You're viewing an archive page. To see the current content on wickens.ca, please go to the main page.

30 September 2002  

Truth Prevails

I was just contacted by the Star's "ombud," Don Sellar, who tells me a correction should appear on page 2 of tomorrow's paper. Kudos to him for the quick action.

Unfortunately, statistics like this "16,000 lives saved" one tend to have lives of their own even after getting corrected by the source of the misinformation. Let's hope this one was quashed before it attained critical mass.

01:41 PM |

Suckered by the Star

Well, the Star fooled these guys, who are responding to Rex Murphy's column questioning the "more than 16,000 lives could be saved by Kyoto" claim.

12:14 PM |

The Star vs. the Facts

I reported last week on the Toronto Star's banner-headlined, front-page story about the supposed 16,000+ Canadian lives the implementation of the Kyoto treaty would save. I noted that some quick research revealed the Star story to be incorrect, that no one had made this incredible claim.

In addition to posting about it here, I sent an email to the office of the Star's ombudsman alerting them about the inaccuracy of the story. And just to be sure I didn't misunderstand something, I emailed Dr. Alan Abelsohn, one of the signers of the Suzuki Foundation's Physicians' Statement. He was at the press conference that provided the basis for the story and was quoted by the Star.

This morning I received two email messages:

• From the Star: "I asked our National editor about your concerns. He explained this coalition of health associations held press conference [sic] and made these comments."
• From Dr. Abelsohn: "the star got it wrong. we said what the physicians statement says."

11:32 AM |

29 September 2002  

"You'd better wake up, and fast."

Michael Hurd responds to a reader from a "major news network" who says: "Going to war with Iraq is so stupid for so many reasons that I can't take the time to address them all."

02:36 PM |

Enron, Ethics, Aristotle, and Atlas

Here's a really good article on business ethics by MBA student Andrew West. It's worth bearing with the miniscule (on my system, anyway) text. (Or copy it to a word processor to save your eyes.) A snippet:

I recently finished a class in professional responsibility. It was interesting, but I fear that the result of the class will be less ethical, not more ethical, MBAs. The reason is that the course generally reflected current mainstream thought in ethical theory, which typically suggests that "crime pays," while virtue and ethical behavior consists of self-sacrifice. The conclusion that an ambitious student might draw from this is that ethics is for suckers and losers, while moral corruption is the path to riches and success. We face a real ethical dilemma about the nature of our careers and lives if we accept the common view that success, happiness, and wealth are somehow in conflict with ethical behavior, and that one must choose between being rich and happy, or moral and poor. It would be particularly distressing to learn this when $60,000 into your MBA degree.

Because this approach to ethics dominates our culture, this may have contributed to why business people seem to have become so unethical. Business people have seen ethics, they think, and don't like it, and so many ignore and evade the subject entirely, as a hindrance.

02:15 PM |

The about page has been

The about page has been updated.

01:49 PM |

28 September 2002  

Think Again, UPI

From UPI's daily Almanac feature comes this gem:

A thought for the day: Russian-born American novelist and screenwriter Ayn Rand said, "Disunity, that's the trouble. It's my absolute opinion that in our complex industrial society, no business enterprise can succeed without sharing the burden of the problem with other enterprises."

11:02 PM |

Silent Fisking

After seeing this (warning: disturbing images; via Damian), I have to wonder whether it's really true in all cases that a picture is not an argument.

Update: Andrew Dalton stands by the pictures-aren't-arguments position but still thinks the post serves a valid purpose. (I agree.) Plus, "silent fisking" author John Bono comments on Andrew's response.

05:12 PM |

The Science of PR

That 16,000 deaths number trotted out by Kyoto supporters last week also intrigued Rex Murphy at the Globe. Whereas the Star fell for it completely, and even exaggerated the Suzuki group's claims, Murphy was immediately skeptical:

Questions occur. The most salient are about the number of "Canadians dying every year." How rigorously is this connected to global warming? Is the number "scientific" -- backed by evidence, tested by observation, obedient to objective laws, insusceptible to massage or spin?

One thing I have no question about is that we were meant to take the number as scientific. That was the point of its precision, its emphatic particularity....

It was also the point of having Canada's most ardent environmentalist flanked by physicians to deliver the message. Herd a crowd of doctors into a room, and David Suzuki -- all you need is to throw in a few beakers and a chart of the periodic table....

