Mike Kielsky has a good post about the ICC (International Criminal Court) in Uncommon Sense, his blog. Like me, he’s against it. He puts it well:

Personally, I couldn’t care less whether we’d have to go invade the Netherlands, Nepal, or New Zealand. If one of OURS is being prosecuted by a politicized court composed of members primarily from nations with anti-U.S. views, then so be it.
I say this with straight face, because I can quickly dismiss the legitimacy of a war crimes complaint issued by a brutal dictatorship, but this court cannot. As organized, it will be skillfully manipulated by those governments opposed to true freedom and justice within and without their own borders, just as the U.N. finds itself so manipulated.

The reality is that the international bureaucracy is reflective of the governments that support it in a roughly democratic proportion. The notion that Zimbabwe or Albania might have an equal voice with us in judging one of ours will never be acceptable to me.
I once described myself to someone as having the politics of “Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Harry Truman having been run through a Cuisinart”. One of the core things our government should do is protect our citizens abroad from threat and violence.
I think Instapundit also put it well: “Kill an American, and you’re toast.” I have zero problems with that policy.

This came in as a comment from Michael Greene on the post below concerning Eric Raymond’s articles on the bleak future of Islamic/Western relations, and seemed interesting enough to move up from comment to the blog. As usual, my comments are interspersed.

If war is ‘built into’ the Islamic faith, why have they fought such comparably fewer wars than the West has? Millions and millions have died in European wars, what was the last major war the Islamic world participated in, Iran-Iraq?
I think the whole idea of Europe and America trying to pretend that the Islamic people are more war-like is joke given the past 100 years of modern history.

First, I’ve never said that Western culture isn’t warlike. I was overly casual in my statement; the argument made is that war is built into the conflict between the Western and Islamic cultures. Having said that, I’ll point out that the West has been and is moving away from war and toward markets and diplomacy, while in the Islamic world militancy (in the military sense) is rising. This is partly caused, I would guess, by the need of increasingly dictatorial governments to stay in power, and partly by the real or perceived threats from their neighbors and the West. Let’s see…Iran/Iraq, Iraq/Kurd, Iraq/Kuwait, Pakistan/India, Kyrgyzstan, Chechnya, the Moluccas…that’s just off the top of my head.

Furthermore, Eric Raymond has apparently done absolutely no research on Islamic history. The entire history of early Islam and the later spread of the relgion has many instances of war, but virtually every one of them is seen as a final step necessary only after negotiation has failed. Furthermore, a fundamental aspect of Islamic war is that you must treat your enemy with respect and dignity once the battle is over.
To go even further into this poorly constructed argument between this site and Eric Raymond’s, Huntington does not say at all that Islamic society is more war-like than Western, rather that the two are destined to war over a clash in ideas and values.

As noted above, that was my careless construction. I’d love some evidence (cites) on this. As I noted, I’m relatively ignorant on Islamic history (which still probably means I know more than a lot of folks), and would love to see some examples which lead one away from Raymond’s bleak conclusion.

While I agree with you that diplomacy might mean different things to different cultures, there is absolutely no evidence that one society is inherently more warlike than any other. In fact, on the basis of the evidence it would seem that Europe and the United States are the most war-like, but certainly that could not be the case, could it? Furthermore, the things being asked for by the respectable (non-fanatic) Muslims are all very reasonable things. Mostly they are asking for a fair solution in Israel/Palestine, and for greater democracy and freedom in their lands which leads to more economic prosperity (or vice-versa). My own travels have revealed a world whose people (if not governments) are rapidly coming together. It would be a huge mistake to listen to an Eric Raymond type who sees fundamental differences in humanity itself that make one group “more warlike” even though the evidence is clearly against that view. Such divisions are precisely what is not needed to engage the moderate majority of people in the world who want economic prosperity first and foremost.

