From the same essay:

We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing [AL: totalitarian conquest of the world], because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the one thing you most fear never really happens. Nourished for hundreds of years on a literature in which the Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter, we believe half-instinctively that evil always defeats itself in the long run. Pacifism, for instance, is is founded largely on this belief. Don’t resist evil, and it will somehow destroy itself. But why should it? What evidence is there that it does? And what instance is there of a modern industrialised state collapsing unless conquered from the outside by military force?

The USSR and Eastern Europe collapsed without being invaded. Does that invalidate this? Somehow I don’t think so, but I’d love to hear what folks think.

Meryl moved the same time we did…and she’s already writing!!

I read Harper’s, although I’m unlikely to renew as I’m finding little recently that evokes more than vague interest.
Last month, they had a noxious and self-exculpating essay by Stanley Fish; I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to think up something to say about it, then last night I picked up something to read from one of the many open boxes. George Orwell: a collection of essays. And in it, a brilliant essay called ‘Looking Back on the Spanish War’. He said, clearly and brilliantly, what I’ve been struggling to articulate to myself:

I know it is the fashion to say that recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is particular to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past, people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case, they believed that “the facts” existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a substantial body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, you will find that a respectable amount of material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would always be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as “Science.” There is only “German Science,” “Jewish Science,” etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened”—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs – and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.

I heard Fish lecture once, and while I’ve always thought that the Derrida-istas were primarily an academic joke, when I saw him I got a faint whiff of evil.
Then I realized that he really reminded me of the antagonist in a funny academic novel called ‘Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kessler, J.S.P.S.’, a smug department head in league with the Devil. Hmmm….not a bad description, even for someone like me who doesn’t believe in brimstone.

From Random Jottings:
AN OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN FROM THE WEBLOGGING COMMUNITY
We are not politicians, nor are we generals. We hold no power to dispatch diplomats to negotiate; we can send no troops to defend those who choose to risk their lives in the cause of freedom.
What power we have is in our words, and in our thoughts. And it is that strength which we offer to the people of Iran on this day.
Across the diverse and often contentious world of weblogs, each of us has chosen to put aside our differences and come together today to declare our unanimity on the following simple principles:
– That the people of Iran are allies of free men and women everywhere in the world, and deserve to live under a government of their own choosing, which respects their own personal liberties
– That the current Iranian regime has failed to create a free and prosperous society, and attempts to mask its own failures by repression and tyranny
We do not presume to know what is best for the people of Iran; but we are firm in our conviction that the policies of the current government stand in the way of the Iranians ability to make those choices for themselves.
And so we urge our own governments to turn their attention to Iran. The leaders and diplomats of the world’s democracies must be clear in their opposition to the repressive actions of the current Iranian regime, but even more importantly, must be clear in their support for the aspirations of the Iranian people.
And to the people of Iran, we say: You are not alone. We see your demonstrations in the streets; we hear of your newspapers falling to censorship; and we watch with anticipation as you join the community of the Internet in greater and greater numbers. Our hopes are with you in your struggle for freedom. We cannot and will not presume to tell you the correct path to freedom; that is for you to choose. But we look forward to the day when we can welcome your nation into the community of free societies of the world, for we know with deepest certainty that such a day will come.

I did manage to read all the comments on the Pledge, and realized that I needed to make a deeper comment on why I’m so unhappy with the suit and the decision.
Ask any political professional what they look for in a campaign and they will tell you ‘wedge issues’; they want a black-or-white issue where they can pin their opponent on one side and where a substantial block of voters are on the other.
There are a few major wedge issues right now.
Gun control.
Abortion.
Affirmative Action.
School Vouchers.
And, potentially, the Pledge issue.
Modern campaigns are about two things: solidifying your base and splintering the opponent’s. How do you do this?
Nixon did it very damn well. The classic Democratic base from the 40’s to the 60’s was ethic urban, labor, civil-rights supporters, and the academic intelligencia.
Nixon used race and fear of the New Left to split traditionally Democratic voters off from Humphrey’s base, and won.
Ever since then, we see it in use in elections. Davis is trying to use it on Simon with abortion and gun control. Simon is trying to use it on Davis with affirmative action.
Down the coast from me, in Newport, there’s a break called the Wedge. It’s an incredible bodysurfing and boogie-boarding spot, because the waves are big, steep, and break close to shore.
The problem is that every year, a few people get broken necks from being slammed there…because the waves are big, steep, and break close to shore.
And the problem with wedge politics is that while this is a great way to win elections, it makes it damn hard to govern.

Because buying a house, moving, and looking for new projects so we can pay for it wasn’t stressful enough, we decided to go to Chicago for the weekend and visit my sweetie’s family.
A few observations.
The room mini-bars at the InterContinental have ‘intimacy kits’…two condoms and some lube…that’s a new one on me. And it reminds me that I lost a $100 bet a number of years ago when a friend proved that the Plaza in New York had an ‘afternoon rate’ from 1 to 5 pm.
The pizza in Chicago is in fact better than the pizza in Los Angeles. Period. We lose.
On a beautiful weekend like the one we had, Chicago teems with so much vibrant street life that a neighborhood advocate in Los Angeles would need an intimacy kit…I need to think about why it is that Chicago is so pedestrian-friendly.
The concept of ‘customer service’ does not yet appear to have returned to air travel. So people like me, who are typically voluntary flyers, will doubtless continue to stay away.
We’re about 30% unpacked in the new house; I’m using dialup via AOL, which means that surfing blogs is Right Out because I’m not patient enough…I’ll catch up this weekend.

