“To discover to the world something which deeply concerns it, and of which it was previously ignorant; to prove to it that it had been mistaken on some vital point of temporal or spiritual interest, is as important a service as a human being can render to his fellow creatures . . . That the authors of such splendid benefits should be requited by martyrdom; that their reward should be to be dealt with as the vilest of criminals, is not, upon this theory, a deplorable error and misfortune for which humanity should mourn in sackcloth and ashes, but the normal and justifiable state of things. The propounder of a new truth, according to this doctrine, should stand . . . with a halter round his neck, to be instantly tightened if the public assembly did not, upon hearing his reasons, then and there adopt his proposition. People who defend this mode of treating benefactors, cannot be supposed to set much value on the benefit; and I believe this view of the subject is mostly confined to the sort of persons who think that new truths may have been desirable once, but that we have had enough of them now.” – John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.”
RUMMY VERSUS PENTAGON PORK: Now here’s a battle worth fighting. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s sensible attempt to retire the Crusader artillery system is being stymied by insubordinate Pentagon hacks and Congressional Republicans. I differ with many of my libertarian friends in believing in an interventionist foreign policy and a big defense budget. (Bigger than that now envisaged by the Congress. Empires aren’t cheap.) By far the best argument against this position is that the Pentagon wastes money, doesn’t focus resources on where they are needed, is slow to modernize, reluctant to downsize when necessary, and so on. Rumsfeld’s laudable early attempts to reform this monster went awry. Now, with money flowing more freely, he has a stronger hand to reform where it’s necessary. The battle over Crusader is a critical test of whether he will succeed. I’m glad the Washington Post is weighing in on his side. More need to.
WHAT’S IN A LABEL? The New York Times, which has only recently stopped calling Pim Fortuyn an extremist, had the following to say today about the political assassination of a would-be prime minister of Holland: “Dutch political leaders decided today to go ahead with the general elections next week, even after the killing of Pim Fortuyn, a right-wing politician who had stood a chance to become the country’s next prime minister. The police confirmed today that they were holding the assassination suspect, a 32-year-old Dutch environmental activist.” Notice how a socially libertarian maverick is “right-wing” but an ideological assassin is just an “environmental activist.” Even the Dutch police have described the murderer as an enviro-radical. But extremes, in the Time’s p.c. world, only exist on the right. The subtle marginalization of Fortuyn continues, even in death. I would simply ask you to imagine: if this gay man were a liberal and had been killed by a fascist, do you think this story would be treated by the New York Times the same way?
LEAVE US ALONE: “There are many frustrated people in the sciences who are shaking their heads at the amount of time that must be wasted defending their work against his poorly analyzed arguments. Lomborg has no credentials to back up his arguments. Lomborg is an Associate Professor of statistics in a history department, has never published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, nor has he subjected this book to peer review. His startling lack of ecological knowledge isn’t hidden by his nearly 3000 footnotes to this work. Those that insist Lomborg’s book be characterized as a polemic rather than analysis, and [ask that he] please move on to subjects in which he has training and can discuss with authority, are belittled by him — a tactic used by the right. We know his agenda and we wish the hype would go away so we can return to important work.” – an environmental scientist wishes Bjorn Lomborg would just shut up. This and other viewpoints in Day 2 of the debate about “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” in the Book Club.
WHAT ABOUT KASHMIR? The Euro-elites, represented by the insufferable Chris Patten, are appalled that their visceral hostility to Israel might be deemed by Americans to be linked to anti-Semitism. A reader sends the following analogy along to add perspective:
One comparison I sometimes suggest to Europeans is this. The situation in Kashmir has some parallels to the Middle East. A minority is having its hopes for self-determination postponed. In fact, India goes even further than Israel, by ruling out Kashmiri statehood a priori. India claims to be under periodic terrorist attack, and responds with massive force. Lightly armed men from Kashmir and beyond go up against heavily armed and highly trained Indian troops, not to mention Indian tanks, artillery and aircraft.
It’s certainly a mess, and far too many civilians have been killed, either accidentally or through criminal negligence. But where are the protests against India in Europe? Where are the daily editorials? Where are the organized letter-writing campaigns by European liberals? Where are the demonstrations against Indian representative offices? Where are the calls by the EU to boycott Indian trade?
Even-handed criticism is fine, but when Europeans and their media reserve their ire for one country and one race – perhaps especially given their own history – then they run the risk of the accusations of anti-semitism that they are earning.
Couldn’t put it better myself.
THE SMEARING OF FORTUYN, CTD: Check out this description of him in today’s Daily Telegraph – from a former Tory cabinet minister, no less: “Britain has been fortunate to avoid the rise of extreme Right-wing, hateful politicians like Jean-Marie Le Pen and Pim Fortuyn, the Dutchman who was murdered in Hilversum.” Then I received this email today from Germany, where at least one guy is able to see clearly:
Predictably, Fortuyn is much vilified our press. “Rechtspopulist” (right-wing populist) seems to be his first name, “ausländerfeindlich” (hostile to foreigners) his job description. The newspapers work really hard to get that across. But an article, written after his death, in the online edition of Der Spiegel really goes over the top – our most “respectable” weekly newsmag, by the way. In “The voice of the hidden racism” Fortuyn is repeatedly called a “Rechtsextremist” (right-wing extremist), the word is usually reserved for Neonazis, not politicians of the right. He is credited with bringing the Netherland’s “latent racism” to the surface, but somehow it all fails to shock. The authors must have felt this, too. What to do? Well, according to this article, Fortuyn wanted to “drastically cut back support for sick and disabled people”. The article says nothing else. What a nasty man! Then I remembered The Economist had a survey about the Netherlands in a recent issue. I quote: “….the biggest blemish of all on the Dutch employment record: its absurdly generous disability scheme known as the WAO. Nearly a million people qualify for this, out of a total working population of around 7m, and the
number is still rising. Taken at face value, that 15% rate would suggest that disability in the Netherlands is half as prevalent again as it is in comparable countries…” And later “In effect, the WAO has been used to mop up disguised unemployment” I could not verify that Fortuyn merely wanted to reform this bizarre scheme, but the info makes a big difference, doesn’t it? In the foreign press section they quote the “Aftonbladet”, a Stockholm Newspaper, with the words: “The brown parties of Europe have a new martyr.” Perhaps, if it wasn’t for our so very balanced media, they might never have noticed that Fortuyn was one of them?
Speaking of which, check out this prophetic piece about the smearing of Fortuyn by Dave Kopel in last weekend’s Rocky Mountain News. He nails it.
WHAT THEY THINK OF AMERICA: A stimulating batch of essays worth perusing from the British literary journal, Granta. (I’ve only skimmed so if there’s a Sontagian moment or so, forgive me.) I was particularly buoyed by an essay by Ivan Klima from the Czech Republic. Here’s the blunt truth:
For more than a century now there has existed a sort of American dream. For some it means boundless affluence, for others freedom. I am not a devotee of hypermarkets or of grandiose mansions containing dozens of rooms for just two or three people and a few pedigree dogs and cats. I’ve never yearned for more than one car or a private plane, jet-engined or otherwise. I have an aversion to profligacy, but I don’t share the view that there is an indirect relationship between America’s affluence and Third World poverty. Without idealizing the policies of the big monopolies (either American or European), I am convinced that America’s wealth, which derives from the work of many generations, is chiefly the result of the creative activity of free citizens. The Americans are not to blame for Third World poverty, which is mostly due to the circumstances in the Third World and the demoralizing lack of freedom that most of the people there endure.
The Dish 