Ok, I’m going to be out of the country for a few weeks, so there will be a lacuna of postings of (coincidentally) the same length.
Before I leave things alone for a while, I had a few things I wanted to say about “democracy”, as the term is blithely bandied about.
Captain Ed had this to say today:
'Are We Missing An Opportunity In Turkmenistan?
When Turkmenistan's cult dictator Saparmurat Niyazov died last year, hope for reform in the Central Asian republic rose in the West, as well as the potential for an opening towards loosening Vladimir Putin's grip on the region's energy resources. Simon Tisdall reports for the Guardian that both hopes may be dashed if the West does not take more aggressive action to promote democracy.'
Now, I won’t say that I disagree that democracy is a fine idea, but (and I may be repeating myself) it is not the only possible way to run things, and not always the best. The government of China has managed to hold that country (empire, really) together AND keep it moving forward economically against a raft of possible destabilizing forces.
Jerry Pournelle (one of my favourite authors, btw) had this to say today as well (context Iraq):
‘If you want a single person most responsible for the mess (other than the President for putting us into Iraq) it would be Bremer, who ought to have known he wasn't up to the job. If you want a single idea responsible it would be the Jacobin view that democracy is somehow a natural form of government that will be embraced by people so soon as they are given the opportunity. [emphasis added]
At one time our schools taught that America was unique; that our Revolution was unique; that attempts to copy our success were myriad, and few to none were successful. That Venezuela had a Constitution modeled on ours, yet for over a hundred years never had a peaceful change of government; that much of South America was that way; that France had the ancien regime, the Revolution of 1789, an attempt at constitutional monarchy, the Terror, the Directorate, the Consulate, the First Empire, the Restoration, revolutions of 1832 and 1848 and probably others I have left out, the Second Republic, Napoleon III, the Third Republic, Petain and Vichy, the Fourth Republic, De Gaulle --- not precisely a model of stability. And that everywhere you look, with a very few exceptions, people were not well governed, there was no rule of law, and we should daily fall on our knees to thank Divine Providence for looking after us so well and giving us the stability we have enjoyed (punctuated by the Civil War, we must not forget). None of that is taught any longer, and teachers feel free to have tenure and teach that Amerikkka stinks, etc. And that all will be well when we have reformed America into something she is not. That will make things better.
At one time we understood that good government and the rule of law is rather rare, and difficult to export (we certainly tried to do so in the Philippines). I don't think many understand that now.’
I am of course biased in my choice of sources, but I include this lengthy excerpt because it precipitated my current rant. History, and I’m not talking about the ancient variety exclusively, has lessons for those who a) study it and b) are prepared to critically examine things we tend to take for granted.
“Critically examine” does not mean “test to destruction” or “reflexively reject”, but merely “don’t assume”. That should be obvious, but as far as I can tell, if things that I thought were obvious were indeed so I’d have a lot less to complain about. J
So, Democracy. As appealing as it is to be able to turf the bastards out after a few years if we don’t like them, the real level of control the people have over their government is one day of democracy followed by 3-5 years (depending on where you are) of moderated dictatorship. Indeed, in a true republic it takes great ingenuity to provide adequate “checks and balances” to keep things from turning despotic. Even in that case, the system can be overturned by apathy or brute force (a threat to any system); there is the theoretical possibility that a constitutional monarchy such as Canada and several European countries possess has a “fail-safe” in an un-elected head of state, but I’ve not seen that successfully tested. Please let me know if I’ve missed something.
Back to the main thrust; democracy only flourishes on fertile ground, and I doubt that Turkmenistan falls into that category. My point here is that good government need not be democracy, and I would rather live under a benevolent dictator than in a democracy like Iraq. These are limited choices, but a regime like China (neither of these) allows you the opportunity to get rich (it’s “glorious” after all…) but will have you shot for a wide variety of anti-social things. Personally, if I have the right to make a living in any legal way I see fit, AND I have the freedom to leave if I don’t like it, I can refrain from agitating against the government.
Yes, perhaps I am a fascist pig-dog, but I currently have more “rights” than I need to lead a happy productive life. I won’t get into specifics (although it might make an interesting discussion) but I will leave you with the legions of failed democracies around the world and ask if we REALLY need a democratic regime in Turkmenistan, or merely a good government and rule of law as mentioned above.
I’m really giving people opportunities to tear into me here, so please take advantage. I promise I’ll respond when I get home…
Friday 26 January 2007
Monday 22 January 2007
Like we care what YOU think...
This statement from the Hamas “Foreign Minister” somehow fails to move me to reconsider Mr. MacKay’s decision to ignore the terrorist thugs:
After being shunned by MacKay, Palestinian foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar said Sunday that Canada is at risk of becoming an enemy of his people.