That 16,000 Canadians die every year is a very particular claim. It must be scientific. And if it is a piece of proven science that 16,000 of us die every year because of global warming, then only those people who don't care about the deaths of a horrifying number of fellow citizens would oppose ratifying Kyoto.

I don't buy the "science" of the press conference for a minute. These are "advocacy" numbers. They have as much science, in the strict sense, as that phrase "more dentists recommend. . ." that used to pop up so unpersuasively in toothpaste commercials.

Read the whole thing and learn about another Kyoto-related number — 200,000 — that we're not hearing much about.

Oh, how I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Murphy and Suzuki next meet in the halls of the cbc.

12:34 PM |

27 September 2002  

Columnist's Chrétien Condemnation Covered

That Chrétien piece I mentioned last night is getting some attention from north of the border today.

09:49 AM |

26 September 2002  

Fact-checking the Star

"Kyoto: It's a life saver" says the headline for this morning's front-page, above-the-fold Toronto Star article. The story informs us that a "coalition of 50 health associations and more than 2,000 doctors" claims that "[m]ore than 16,000 lives could be saved in Canada each year" if we sign the Kyoto accord. Wow, that's an extraordinary claim, calling for extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, the article gives none — no statistics, no studies, nothing. Not even the coalition's name. Thanks to Google, though, I was able to dig up the details.

The "coalition" referred to is actually a list of signatories to a statement supporting Kyoto that was circulated by the environmentalist David Suzuki Foundation. But the statement contains nothing about the treaty's implementation saving more than 16,000 lives. As best I can tell, the sensational lead for the Star's story is based on this sentence:

According to the government of Canada, up to 16,000 Canadians die prematurely each year from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.

There you have it, folks: a newspaper so left-wing they aren't satisfied with merely promoting the dubious claims of environmentalist groups. No, the Star's agenda calls for the more radical approach of making up things even the enviros would blush at.

11:12 PM |

Chrétien: The Schroeder Of the Americas

A reader sent along a Wall Street Journal commentary piece (subscribers only) criticizing Jean Chrétien's linking of poverty and terrorism. It contains several good points, including this one:

In the eyes of many Canadians, Canada exists in opposition to the U.S. and the search for a national character and identity has been a recurring theme of Canadian history. Anti-Americanism is an unfortunate substitute for a true national feeling, but it is a corollary of American predominance in a country that shares a 2,000-mile border with the U.S. and sends 80% of its exports there. Mr. Chretien is like many Canadians, who portray themselves as more civilized and caring than Americans yet cannot imagine living without American capital markets, technology, investment and entertainment.

Mr. Chretien could not resist an opportunity to vent his frustrations about the U.S., and his alleged concern for the poor provided the perfect foil for his anti-Americanism. His biggest disappointment must be that hardly anyone in the U.S. noticed his rather provocative remarks.

Five axiomatic propositions of Canadian Nationalism vis-a-vis the Americans:

1. Boy, we hate Americans.

2. We really do.

3. Really.

4. I'm not kidding. We really hate them.

5. So how come they never pay us any attention?

07:22 PM |

18 September 2002  

Canadian Gov't Sees Marriage as a Breeding Program

A good letter in today's Post pointing out the weakness of the government's proposed argument in appealing Ontario and Quebec judgments that rejected the current definition of marriage as a solely male-female union:

The government's attempt to portray marriage as nothing more than a breeding program for heterosexuals is completely offensive — both to married heterosexuals, many of whom do not, or cannot, have children, and to same-sex couples, many of whom are raising children....

When Justice Minister Martin Cauchon announced his intention to appeal the recent marriage judgments, he said he wanted to show "leadership." If this is the best he can do, he should withdraw the appeals in embarrassment. The fact that the government is making such arguments at all is an insult to Canadians. The fact that it is doing so on the public purse is an outrage to taxpayers.

12:07 PM |

17 September 2002  

Giving Googlewhacking a Whole New Meaning

Considering yesterday's disagreement with them, it's ironic that I should find cause to be Google's defender today. But this assault on them is too egregious to let pass.

Public Information Research, which runs a site called Google Watch, wants the government to force Google to change how it scans and ranks web pages.

