Ode to Jet Blue

The New Neo Posted on by

I took the redeye last night from San Francisco, and I’m pleased to report it was a textbook flight. However, what’s the deal when the plane takes about five and a half hours to traverse the entire country and the ride home from Boston (waiting at airport, plus bus, a trip that should not be more than two) takes about the same?

But I love Jet Blue. Not only were we on time taking off, we were on time arriving, and I adore those little maps on the TV that track your flight (Nebraska=big state). Jet Blue seems to have responded to the problem with peanut allergies by offering cashews—a much tastier nut, IMHO. The flight wasn’t totally full, and so the man next to me had an extra seat to stretch out his approximately 6’7″ frame. And no crying babies; they all slept like—well, like babies.

Security rules included the fact that a young woman attempting to take a photo of her grandfather boarding the bus was stopped and told no pictures were allowed. And although the burly driver loads all suitcases on and off the bus, he is not allowed to take the bags off the little rent-a-carts—that’s the responsibility of the passengers.

It’s hot and humid here, and a far cry from Muir Woods. But the garden’s looking pretty fine:

garden-july.jpg

astilbe-july.jpg

Back to more weighty matters tomorrow.

Muir woods in captivity

The New Neo Posted on by

During my short stay in San Francisco, I’ve managed to go to Muir Woods in Marin. I hadn’t been there in a couple of decades (who’s counting?), but the memory of its majesty and mystery had stayed with me.

There’s something about a grove of ancient redwoods that can’t fail to engender awe. That’s why Muir Woods was set aside by Teddy Roosevelt back in 1908 as a protected national monument, and remains in a relatively pristine state today as one of the most easily accessible and most-visited old-growth redwood forests.

My recollection of Muir Woods involved strolling among the tall, broad, shaded giants, the sunlight breaking through to dramatically highlight the tops. Huge fallen trunks served to support the growth of other, lighter trees, and ferns and other shade plants covered much of the forest floor. The bark of the redwoods was swirled and convoluted, festooned with swollen burls at odd intervals, and a beautiful rich reddish-brown color. The trees seemed to be placed in harmonious groupings that formed the beautiful and almost infinitely varied patterns that only nature can provide.

It all remains, almost unchanged. But the experience has changed. I was fortunate enough to be there on a day with relatively few visitors and beautiful weather, but Muir Woods has become an exhibit in a zoo, caged off from the interfering hands and feet of we humans who now watch it, if not from afar, then from a slight remove.

A few feet above the forest floor, an elevated boardwalk has been built to guide the visitor down the proper path. It has rails high enough to discourage climbing overboard, and signs warning against doing so. The sensation is somewhat odd compared to the days of old when the visitor could walk at will, meandering in whatever direction seemed most appealing. Now there’s only the approved way to go.

I’m sure there’s plenty of reason for the change. People, being people, have no doubt tried to take home a souvenir (or two, or three or four or more) from the forest. The dilemma of what to do about it is an old one.

Those who originally appreciated and loved areas such as Yosemite, or the redwood forests that originally covered much of California and were harvested for lumber, disagreed about what to do to preserve some the wild and glorious lands that were still left undeveloped.

Muir Woods is named for John Muir, whose life illustrated some of those dilemmas. Muir was the proponent of some of the more extreme tenets of what is known as the preservationist (as opposed to conservationist) movement. His position was that of the purist: no development of any kind, and the smaller the human imprint the better. Muir was the champion of the idea that humans were nothing special and should not consider themselves any higher than any other life form.

This attitude has reached its pinnacle (so far) in PETA members, who focus more on animals than on natural wonders such as redwood forests. Muir (also the founder of the Sierra Club) was opposed by more moderate conservationists such as Pinchot, who believed there was a way to intelligently manage national resources without leaving them untouched, although both men opposed what they considered the reckless exploitation of natural resources.

We are their heirs, and similar disagreements persist today concerning areas such as ANWR in Alaska and whether oil production and the natural wildlife there can peacefully coexist. Muir Woods itself is serene and silent on the issue, but human beings are not; the argument goes on.

Guilt by association: General Petraeus and the company he keeps

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, it didn’t take long, did it? General Petraeus, who wrote the book on counter-insurgency fighting, whose Princeton PhD. dissertation analyzed the bloody consequences of the withdrawal from Vietnam, who was unanimously confirmed by Congress when appointed as Iraqi commander, is now officially a liar and a right-wing stooge.

Why? It appears to be a combination of two factors: the surge is having some positive results and Petraeus is reporting that fact, and he gave an in-depth interview to the likes of Hugh Hewitt (labeled a lunatic by Matthew Iglesias at the Atlantic Online, who also says—without really explaining why—that no one should go on Hewitt’s show).

If you actually read the interview transcript, it appears that Hewitt has somehow managed to keep from foaming at the mouth as he queries Pertraeus, whose answers to Hewitt’s questions seem judicious and measured. The General offers some good news, it’s true, but also some bad news about the surge—the latter including the spotty reliability of Iraqi forces, for example.

No one who reads the article with an open mind could find much actual evidence on which to question either Petraeus’s competence or his efforts at candor and balance. Ah, but that doesn’t stop those partisans on the Left who have a powerful interest in the surge not working, and in discrediting anyone—even a man with the impeccable credentials of Petraeus—who might have the gall to say otherwise.

And so they are killing the messenger by concentrating on criticism of the receiver of the message: Hewitt, who is indeed a partisan. As, of course, are they.