The points I see here are:
1) not clear which society is more warlike; I’ll say it is more a matter of trends than absolutes. I think it is clear the we are militarily the strongest power on earth, and in an earlier post, I worried that if the conflict between the West and the Islamic world got serious enough, there might not be an Islamic world any more.
2) Your point about ‘respectable’ Muslims would be taken a lot more seriously if I saw any evidence of them in the Muslim media I read here; similarly I think we might have very different ideas of what constitutes a ‘fair solution’ in Israel/Palestine. I’d love references and reading suggestions.
3) You suggest that your travels show you people who are rapidly coming together; mine have shown me that we see things that tell us that is the case superficially (we all like Coke, and love Britney) but that at the deeper levels of culture and politics, there is a lot of room for conflict. The ‘Lexus and the Olive Tree’ suggests (in part) that we’re all coming together into one global set of brand-conscious consumers; I’m not completely sure I agree.
Look, as in most arguments, there are certainly cases to make on both sides. But I have a hard time (as I’ve said over and over again) with the ‘moral equivalence’ position, that delegitimizes all of U.S. history because we took the land from the Indians (and so on). Comparing civil life, political freedom, personal freedom, and a whole bunch of things that I value highly, this is a much better place to be than there, and while I’d never force anyone to adopt our lifestyle at the point of a gun (can we say that about them?), I’m firmly on this team, and I think that thinking folks of all stripes should be as well.

Blogging may be somewhat lighter than usual over the next week, as we’re moving next Tuesday (a sure sign that the housing market has peaked…we are buying a house…wonder what Brad DeLong thinks?) and then off to Chicago for the weekend to visit Tenacious G’s family. Sadly, I’ll miss the LA Blogger Bash, and my chance to meet the Olsens…but soon!!

Unlike everyone else who blogs, I’m obsessive about my referrer logs. I tend not to look a the counters too much (when gambling, I seldom count the pot either), but I’m always interested in where people came from, and make it a point to go look at websites that send me traffic. There are a few odd ones…someone keeps going to the Shonen Knife fan website, then here…you know who you are!…and the search hits are always funny. “buy vicodan online” is a big one, along with “Enron + smoking crack”.
So I’ve gotten a few hits from http://courseofthought.blogspot.com, and I go over there today. jenni b is a tough chick alright, and somehow I get this great strong sense of personality from her bio, which I enjoyed immensely. Part of it:

i studied engineering (electrical and mechanical) at the university of colorado. took a job as a civil engineer with the state, designing highways. after a couple years the boredom was to much to handle so i moved to san francisco to see what the leather crowd was up to out there. i starved as an artist so gave that up. i drove trucks otr but got home sick. i designed handicap mobility equipment but was put out of business by the irs. i spent a few years as a thief but knew my luck would eventually run out and i don’t like jail. now i run an auto parts store but not for much longer.

One interesting this about this whole blogging phenomenon is that I encounter all kind of people I’d love to sit down and have a few beers with but would never otherwise hear about. She’s a libertarian lesbian bottom Harley rider, I’m a liberal straight vanilla sportbike rider, and it’s just not too damn likely that we hang in the same social circles.
Forgive me if this sounds sappy, but there are voices out there folks, a great chorus of different voices, and when you listen to the song we’re all singing…well, to me, the song sounds sort of like America.

…the weird turn pro. –Hunter Thompson
The estimable Joe Katzman has actually gotten paid for this summary of his great 4th Generation Warfare posts.
A tip of the hat…

Eric Raymond has a four-part series, of which this is the latest chapter.
His position is clear; this is war, and the war is inevitibly built into the structure of Islamic society. This is a pretty clear Bernard Lewis/ Samuel Huntington position, and I agree with him more than a little.
But personally, I’m not ready to give up on peaceful outcomes yet, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to be sure that this is the ‘Clash of the Civilizations’.
But it won’t hurt for us to prepare for war while we try and reach peace, and in this chapter, I think he’s spot-on in stating that diplomacy means very different things to the Arab world and to us, and that a clear-eyed understanding of that difference (which may or may not be the one he outlines) is the only way to practice real diplomacy and avoid war.

From today’s LA Times (intrusive registration required, or just use ‘laexaminer’/’laexaminer’): 20 Settlements Will Be Razed. It sure would have been smart if they had explained that they were being razed because they were illegal, even under Israeli law, and not just that they were because of ‘the difficulty of protecting them’.
But sometimes people do the right things for the wrong reason. The outcomes are often good anyway.

I’m always proud of macho guys who aren’t afraid to show their sensitive side. Mike Hendrix, over at Cold Fury, exposes his inner show-tune lover.
Mike…here in Ellay, that would place you in a … certain … demographic. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…(a TV reference!!)
Personally, I’m a big Sondheim fan, what can I say.