PageRank must be streamlined so that the "tyranny of the rich" characteristics are scaled down in favor of a more egalitarian approach to link popularity....Google is so important to the web these days, that it probably ought to be a public utility. Regulatory interest from agencies such as the FTC is entirely appropriate.

I have a better idea, guys: build your own search engine and make it as as egalitarian as you please. (Also make sure it is fast and easy to use as Google's.) As anyone who used AltaVista a few years ago knows, users will quickly abandon Google if something better comes along.

No, I'm not holding my breath.

These idiots — oops, more hate speech! — also appear to side with the Chinese on that government's blocking of access to Google, saying they may be doing so in order "to protect their own national security." Wow.

01:43 PM |

16 September 2002  

Snap Judgment

Agenda Bender says photography's too easy to be an artform. I agree that photos aren't art (as beautiful as some can be), but I'd cite as the main reason the lack of control the photographer has. With other media, the artist deliberately lays down every brushstroke, word, or note. With photography, the tools are much coarser. Your main tool is a device intended to make an exact copy of what it's aimed at. And indeed, aiming is your main creative input. Film, lighting, and exposure offer some degree of control, but you're essentially tweaking the reality you're given, not creating your own.

09:01 PM |

Stealing Their MoJo

Speaking of Google ads, check out the one that appears when you search for the ultra-leftist Mother Jones magazine. (Screenshot here in case it changes.)

09:00 PM |

Hate Mail

I have to admit I hesitated last week at calling Jean Chrétien a "bastard" for his blame-the-victim comments on 9/11. But I thought the uncharacteristic profanity accurately and concisely conveyed what I felt. Little did I know what the repercussions would be.

Today, I received an email from Google AdWords, where I recently purchased an ad in hopes of generating more website traffic. Some excerpts:

Subject: Changes to your Google Adwords campaign
...
Action taken: Suspended - Pending Revision
Issue(s): Unacceptable Product
...
Content: At this time, Google policy does not permit the
advertisement of "hate/anti speech ("Chretien...What an utter bastard")" on our website. We also do not permit sites that sell these products to advertise on Google. As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site.

A person of a more leftist persuasion might be screaming censorship about now. But as silly and subjective as I find the policy, I have no quarrel with Google's right to run their own service as they choose. The bastards.

07:32 PM |

The Return of Capitalism

Capitalism Magazine is back from a summer hiatus.

06:49 PM |

15 September 2002  

More Dissent on Bush's UN Performance

Fredrik Norman is also not thrilled with Bush's speech. And he provides a link to Nick Provenzo's assessment:

Imagine the following scenario: if on the eve of American independence, the founders had asked the world's permission before they revolted against the English crown. Imagine if the question of American independence rested not in the minds of the patriots, but with the kings in the palaces of Europe. And then imagine not living in America, because had the founders not possessed the moral courage to act independently and instead adapted a policy of begging the world's favor, America would simply not exist as it does today.

03:29 PM |

14 September 2002  

Binswanger on Bush

President Bush's UN speech has received almost unanimously positive reviews from right-of-center commentators. The only exception I've seen is an excellent post from Harry Binswanger to his popular Objectivist mailing list. Dr. Binswanger has very kindly given me permission to reproduce it here.

Bush's UN Speech

by Harry Binswanger

First, there should be no United Nations.

If there is a UN, America should not be in it.

If America is in it, our president should not speak there.

If an American president speaks there, he should not surrender America's sovereignty by endorsing the notion that the UN is a world government.

Given that all of these principles were flouted in Bush's speech, how was it otherwise? Pretty bad.

I can't get past what Bush did to destroy the very concept of American sovereignty. E.g., he said

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations...

What in hell authority is he talking about? Authority over what, and backed up by what? If they have "authority" over Iraq, then they have authority over America, and they are a world government. Only—thank God—they have no real military force.

Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance.

And what about all the condemnations of Israel by the UN? Aren't they being defied too, and for longer? So does that mean that America looks to UN resolutions as the ultimate standard?!

All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.

You mean like it never has faced before? You mean, after 50 years of betrayal of the good for the sake of the evil, as in regard to the Soviets and the Red Chinese, now we're going to find out the true mettle of the institution?! Now, on the piddling issue of whether we are going to flick an infected flea off us?