MacKay didn't meet with Zahar as Canada forbids diplomats from dealing with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
After Hamas won elections last year, Canada took the lead within the international community by suspending aid to the government.
"I would ask him very simply: What is the moral basis for these sanctions and boycott?" Zahar told The Globe and Mail, adding that the sanctions have mostly hurt ordinary Palestinians and not the Hamas government.
Zahar said the stance of the Canadian government could stir resentment among the broader Islamist movement.
"What is Israel providing you? Nothing. What are you achieving from such policies? What have you gained? Nothing, except the hatred of innocent people. If you would like to be the tail of the American dog, it's up to you. Or you can be a leading country, a linkage," he said.
"For the sake of the future -- one, two or three decades from now -- the only way to help everybody, everywhere is to co-operate with the Islamic movements and Arabic countries because they are not your enemy."
The “hatred of innocent people” eh? Nice innocent people; boy I want to live near them.
I do think however that Zahar’s last statement about appeasement and co-operation is the operative one. The suggestion that there is only one way to help people (by kow-towing to the Islamists) is actually a barely veiled threat. As to what Israel is providing us, I’d have to say being the only representative democracy in the Middle East is probably enough.
Part of me was annoyed that this guys rantings were even reported, but that’s both balanced reportage (something there’s a lack of in some quarters) and a good warning to those who can be bothered to hear it.
The other thing that frankly amazes me is that Canada is noted for taking a lead in something distinctly non-warm-and-fuzzy such as embargoing a known terrorist organization. Admittedly this is a Canadian report, but if we’re not banning landmines or championing environmentalist causes it’s not the sort of thing the media like to trumpet.
Speaking of landmines, we are in true form when it comes to objecting to the Pakistani plans to mine some of the more difficult parts of their frontier with Afghanistan. My only objection is that they’ll probably just leave them there and hope no-one lifts them (to turn against us over there in the form of IEDs) instead of employing them properly, watched over by troops. The Pakistanis are certainly smart enough to know how to use them, but I’d not be betting they have the resources or inclination to permanently garrison the whole North West Frontier.
Back to the main point however; people get the government they deserve, and the Palestinians seem to have theirs. Now I just hope we can continue to deserve one that recognizes the threats to Canada like Hamas.
After being shunned by MacKay, Palestinian foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar said Sunday that Canada is at risk of becoming an enemy of his people.
MacKay didn't meet with Zahar as Canada forbids diplomats from dealing with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
After Hamas won elections last year, Canada took the lead within the international community by suspending aid to the government.
"I would ask him very simply: What is the moral basis for these sanctions and boycott?" Zahar told The Globe and Mail, adding that the sanctions have mostly hurt ordinary Palestinians and not the Hamas government.
Zahar said the stance of the Canadian government could stir resentment among the broader Islamist movement.
"What is Israel providing you? Nothing. What are you achieving from such policies? What have you gained? Nothing, except the hatred of innocent people. If you would like to be the tail of the American dog, it's up to you. Or you can be a leading country, a linkage," he said.
"For the sake of the future -- one, two or three decades from now -- the only way to help everybody, everywhere is to co-operate with the Islamic movements and Arabic countries because they are not your enemy."
The “hatred of innocent people” eh? Nice innocent people; boy I want to live near them.
I do think however that Zahar’s last statement about appeasement and co-operation is the operative one. The suggestion that there is only one way to help people (by kow-towing to the Islamists) is actually a barely veiled threat. As to what Israel is providing us, I’d have to say being the only representative democracy in the Middle East is probably enough.
Part of me was annoyed that this guys rantings were even reported, but that’s both balanced reportage (something there’s a lack of in some quarters) and a good warning to those who can be bothered to hear it.
The other thing that frankly amazes me is that Canada is noted for taking a lead in something distinctly non-warm-and-fuzzy such as embargoing a known terrorist organization. Admittedly this is a Canadian report, but if we’re not banning landmines or championing environmentalist causes it’s not the sort of thing the media like to trumpet.
Speaking of landmines, we are in true form when it comes to objecting to the Pakistani plans to mine some of the more difficult parts of their frontier with Afghanistan. My only objection is that they’ll probably just leave them there and hope no-one lifts them (to turn against us over there in the form of IEDs) instead of employing them properly, watched over by troops. The Pakistanis are certainly smart enough to know how to use them, but I’d not be betting they have the resources or inclination to permanently garrison the whole North West Frontier.
Back to the main point however; people get the government they deserve, and the Palestinians seem to have theirs. Now I just hope we can continue to deserve one that recognizes the threats to Canada like Hamas.
Thursday 18 January 2007
Dropping the gloves?
Ok, a lot has been happening over the first few weeks of 2007, so I thought I’d wait a few days and collect a bit of it.
Bush’s speech at the beginning of January was widely regarded as a last-gasp effort to salvage something from the debacle of Iraq, and in effect it is. However what it also is, (and this is less reported) is a move to finally do things the way they should have been done in the first place.
