Brooks to Nicholas Kristof is calling for more civility in the national discourse. Depending on your side of the fence, what you consider the source of the widespread incivility may vary:

Brooks:

To a large degree, polarization in America is a cultural consequence of the information age.

Kristof:

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots.

But seemingly everyone agrees that we could do with a bit more civility. Everyone, some have suggested, except The Nation, who published this image on the back of the July 5, 2004 issue:

Chirac and Afghanistan

Yesterday there was much talk across the blogosphere about Chirac and Bush's public exchange of words regarding Turkey and the EU. But Chirac did something far more damaging than that. He has blocked the deployment of NATO troops to safeguard the elections in Afghanistan. (Rueters cite):

France has blocked a U.S. bid to deploy NATO's new strike force to safeguard Afghanistan's elections, stoking tension between the two allies that fell out over the Iraq war, diplomats said Tuesday.

"France, and to a lesser extent others such as Spain, are suspicious about using the NATO Response Force (NRF)," said one envoy at the alliance summit in Istanbul.

"It says the force is not ready for this kind of environment and should not be used simply as a sticking plaster for troop shortages on routine operations."

France's opposition to a proposal that could help resolve NATO's problems finding troops to make the September polls safe exasperated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pushed the idea hard at a meeting of allied defense ministers.

...

Chirac told a news conference that the NRF -- set up last year with a heavy French contingent but not due to become fully operational until October 2006 -- should only be used when there is a serious security crisis, not for Afghan-style missions.

"The NRF is not designed for this. It shouldn't be used just for any old matter," he said. He has added that an overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections.

...

Diplomats said allies had not yet committed all those forces. This means they will not be in place to help with voter registration, which has been dogged by Taliban militia attacks.

...

France's excuse is

One European official said the U.S.-French tussle was more about procedure. Paris is concerned that sending the NRF to Afghanistan could set a precedent for using it as a "toolbox" whenever NATO has problems pooling forces for an operation.

"France worries ... (this) would lead to an automatism jeopardizing the principle that a political decision must be taken before NATO commits to operations such as election protection in Afghanistan," the official said.

This article highlights the fact that there really aren't very many non-US NATO troops available. A fact which ought to be remembered when engaging in debates about how important a European contribution to the War on Terrorism could be. But more importantly it highlights how little of a contribution Europe (and especially France) is willing to make when contributing involves more than diplomatic rhetoric.

The mission was to deploy troops in Afghanistan to safeguard elections. According to European rhetoric, Afghanistan is one of the most important foreign fronts in the War on Terrorism. To dismiss the safeguarding of Afghanistan's elections as "any old matter" is ridiculous. If the War on Terrorism is going to be won at all it will include changing the way that governments in the region interact with their citizens. This is not a mere procedural objection to the way the US raised the issue. This when coupled with "overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections" is a challenge to the idea of many possible roles for NATO in Afghanistan.

Note that this will prevent troops from dealing with Taliban militia who are interfering with voter registration. And I repeat, this is how France wants to treat AFGHANISTAN. This is how France wants to deal with the clear case.

UPDATE:

Wretchard at the Belmont Club has much more on this topic and other European commitment problems in his June 30, 2004 entry. Along the same lines as my comment, he writes: "The Afghan elections are arguably the most important milestone since the campaign to topple the Taliban, in which NATO was also absent. What then would constitute sufficient matter to engage Chirac?"

IRR Callup Rumors: Part II

A few weeks back ObWi reader Angela asked for information about the rumors of widespread IRR callups and reported that her husband had been pressured in what felt like "a scam to trick IRRs into reenlisting."

The US Army Human Resources Command posted this on their website in response to similar complaints:

Folks, a touch of perspective, here.

I'm aware that Senator Hillary Clinton has been a special irritant for many of my side since her days of being First Lady / unelected co-President; I'm also aware that a case could be made that she deserves any little negative kharma that comes her way. Heck, I don't even personally like the woman, based on what I've seen of her. But she was talking to a bunch of San Francisco Democrats about (in her opinion) necessary tax increases*; how did you expect her to frame the concept? In terms that the Cato Institute would have approved of?