Well, I’m breaking down the ‘puters now…we won’t have DSL for a few days (you can’t order the DSL until the phone line is active…THANK YOU, VERIZON!!)
It’s the two-month anniversary…and yes, my name is Armed Liberal, and I’m a blog addict.
…back in a day or so; I’ll try and write something controversial and wake everyone up…

Says a character in John Brunner’s great book “Stand on Zanzibar”.

It’s a book you ought to read, even if you don’t like SF.

One of the key features in the book is the prevalence of ‘muckers’ – individuals who just lose it in the face of whatever social/population/personal collapse they are facing, and decide to just kill whoever is at hand. Some of them go high-tech, and blow up bridges.

I think we’re there, and I’ll ask the question: where does madness end and organized terrorism begin?

Because I’ll bet that the LAX Limo Driver (I won’t immortalize his name) was on that cusp.

Avedon Carol, over at the Sideshow, dings me on the Pledge issue:

Armed Liberal made a fairly disappointing statement that pretty well underscores the point that it’s at least anti-social and probably unAmerican to insist on equal respect for your religious beliefs if they don’t happen to include public displays of piety on behalf of monotheism. And forced recitations in school of the Pledge in its current form goes a long way to teaching us that message from childhood.

I’m sorry she missed my point; in her defense, it was buried in the middle:

And in the other part, I think that including the ‘under God’ clause was an embarrassing artifact of late 50’s cultural rigidity. I’d like to see it removed. But I’d like to see it removed via a process which doesn’t drive a further wedge between the folks in the U.S. who are clinging to the symbols of a nonexistent former consensus, and those who feel alienated from that consensus.
We’re at a point in our history when we need to find the threads that bind us into a nation and a polity. Sadly, ‘win at any cost’ politicians (c.f. Gray ‘SkyBox’ Davis), and culture warriors of one stripe or another are happy to drive wedges, if they believe the fractures serve their short-term political interests.

It’s simple; if folks don’t want the ‘under God’ clause in the Pledge, remove it politically. Don’t get me started on the hijacking of political life in the West by the legal system…

Reading the Blogverse (or Blogosphere) this morning, I was thinking about what it is that makes me have such a hard time with sentiments like this one, from Nathan Newman (I’ll try and get to the AIDS issue soon…)

As Leo knows, unlike some on the left, I never said other tragedies, even those with American culpability, excused or even explained the attack in any way. In the weeks after 911, I was actually encouraged that the pain suffered by Americans seemed to be leading to a broader focus and sympathy for others suffering poverty and violence around the world– symbolized by the “why do they hate us” question, but looking even deeper in many commentaries.

Then my ex- emailed me a chain letter (she does that…) talking about the whole Toby Keith flap (he wrote the “Angry American” song, and was disinvited from an ABC televison celebration on the 4th of July):

Both KZLA and Keith have disappointed me with the song “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue.”
I have enjoyed many of the patriotic songs that have come about or come into popularity after September 11. Alan Jackson’s “Where Were You” never fails to make me cry with it’s message of love being our greatest weapon and I appreciate how much Aaron Tippin appreciates his country in “Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Flies.” Keith’s new song, however, is everything that is despised by the people who hate country: close-minded, narrow, and injected with far too much testosterone.
Keith is living in a world of black and white where we are right and they are wrong, but it is gray that is the color of compassion. It is the color of knowing that killing 5,000 innocent Americans to make your point is wrong, even while understanding the harm our American way of life and foreign policy has done to the “have nots” of the world. I can’t say that I think we should turn the other cheek to the attacks, but I also cannot say that I think our response has been a valid one. There is no easy answer in a gray world, but Toby Keith seems to think there is. He is not just advocating war, he is celebrating it!

And a light went on in my head…
We’re talking the Big Rematch. Rousseau v. Hobbes, in a cage match, with the heart of America as a prize.
As I remember it (all the books are, of course in boxes) Rousseau first argued that we all lived, naturally, peacefully, and in harmony with our own inner nature and that of the world. Then society, property, and science divided us. As I recall he later tempered this in ‘The Social Contract’; but his basic philosophical thrust was that realizing our inner natures was the highest human goal.
Hobbes, on the other hand, is famous for his quote that life in the state of nature was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. And that it was only through the imposition of social control, first in the form of feudal or tribal society and then in the form of national society that he considered to be ‘the Leviathan’, that we could lead our lives.
In one worldview, people are fundamentally good, and it is only through the wrong actions of governments and societies that they are led to do wrong.
In the other, people are fundamentally selfish and violent, and it is only through the restraint imposed by society that they can live together.
I want really badly to believe in one argument … but in reality, I know I believe the other.
I aspire to Fitzgerald’s position; of being able to contain two contradictory ideas at the same time…I’ll let you know if I get there.