This “surge” business in Iraq is only part of the picture; there seems to be a different approach to the whole “ War on Terror” thing, suspiciously like what I was advocating a while ago. This does not, by the way, imply that I’m the only genius to come up with this approach, since nobody’s been consulting me, but it’s always nice to have your ideas validated, although to what extent remains to be seen.
In no particular chronological order, here are what I consider to be the harbingers of a sustainable and effective policy against the enemies of Western civilization. The Americans hitting the Iranian Liaison office in Iraq is a step in the right direction, and proof that someone has the cojones to finally deal with the Iranians the way they should be dealt with.
Invading Iran is a BAD IDEA, not because it wouldn’t knock the loonies out of power, but because the world doesn’t need a second Iraq right now. Iran actually has potential to be civilized again, since the only thing stopping it right now is its’ government. The reasons for hitting Iran aren’t news to anyone who’s actually been following that part of the world, but it’s interesting to me that it’s happening now. Anything that reduces the prestige and clout of the current Iranian regime can only help other factions in the country, and will possibly allow them to clean their own house.
Part, if not most or all, of the reason for the current approach is the widening Sunni-Shia split, this being the Sandmonkey’s take on it. The Saudis have been publicly stating for a while now that they will back the Sunnis in Iraq to counter Iran’s influence. If they’re saying this, it means it’s already been happening for some time. Again it’s most likely that America’s buddies in the House of Saud are bankrolling (directly or indirectly) the killing of Americans. We know that all of that aid to the Sunni factions isn’t going to fighting the Shia alone…
The recent action in Somalia points more clearly to the sort of plan that I’ve had for some time. Use good Int to back up your local allies with the firepower and/or precision action that is required to take out the key players, worst threats and targets of opportunity. It’s still pricy, (life is expensive and military action is no exception) but the risks are controlled, the commitment is flexible, and if you do it right, nobody of any consequence will have anything to complain about. In the case of Somalia, in the short term the UIC has been smashed, and the immediate threat of another Islamist theocracy in the world is removed. The Ethiopians have their problems, but their interests and ours line up here, so working with them has so far been win-win.
I was getting pretty bored and tired of world events, but things are becoming interesting again, mainly because there’s a big, probably historic, shift occurring in the Middle East at the very least and that’s always interesting to watch unfold. When the Saudis are bucking OPEC and boosting oil production to depress oil prices for the sole purpose of screwing Iran economically, you know things are on the move.
I make no predictions, but it’s obvious that Iran has stuck its’ neck out a long way and there are parties interested in taking a chop at it. The Americans are starting to talk to North Korea again, and the fact that the Iranians are in Pyongyang at the same time means there is some jockeying going on. If the Americans manage to split North Korea from the “Axis of Evil” (however unlikely that is) it would be a good way to start isolating Iran’s leadership. A big “if” and a bit of a job, but if the Americans are willing to really try it’s do-able. Of course this ignores the vacuum of strong leadership in US domestic politics, but I’ll stay out of that…
Bush’s speech at the beginning of January was widely regarded as a last-gasp effort to salvage something from the debacle of Iraq, and in effect it is. However what it also is, (and this is less reported) is a move to finally do things the way they should have been done in the first place.
This “surge” business in Iraq is only part of the picture; there seems to be a different approach to the whole “ War on Terror” thing, suspiciously like what I was advocating a while ago. This does not, by the way, imply that I’m the only genius to come up with this approach, since nobody’s been consulting me, but it’s always nice to have your ideas validated, although to what extent remains to be seen.
In no particular chronological order, here are what I consider to be the harbingers of a sustainable and effective policy against the enemies of Western civilization. The Americans hitting the Iranian Liaison office in Iraq is a step in the right direction, and proof that someone has the cojones to finally deal with the Iranians the way they should be dealt with.
Invading Iran is a BAD IDEA, not because it wouldn’t knock the loonies out of power, but because the world doesn’t need a second Iraq right now. Iran actually has potential to be civilized again, since the only thing stopping it right now is its’ government. The reasons for hitting Iran aren’t news to anyone who’s actually been following that part of the world, but it’s interesting to me that it’s happening now. Anything that reduces the prestige and clout of the current Iranian regime can only help other factions in the country, and will possibly allow them to clean their own house.