Just for a random pick, out of the sorry history of resolutions, here's what the UN resolved about Israel in 1981, in reaction to Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear facility:

A/RES/36/27
13 November 1981
56th plenary meeting

The General Assembly,

Having considered the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security",

Expressing its deep alarm over the unprecedented Israeli act of aggression on the Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which created a grave threat to international peace and security,

snip

Fully aware of the fact that Iraq, being a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, has subscribed to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied,

snip

Alarmed by the increasing information and evidence regarding Israel's activities aiming at the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons,

Gravely concerned over the misuse by Israel, in committing its acts of aggression against Arab countries, of aircraft and weapons supplied by the United States of America,

snip

1. Strongly condemns Israel for its premeditated and unprecedented act of aggression in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct, which constitutes a new and dangerous escalation in the threat to international peace and security;

2. Issues a solemn warning to Israel to cease its threats and the commission of such armed attacks against nuclear facilities;

3. Reiterates its call to all States to cease forthwith any provision to Israel of arms and related material of all types which enable it to commit acts of aggression against other States;

4. Requests the Security Council to investigate Israel's nuclear activities and the collaboration of other States and parties in those activities;

5. Reiterates its request to the Security Council to institute effective enforcement action to prevent Israel from further endangering international peace and security through its acts of aggression and continued policies of expansion, occupation and annexation;

6. Demands that Israel, in view of its international responsibility for its act of aggression, pay prompt and adequate compensation for the material damage and loss of life suffered as a result of the said act;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep Member States and the Security Council informed of progress towards the implementation of the present resolution and to submit a report to the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session;

8. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-seventh session the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security".

So now the UN faces a "defining moment"?!

And I picked the above only because it was something that came up on the first screen in a Google search for "List of all UN Resolutions."

Consider Bush's blindness to the nature of the entity that acts, whether it be the UN or Saddam. He says:

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it — as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkemens and others — again, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown.

It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq ...

Yes, and if Hitler had stopped fighting in 1943, would that have signaled a new openness and accountability in Germany? A mass-murderer is an entity of a certain kind. It is no open question whether Hitler wanted peace nor Attila the Hun nor Saddam Hussein. These men kill for fun and profit. They live to rule and destroy. There's no such option as: "If you can play nice now, you can come back in—just promise you won't commit genocide again."

It's long past the time of admonitions, of "Do this, if you really mean to be peaceful." It's long past the time of warnings "Do this, or else." It's time for action. Past time, actually, by about 11 months.

The only decent part of Bush's speech was his concluding two paragraphs:

We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind.

By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Here, at least, he is saying: we'll defend ourselves—with or without your help.

But this is not the aspect of the speech the world is picking up on (rightly, I think):

A spokesman for Downing Street told the UK's Press Association: "He (Blair) has always believed that the UN was the right place to deal with the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, because it is the UN's authority that has been consistently flouted."

Heavens! The authority of the UN has been flouted! Something must be done.

And:

Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik was quoted by Reuters as saying: "What was positive in his speech is that future action is rooted in the United Nations."

(Those quotes are from the CNN website.)

If a president had to go to the UN in this situation, here's what he might have said:

Iraq is a murderous, totalitarian regime. As such its "government"—actually a terrorist gang—has no legitimacy, no right to exist. Its leaders, Saddam Hussein and his cohorts are murderers who deserve to die. More importantly to us, we have evidence that he has or will soon have weapons of mass destruction that threaten America. Certainty is not required here—the serious possibility of nuclear bombs and germ weapons in the hands of a murdering madman who has vowed destruction to America is enough to guarantee that America will take him out. His days are now numbered.

I do not come before you to seek a resolution against Iraq. I do not come to seek your approval—America does not need your approval in order to defend itself. I do not come to seek your military support—America does not need your support. I come before you only to explain to any rational observer in the world why America is going to liberate Iraq and, without the pretense of a trial, execute Saddam Hussein. And to warn the other dictatorships that dare to threaten us hat their turn will come soon enough.

Except that if the cultural climate permitting such a speech existed, there would be no Saddam and no need to make it.

The Harry Binswanger List (HBL) is an email list for Objectivists, moderated by Dr. Binswanger, for discussing philosophic and cultural issues. The HBL is $10 per month or $100 per year; a free one-month trial is available at: http://www.hblist.com/.

