26 May 2007
Inventions, Enlightenment and Islam
In the May 14, 2007 New Yorker, John Seabrook asks why the Ancient Greeks did not use their mathematical and modeling skills to solve problems that complicated their material existence. When did humanity begin to engage in intellectual speculation and search for solutions to problems of existence? Surely the wheel was recognized as a labor saver almost as soon as it was invented. But was its discovery the result of an intentional effort to find a way to make life easier, or was that merely the convenient use to which it was reflexively put?
The Enlightenment made European men realize that if they put their minds to it, they could help themselves live more productive lives. That was a change in motivation for most people from appeasement of imaginary powers and their self-anointed surrogates to purpose-driven lives. It occurred about the time that the Islamic world infused Western civilization with its world view that incorporated the science of the Ptolemaic universe. Ironically, the culture that in the 21st Century hosts a nihilistic threat to the material well-being of the West rescued the latter civilization from its stagnation under the mystical helplessness of early Christianity.
Even today, it is not Islam that threatens the advance of Western civilization. Cultures that haven’t developed habits of civil order do threaten the world’s progress and peacefulness, particularly when those cultures are empowered by the information technology revolution. Islam happens to be a religion that appeals to members of those societies. Islamophobia says Dr. Tawfik Hamid in the May 25, 2007, Wall Street Journal, can be combated with an education campaign that brings Islamic societies into the modern world. That is a reversal of the roles of the two cultures, Western and Islamic, that would once again rescue the world from extinction.
In the May 14, 2007 New Yorker, John Seabrook asks why the Ancient Greeks did not use their mathematical and modeling skills to solve problems that complicated their material existence. When did humanity begin to engage in intellectual speculation and search for solutions to problems of existence? Surely the wheel was recognized as a labor saver almost as soon as it was invented. But was its discovery the result of an intentional effort to find a way to make life easier, or was that merely the convenient use to which it was reflexively put?
The Enlightenment made European men realize that if they put their minds to it, they could help themselves live more productive lives. That was a change in motivation for most people from appeasement of imaginary powers and their self-anointed surrogates to purpose-driven lives. It occurred about the time that the Islamic world infused Western civilization with its world view that incorporated the science of the Ptolemaic universe. Ironically, the culture that in the 21st Century hosts a nihilistic threat to the material well-being of the West rescued the latter civilization from its stagnation under the mystical helplessness of early Christianity.
Even today, it is not Islam that threatens the advance of Western civilization. Cultures that haven’t developed habits of civil order do threaten the world’s progress and peacefulness, particularly when those cultures are empowered by the information technology revolution. Islam happens to be a religion that appeals to members of those societies. Islamophobia says Dr. Tawfik Hamid in the May 25, 2007, Wall Street Journal, can be combated with an education campaign that brings Islamic societies into the modern world. That is a reversal of the roles of the two cultures, Western and Islamic, that would once again rescue the world from extinction.
What is the Military’s Job?
On Thursday, May 24, President Bush celebrated passage of his Iraqi war funding bill with no deadlines imposed by Congress on maintaining U.S. troop strength. Typically, he construed the original bill as an attempt by the Democrats to tell the military how to do its job.
In fact, the Congress was only trying to tell the military what its job was. That’s supposed to be the responsibility of the President, our “Commander in Chief.” Instead, he has hidden behind a parade of Theatre Commanders, whose real assignment has been to pacify a country filled with violent resisters to U.S. occupation.
How long will our military allow itself to be treated by the Administration as gladiators? Do they really accept it as their duty to conduct operations, and shed blood, in order to satisfy the thoughtless ego of the devotee of fundamental religion? Because he was elected President? How great the Constitutional system of the U.S.! It won’t last forever under the strain.
In 1962, “Seven Days in May” predicted the risk of a military coup in the U.S. from the right. However, the real threat to our Constitutional system may now be a humanist military reaction to abuse by the fundamentalist right.
On Thursday, May 24, President Bush celebrated passage of his Iraqi war funding bill with no deadlines imposed by Congress on maintaining U.S. troop strength. Typically, he construed the original bill as an attempt by the Democrats to tell the military how to do its job.
In fact, the Congress was only trying to tell the military what its job was. That’s supposed to be the responsibility of the President, our “Commander in Chief.” Instead, he has hidden behind a parade of Theatre Commanders, whose real assignment has been to pacify a country filled with violent resisters to U.S. occupation.
How long will our military allow itself to be treated by the Administration as gladiators? Do they really accept it as their duty to conduct operations, and shed blood, in order to satisfy the thoughtless ego of the devotee of fundamental religion? Because he was elected President? How great the Constitutional system of the U.S.! It won’t last forever under the strain.
In 1962, “Seven Days in May” predicted the risk of a military coup in the U.S. from the right. However, the real threat to our Constitutional system may now be a humanist military reaction to abuse by the fundamentalist right.