So, no, I don't think that she's a Marxist or even a Socialist, just a Democratic politician (and, contrary to popular perception, the three concepts aren't interchangeable) who was trying to explain a policy position of hers to a bunch of folks rather to the Left of her. The quote was pretty clear that she was telling her audience that they themselves were going to have to sacrifice for the common good - yes, yes, Ms. Rand, your loud and reflexive loathing of the very idea is noted for the record - and I've watched enough quotes from my side get mangled and/or taken out of context to be comfortable with assuming that a specific argument was meant to have universal significance. My personal opinions of the Senator from NY aside.

Mind you, if she starts talking like this in general, well, I'll be less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt...

(Via Tacitus: nothing personal, Bird Dog)

Moe

She's going.

I'm sorry for this. I can't help it.

I'm still watching her go. My grandmother. (You'll need to read the link to understand.) Ninety-one. Strong. Brilliant. Dying. She doesn't sound the same. She isn't there anymore. My father says that he and his brothers just want to get her to her cabin in Maine one last time. One more time, and I've heard her talk. When she's ready, she'll finish it.

I'm scheduled to meet her there in two weeks. There are no guarantees. I may need to go to Worcester, where she's now, instead. But I'd rather see her in Maine. It's selfish, a little bit. And a little bit not. Her husband, Tilton -- dead by lung cancer when I was a boy -- is buried under a tree next to the cabin. It's a bit of a marsh, but the rocky shore and sea are less than fifty yards away.* I used to walk through her garden (carefully tended with poppies and snap peas and big bugsy tomatos), up the stones Tilt carefully laid decades ago, and onto the shore. Wade into the sea at low tide. Cold. When the red tide was out, grab all the mussels you can. Steam and a little butter never did nothin' wrong.

I'm sorry about this. Perhaps it's too personal; perhaps it's too boring. But I have my wine (cheap) and my cigarettes (heavily filtered) -- just don't tell my wife (who's away tonight) 'bout neither.** I have a brief to write, but it can wait.

I've known a lot of people who've died. None of it affected me much. (Cold I've been called, and justly.) This is different. If I could tell you why, I would. If I could tell you why, I wouldn't be writing this drivel.

I'm watching her go. I know it's not a unique experience. But, frankly, I don't care.

This is your sad things open thread. Use it wisely.

von

*The place probably costs a fortune today, but it didn't then. They were librarians, for Chrissake.

**Since she reads the blog whenever she likes, it's a bit of a put on. I suppose.

Why I'm pro-life.

Safe, yes. Rare -- and legislated to make it so. Legal? Only where one evil is overwhelmed by another.

Via Pejman. (Tacitus has a post up as well, and notes "I already thought the unborn fully human in any case." Note to same: Humanity is not defined by biology alone.)

P.s. I know this post will provoke. Be civil.

P.p.s. On the "civil" note, note further that I'm married to an ardent pro-choicer. Not a good dinner table discussion, I've discovered.

I love the end of the month...

...in that special 'Not' way. Regular deadlines at work, you understand. So, time for a random link or two; well, this looks promising enough. Finnish Police Confiscate Forged Dali Artworks

HELSINKI (Reuters) - Police raided a Salvador Dali centenary exhibition in Helsinki, confiscated a number of suspected forgeries and ended the show two days early, Finnish officials said Tuesday.

The works, including etchings, woodcuts and sculptures, were part of a month-long display celebrating the centenary of the birth of the Spanish Surrealist on May 11, 1904.

"We have done a preliminary investigation and have found some (works) that were clearly not originals," said criminal officer Seppo Paldanius, but he declined to say how many or which of the works were suspected of being fake.

At first, I thought it odd that they could get away with this, but then it occured to me: dude, it's Dali. Everybody knows the melting watch picture - I knew a foreign exchange student in college who thought that the school issued prints of it, they were on so many dorm walls - and the burning giraffes one, and yeah, that world egg one (or is that the one with the giraffes?), but the other ones, maybe not so much. But then I thought, no, wait, Europeans, they care more about that fine art stuff than I do, so maybe I was right to begin with. I hope so, because Finland's had too many problems from its unique geographical location to deserve the heartbreak of unscrupulous art forgers. And then I started shaking my head: barely able to tell the difference between Dali and Dada, but the Winter War? All checked out on that, boychik. Typical roleplayer geek.

(pause)

And now we see why I usually let Edward Underscore handle the lion's share of the culture-type posts: that's actually a pretty good summation of my typical thought processes.