12:20 AM |

13 September 2002  

Chrétien's Confused Conclusions

The National Post weighs in on Chrétien's envy appeasement strategy for fighting terrorism. As they point out: "Eighteen months [until he retires] is starting to seem like a very, very long time."

10:11 AM |

12 September 2002  

Puncturing Idiocy

Scott Rosenberg attacks Damian Penny for his criticism of Salon's disgusting "Forbidden thoughts about 9/11" feature. The response is filled with evidence of poor thinking skills (criticism isn't equivalent to a desire to take away your freedom "to publish stuff," Mr. Rosenberg), but I want to concentrate on his point that

an orthodoxy has coalesced around 9/11, and... one good role of journalism is to puncture orthodoxies... [T]he range of human response to 9/11 was a lot wider than that reflected in the media orgy of 9/11 retrospectives.... [I]t's probably a lot healthier to air such responses than to pretend that they don't exist.

"Puncturing orthodoxy" as a guiding principle is excusable in a rebellious teenager, but not a professional journalist. Journalism is about telling the truth. If you think falsehoods have gained the status of orthodoxy, then fine, puncture away — and be prepared to back up your views with arguments. But if you simply want the catharsis of spewing the most depraved thoughts that happen to enter your mind, well, there are good psychologists for that kind of thing. Don't get me wrong: inappropriate thoughts are nothing to be ashamed of. It's proudly publishing them to the world while babbling about orthodoxy puncturing that a respectable person should be embarrassed about.

Update: Tim Blair weighs in with forbidden thoughts on Salon.

11:35 AM |

Sorry, America

Now that Jean Chrétien has announced he will retire next year, our Prime Minister has no compunction about making his most idiotic and nauseating views public:

I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more....

There is a moment when you are very powerful. I said that in New York one day. It was on Wall Street. It was a crowd of capitalists, of course, and they were complaining because [Canada] had normal relations with Cuba, and this and that, and we cannot do everything we want. And I said that day — if I recall, I used probably these words — when you are powerful like you are, you guys, it is the time to be nice.

At least this explains his insistence on signing Kyoto, which is expected to have a big negative impact on our economy. Because it will narrow the gap between us and 3rd world countries, he apparently sees it as a terrorism-fighting measure.

09:20 AM |

11 September 2002  

Never Forget

08:45 AM

Rational Rage

Time has a very good piece by Andrew Sullivan. An excerpt:

[Sept. 11] was a massacre—a premeditated murder of civilians by men possessed by a theocratic ideology. It was an invasion—the violation of sovereign American soil, the erasure of a visible monument to American success and energy and civilization. It was a crime—the filling of the air of a great and free city with the irradiated dust of innocent human lives. It was a statement—that radical Islam intends to attack and destroy the very principles of the Enlightenment that underpin the American experiment—freedom of religion, of conscience, toleration and secularism. The appropriate response to this attack is therefore not grief or remembrance or sadness or reflection, although each of these has its place. The appropriate response is rage.

12:12 AM |

10 September 2002  

On September 11, Be Proud, America

Robert Tracinski has the right idea for approaching observances of the anniversary of the attacks:

September 11 should be the one day, every year, that we regain the sense they want us to lose—our sense of America's virtue and of her power—and when we resolve to use the second to defend the first.

11:12 PM |

Speak for Yourself, Michael

Michael W. Fox, former Vice President of the US Humane Society:

We are not superior. There are no clear distinctions between us and animals.

12:25 PM |

8 September 2002  

The High Price of Dissent in America: Public Ridicule

Today's Toronto Star intoduction to a front-page piece by Lewis Lapham is priceless:

Few in America have dared to question the premises of George W. Bush's war on terrorism. Harper's Magazine editor Lewis H. Lapham has — boldly and elegantly. But he has done so at some cost: some brand him "un-American."

The Lapham essay itself may actually contain a germ of truth if he is trying to say that the September 11 observances should be less bland and fearful of anything that might be controversial. But any valid point he has is overwhelmed by his arrogance, pretentiousness, and obvious disdain for average people wanting to express simple grief.

That, and his use of this phrase: "the disappearance of the trade towers."

Compared to the names for Mr. Lapham that ran through my head when I read that, "un-American" is very, very mild.