23 May 2007
Radical Islam and Iraq
Bob Kerrey’s OpEd in the May 22, 2007, Wall Street Journal probably reflects a recent discussion between him and U.N. Ambassador Khalilzad. Mr. Kerrey has bought the Bush Administration’s justification for continued occupation of Iraq
It is hard to believe that resisters of U.S. occupation would not resort to the tactics of terrorism (like the Irish Republican Army, the Tamil rebels, and others) if our strategy had been to impose a more acceptable dictator. The global threat of terrorism is less a function of its ties to Islam than its empowerment by modern communication technology.
Ms. Shirin Ebadi and Senator Jim Webb both got it right – occupying a country to impose a democracy will not work, and democracy alone will not eliminate terrorism. However, neither will military force. We cannot afford to shirk the diplomatic, political and other tasks of persuasion needed to combat what has become a real danger to civilization.
Bob Kerrey’s OpEd in the May 22, 2007, Wall Street Journal probably reflects a recent discussion between him and U.N. Ambassador Khalilzad. Mr. Kerrey has bought the Bush Administration’s justification for continued occupation of Iraq
It is hard to believe that resisters of U.S. occupation would not resort to the tactics of terrorism (like the Irish Republican Army, the Tamil rebels, and others) if our strategy had been to impose a more acceptable dictator. The global threat of terrorism is less a function of its ties to Islam than its empowerment by modern communication technology.
Ms. Shirin Ebadi and Senator Jim Webb both got it right – occupying a country to impose a democracy will not work, and democracy alone will not eliminate terrorism. However, neither will military force. We cannot afford to shirk the diplomatic, political and other tasks of persuasion needed to combat what has become a real danger to civilization.
03 May 2007
The Name War
In his OpEd article in the Wall Street Journal of April 25, 2007, Max Boot interprets the word war (as in “Long War”) to mean the military strategy that has been so poorly used by the Bush Administration in Iraq. The Global War on Terror that was endorsed by the Congress when it authorized the invasion of Iraq was meant as a metaphor for the level of effort that would be needed to prevent nihilistic attacks on the world’s civil order like 9/11. Unfortunately, that authorization was too easily manipulated by those (read neoconservatives) who took war to mean a military invasion and occupation.
Mr. Boot appears to believe that war, in the military sense, is a natural state of affairs made necessary for achieving long term well-being. In Iraq, pacification is his definition of our strategic objective. Police work and intelligence operations won’t be enough.
On the contrary, long-term and determined use of those methods is exactly what will be needed to preserve and expand a liberal democratic way of life. Calling it a War on Terror shows how sloppiness in the nomenclature of public policy (like War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc.) has tragically caught up with us when a real war could be undertaken under its banner.
In his OpEd article in the Wall Street Journal of April 25, 2007, Max Boot interprets the word war (as in “Long War”) to mean the military strategy that has been so poorly used by the Bush Administration in Iraq. The Global War on Terror that was endorsed by the Congress when it authorized the invasion of Iraq was meant as a metaphor for the level of effort that would be needed to prevent nihilistic attacks on the world’s civil order like 9/11. Unfortunately, that authorization was too easily manipulated by those (read neoconservatives) who took war to mean a military invasion and occupation.
Mr. Boot appears to believe that war, in the military sense, is a natural state of affairs made necessary for achieving long term well-being. In Iraq, pacification is his definition of our strategic objective. Police work and intelligence operations won’t be enough.
On the contrary, long-term and determined use of those methods is exactly what will be needed to preserve and expand a liberal democratic way of life. Calling it a War on Terror shows how sloppiness in the nomenclature of public policy (like War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc.) has tragically caught up with us when a real war could be undertaken under its banner.
02 May 2007
Flat Tax and the AMT
The argument made by David R. Henderson in the Wall Street Journal of May 2, 2007, for turning the Alternative Minimum Tax in the Federal personal income tax code into a flat income tax system accepts as a given that the income tax would thereby become “more fair”. His prescription would gradually legitimize what is already happening, because inflation is steadily subjecting ever larger numbers of taxpayers to the effectively flat AMT rates.
Instead of correcting for this unintended consequence of the mathematical structure of the AMT, Mr. Henderson would take advantage of it stealthily to vitiate the progressive nature of the federal income tax code. Moreover, he is careful to defend his scheme’s protection of the volume of federal revenues from erosion. His motivation becomes clear when he forecasts a shift in support for federal government programs from lower-income to higher income groups. After all, money has been shown to count more than votes in influencing the spending and policies of Washington.
The argument made by David R. Henderson in the Wall Street Journal of May 2, 2007, for turning the Alternative Minimum Tax in the Federal personal income tax code into a flat income tax system accepts as a given that the income tax would thereby become “more fair”. His prescription would gradually legitimize what is already happening, because inflation is steadily subjecting ever larger numbers of taxpayers to the effectively flat AMT rates.
Instead of correcting for this unintended consequence of the mathematical structure of the AMT, Mr. Henderson would take advantage of it stealthily to vitiate the progressive nature of the federal income tax code. Moreover, he is careful to defend his scheme’s protection of the volume of federal revenues from erosion. His motivation becomes clear when he forecasts a shift in support for federal government programs from lower-income to higher income groups. After all, money has been shown to count more than votes in influencing the spending and policies of Washington.