Part, if not most or all, of the reason for the current approach is the widening Sunni-Shia split, this being the Sandmonkey’s take on it. The Saudis have been publicly stating for a while now that they will back the Sunnis in Iraq to counter Iran’s influence. If they’re saying this, it means it’s already been happening for some time. Again it’s most likely that America’s buddies in the House of Saud are bankrolling (directly or indirectly) the killing of Americans. We know that all of that aid to the Sunni factions isn’t going to fighting the Shia alone…
The recent action in Somalia points more clearly to the sort of plan that I’ve had for some time. Use good Int to back up your local allies with the firepower and/or precision action that is required to take out the key players, worst threats and targets of opportunity. It’s still pricy, (life is expensive and military action is no exception) but the risks are controlled, the commitment is flexible, and if you do it right, nobody of any consequence will have anything to complain about. In the case of Somalia, in the short term the UIC has been smashed, and the immediate threat of another Islamist theocracy in the world is removed. The Ethiopians have their problems, but their interests and ours line up here, so working with them has so far been win-win.
I was getting pretty bored and tired of world events, but things are becoming interesting again, mainly because there’s a big, probably historic, shift occurring in the Middle East at the very least and that’s always interesting to watch unfold. When the Saudis are bucking OPEC and boosting oil production to depress oil prices for the sole purpose of screwing Iran economically, you know things are on the move.
I make no predictions, but it’s obvious that Iran has stuck its’ neck out a long way and there are parties interested in taking a chop at it. The Americans are starting to talk to North Korea again, and the fact that the Iranians are in Pyongyang at the same time means there is some jockeying going on. If the Americans manage to split North Korea from the “Axis of Evil” (however unlikely that is) it would be a good way to start isolating Iran’s leadership. A big “if” and a bit of a job, but if the Americans are willing to really try it’s do-able. Of course this ignores the vacuum of strong leadership in US domestic politics, but I’ll stay out of that…
Sunday 7 January 2007
Rage Against the Jihad
There are a couple of versions of this floating around, but this one has all the bells and whistles. Not great music, but I consider it interesting that it even exists so I thought I'd pass it along. (Hat tip: LGF)
Saturday 6 January 2007
How much progress?
All this talk of human-animal embryo “chimeras” has reopened the bioethics debate, and unlike a lot of stuff, this makes even me a little uncomfortable.
Of course your opinion of what is “too far” is heavily influenced by what you have to gain from it, so there will inevitably be those who claim that it’s our best bet to treat things like Alzheimer’s disease, and that is likely correct. Since I’m not in that position presently, I can stand back a bit and think about how far we want to go with all of this.
As usual, the headlines are somewhat misleading and sensationalistic. This is what sells papers (or whatever these days) and will certainly grab your attention. The actual procedures are pretty benign, as there is no human reproductive material used in it. Add to this the fact that the embryos will never be allowed to mature, and I don’t have a strong logical problem with the idea.
In fact the whole trend of biotechnology keeps pushing things farther out. I’ve read a lot of Sci-Fi, and more than a few books have dealt with the idea of genetic warfare and its’ aftermath. Most of this I think is way out there (but interesting to read if well done), but there is the whole slippery slope to consider.
I’ll happily eat genetically modified wheat or cloned beef, since I understand the processes well enough to realize that it won’t hurt me. Smarter people than me are working on a lot of stuff I don’t really understand, but most of it is of obvious (to me) benefit to us. What I’m hoping is that these same clever types are aware of the potential downside of transgenic experiments, especially those involving human genetic material.
So no, don’t go out and blow-up a biotech company, but if something sounds weird to you, check it out so as to understand it better, don’t rely on the media to tell you what’s good and what’s not. But then, that advice applies to pretty much everything…
Oh, by the way, Happy New Year, since this is the first thing that’s shifted me to post here in 2007.
Of course your opinion of what is “too far” is heavily influenced by what you have to gain from it, so there will inevitably be those who claim that it’s our best bet to treat things like Alzheimer’s disease, and that is likely correct. Since I’m not in that position presently, I can stand back a bit and think about how far we want to go with all of this.
As usual, the headlines are somewhat misleading and sensationalistic. This is what sells papers (or whatever these days) and will certainly grab your attention. The actual procedures are pretty benign, as there is no human reproductive material used in it. Add to this the fact that the embryos will never be allowed to mature, and I don’t have a strong logical problem with the idea.
In fact the whole trend of biotechnology keeps pushing things farther out. I’ve read a lot of Sci-Fi, and more than a few books have dealt with the idea of genetic warfare and its’ aftermath. Most of this I think is way out there (but interesting to read if well done), but there is the whole slippery slope to consider.
I’ll happily eat genetically modified wheat or cloned beef, since I understand the processes well enough to realize that it won’t hurt me. Smarter people than me are working on a lot of stuff I don’t really understand, but most of it is of obvious (to me) benefit to us. What I’m hoping is that these same clever types are aware of the potential downside of transgenic experiments, especially those involving human genetic material.
So no, don’t go out and blow-up a biotech company, but if something sounds weird to you, check it out so as to understand it better, don’t rely on the media to tell you what’s good and what’s not. But then, that advice applies to pretty much everything…
Oh, by the way, Happy New Year, since this is the first thing that’s shifted me to post here in 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)