In today’s Mercury News: Davis at center of international treaty dispute:

A special global trade panel is weighing a precedent-setting proposition: Did Davis break international law by banning MTBE after accepting legal campaign donations from a company pushing an alternate gasoline additive?
That is the argument being made by Methanex, a Canadian company that produces a key ingredient in MTBE. Methanex contends that Davis violated global trade rules by banning MTBE after holding a secret meeting with Archer Daniels Midland executives and collecting $200,000 from officials with the company that produces ethanol, a clean air alternative to MTBE.

From what I have been told, the environmental (leaching) issues with MTBE are real. Why does this leave me with the feeling that it didn’t matter until there was a contributor for whom it was an issue?

Earlier, I noted that I wasn’t happy with either the inclusion of “under God” into the Pledge, or with the court decision that maybe-kinda struck it. I got comments, both from people who felt they had been scorned and abused as children because they wouldn’t say it and from parents who wanted to spare their children from such opprobrium.
I thought about it a bit while driving the Boyyz around this afternoon, and talking to them came to the conclusion that, basically, I was right. Here’s the deal:
Dealing with other people requires a certain flexibility. They don’t know what you know, believe what you believe, or feel what you feel. The entire problem of politics is how to engage people and keep them engaged in some common purpose, even one as minor as obeying traffic signals.
I’m not Jewish; but when I go to a Jewish wedding or funeral, I wear a yarmulke. Why? Out of politeness. Out of a willingness to respect the beliefs of others.
But, you say, that’s exactly what the Pledge doesn’t do! It doesn’t respect my beliefs!
And that’s the key, isn’t it? On one hand, my desire is to respect the beliefs of others, where it doesn’t materially affect me and regardless of my own beliefs in the matter. On the other, your complaint is an overwhelming desire that your beliefs be respected, no matter how trivial the violation, regardless of the impact on yourself or others.
Look, we’re not talking about material affect, about racist exclusion…about fighting to give your kid opportunity or dignity. And, in part, it’s this conflation of hurt feelings with Jim Crow or the Holocaust that is driving me nuts.
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.
And we’re at a point in our political history that’s been made by single-issue warriors…for and against development, for and against abortion, for and against parks for dogs…and damn those on the other side of the issue.
I had the unique opportunity to have dinner once with then-State Senator John Schmitz. He was a genuine John Birch society member, elected from Orange County, who lost his office when it was discovered that his mistress had sexually abused their sons. (His daughter is also Mary Kay Le Tourneau, so I’ll take as a given that the family had…issues…). He was still in the Senate, and made a comment that I’ve always remembered:

When Moscone ran the Senate, he and I used to fight hammer and tongs all day, then go out and have drinks over dinner and laugh about it. We differed on where we wanted the boat to go, but we recognized that we were in the same boat. These new guys would gladly sink the boat rather then compromise.

And that’s why I think the decision was stupid, and why the forces behind it…the Church of My Wounded Feelings…and their soldiers, the Warrior Cult of the Single Issue…are incredibly destructive. And right now, we don’t have the time for it.
My sons don’t go to church, because I’ve never gone to church (at one point, one of my exes went to what I jokingly called “The Church of the Sandinista” in Ocean Park, but I thought Jim Conn was a good guy, so I’ll cut them some slack). I don’t think they are abused by being asked to say “under God” in the Pledge, and when they ask me about it (each one has, either in kindergarten or first grade) I tell them the truth; that some people who believed in God a lot asked to have it added to the pledge, and got the President to add it. And that they will; have to make up their own minds about whether to say it or whether to believe in God when they are older. But that this is how they do it in their school, and when I’m in a similar situation I say it, while thinking about all the people who do believe in God, and how cool it is that we all get to believe whatever we want in this society. But they get to decide.
If they told me they were being teased about it, I’d ask them how it differs from all the other things kids get teased for – childhood is a vicious time – and talk to them about how to respond in a way that protects themselves emotionally without becoming the bullies they are afraid of.
Somehow this whole thing reeks of the kind of pecksniffery that wants to ban tag and dodgeball. It’s the same kind of thinking that bans Nativity scenes or menorahs from public buildings, and worries more about changing the names of sports teams than about bringing people along to actually change the world.