02:11 PM |

7 September 2002  

Fountain of Youth

Believe it or not, I've never had a Quote of the Moment from Ayn Rand. That changes today with a line from Atlas Shrugged
that jumped out at me the moment I read it.

09:17 PM |

Welch Dissents on Dissent

Matt Welch puts the lie to claims of post-September 11 stifling of dissent.

I suppose it must have been very hard for leftist intellectuals to see the galvanizing effect of September 11's wake-up call on much of the public who were previously content to go along with their ideas. The rapid resurgence of some remnants of the true spirit of the American people — the righteous anger, the self-confidence, the unapologetic assertion of their right to live lives free from the threat of being bombed where they live and work, and most especially the increased willingness to declare things good or bad, black or white — this must have been quite a disappointing shock to the hardcore left, who perhaps thought they'd been more successful at wiping out these elements. It's no excuse, but I suppose it does make more understandable their attempted conflation of the unpopularity of their opinions with the suppression of them. I guess if they can't be winning the war of ideas, they at least want to have that attractive dissident caché.

08:58 PM |

Pair of Perspicacious Pundits Profiled

Congrats to fellow Canadian bloggers Damian Penny and David Janes, who got written up in this St. John's Telegram article on weblogs.

01:16 PM |

Ranklin' Franklin

How very inconvenient a fact it must be for a pacifist that there are bad people in the world, people bent on the destruction of innocents for no legitimate reason. How problematic the existence of governments who support, encourage, and nurture them. What an awkward truth that these individuals and governments are impervious to reason, that they have an operating framework that does not recognize the evil of their actions, that they respond only to the thing that they themselves rely on for getting what they want: force.

The extent of the dilemma is on full display in this essay by Ursula Franklin, in which she puts forth her view that we would all be better off if we had pretended that September 11th was a natural disaster. An earthquake to be exact. I am not kidding.

Franklin asks us to look at the video tape of those jumbo jets being carefully and deliberately steered at high speed into buildings full of innocent people and react as if the event were equivalent to the dispassionate, clockwork operation of inexorable geological processes. Only a pacifist, who has so much to lose from recognizing the real truth, could make such an obscene suggestion and expect to be taken seriously. In her own mind, however, this rewriting of reality lets her observe that "geological fissures… [cannot] be eliminated by bombing" and pretend she's saying something deep and relevant.

I wish this kind of approach worked. If it did, I could make the world a better place just by pretending that people who think like Ms. Franklin don't exist.

11:11 AM |

6 September 2002  

Philosophy: Who Needs It

Here's a good post from Andrew Dalton on why ideology is inescapable, even by pragmatists (or "engineerists"). An excerpt:

Principles are an integral part of the human mind.... I'm not saying that one ought to have some ideology. I'm saying that one will inevitably have some ideology (consistent or not), and therefore that one ought to develop a good one. Show me an essay attacking ideology as such, and I'll show you ten ideological positions within that essay.

12:16 PM |

4 September 2002  

Misfit Medium

Andrew Sullivan, in a Slate discussion of a new books on weblogs, writes about the blogging personality:

[The Weblog Handbook author] Rebecca Blood... oozes alternative-weekly, grass-roots-loving piety. Her ground-breaking definition of a blog is: "a coffeehouse conversation in text, with references as required." Why does the word "coffeehouse" send me running for the exits? Worse, she can write earnestly about a Weblog "community." Aaagghh. The one wonderful thing about blogging from your laptop is that you don't have to deal with other people. You can broadcast alienated, disembodied, disassociated murmurings into a people-free void. You don't have to run something past an editor, or frame your argument to an established group of subscribers. You just say what the hell you want. No wonder ornery libertarian types enjoy it so much and there are so few communitarian-style bloggers. It's a format designed for Unabombers or people... who don't quite fit into pre-existing ideologies or political blocs.

11:16 AM |

Obscene Greens

John Hawkins has posted a long and sobering list of quotes from those friendly, benign, peace-loving environmentalists. Sample:

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

09:15 AM |

3 September 2002  

Sully's Back

Andrew Sullivan makes his return with a quote from Ayn Rand.

08:34 AM |

2 September 2002  

One Hour Photo

I saw One Hour Photo tonight. This review nails it.

11:06 PM |