Here’s Hewitt’s response. In it he quotes Andrew Sullivan as saying:

….such a decision to cater to one party’s propaganda outlet [the Hewitt interview] renders Petraeus’ military independence moot,” Sullivan declared. “I’ll wait for the transcript,” he continued, before not waiting for the transcript. “But Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I’m beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney’s. Expect spin, not truth, in September.”(emphasis added.)

So, let’s summarize. Despite his previous reputation as a knowledgeable man and a straight shooter (and all of that “supporting the troops” stuff on the part of the Left/liberals), if a commander gives an interview to someone on the Right, his veracity is immediately and deeply suspect. Petraeus is only allowed to give interviews to the NY Times and the Boston Globe and the New Yorker and the Nation—outlets that may not even be asking to interview him, for all we know—or his entire reputation is trashed.

It’s guilt by association, and there’s no need to point out the parts of the interview that are suspect; it’s the thing itself. The only good—and nonpartisan—interview would apparently be one with Seymour Hersh.

It’s not as though Petraeus has only been interviewed by Hewitt or the Right, either. Here’s a bunch of his recent interviews with venues that seem fairly varied: CBS and CNN to balance out Fox, for example.

The grouping includes a quote from Harry Reid in late April saying that he won’t believe Petraeus if he says there’s progress in Iraq, because whatever the General may say to the contrary, it isn’t happening there. Now, there’s another truly open and nonpartisan mind, like Sullivan’s and Iglesias’s.

And they call Petraeus biased.

Greetings from San Francisco

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m in San Francisco for a few days for a family get-together. It’s the usual beautiful summer here, with clear skies and only an intermittent bit of the fog for which the city is famous, just enough to give a slightly mysterious atmospheric mist now and then.

I arrived very late Thursday night and didn’t get to the house where I’m staying until the wee hours of the morning. Between the rigors of travel and the late hour, by the time I finally got to sleep I was fairly well-zonked.

Which explains why the earthquake failed to even wake me up.

The next morning people were talking about it. As earthquakes go, it was relatively mild, but there was enough of a kick in it that even the natives woke up, sat up, and took notice. Not me.

This, however, continues a long tradition of mine, which is this: far more often than chance would dictate, a noticeable earthquake occurs within twelve hours of my appearance in any city in the state of California. So, perhaps I should issue an alert when I’m about to arrive.

Terrorism and American geographic exceptionalism

The New Neo Posted on by

One aspect of the traditional idea of American Exceptionalism included the notion that its geography kept the US safe from foreign invasion. This was historically true for the most part.

Pearl Harbor was the singular exception, as far as I know, and it constituted an attack rather than an invasion. Although shocking to the American public, it occurred very far away, in a territory rather than a state, involved military targets, and was perpetrated by a nation at war (not with us—not yet—but at war nevertheless).

Even in World War II the logistics were such that it was not practical to invade or even to attack the US mainland, although there were some attempts at small-scale sabotage.

The post-WWII spread of nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union ushered in something quite new: a Cold War between ideological enemies armed with weapons that could destroy either nation. My generation therefore was the first one brought up with the idea that American geographic exceptionalism had effectively ended.

However, mutual assured destruction—or perhaps the relative sanity of the two nation-players—meant that despite the long duration of the Cold War and the bitterness with which it was fought in non-nuclear proxy wars such as Vietnam, the US remained uninvaded and unattacked, which may have allowed us to consider ourselves relatively invulnerable. And the fall of the Soviet Union only compounded this feeling.

That was true until 9/11, an event that had various unique characteristics. Not only was it the only attack on the mainland, it involved civilian targets, and was perpetrated by an extra-national group that had declared war on the US but had previously been seen as ineffectual, and by actors who had been living among us.

On 9/11 that group was spectacularly successful. But because of its shadowy and terrorist nature it was poorly understood by most people in this country, who had to try to play catch-up to learn what al Qaeda stood for and why it had seen fit to attack us in such a manner. This hasn’t been easy, since al Qaeda’s reasoning is both murky and seems quite different from traditional Western, state-motivated, casus belli.

That difficulty allows the various groups in the West to fill in the blanks in accord with our various positions, agendas, and philosophies. Are the terrorists rational actors, or rageful zealots? Can they be stopped by reason and/or concessions, or can they only be killed? Is this true, as well, of the states they are allied with, such as Iran? If killed, will that fact motivate more people to join this particular cult in love with death, or will it discourage the recruitment of jihadis?

There’s also a divide between those who see that in this technological age such groups do threaten us in a major way, and must be stopped, and those who consider them to be largely incompetent and easily contained.

The former group realizes that, to terrorists, American geographic exceptionalism is no more. The modern global economy and its enhanced communications and flow of material, the extraordinary number of foreigners already residing in this country with more entering all the time (both legally and illegally), and the relative ease of obtaining weapons with a destructive power that heretofore was limited to states, have ended that. 9/11 had the extra added feature of allowing us to see that extraordinary strategic creativity (for want of a better word) could allow terrorists to use ordinary devices such as airplanes as weapons of great destructive power.

As far as “invasion” goes—traditional invasion is no longer necessary to attack the US. Another way of looking at it is that an invasion has already occurred—albeit of mostly peace-loving immigrants and visitors who are intent on minding their own business. But among those millions terrorists can hide, as they did prior to 9/11, and can hatch plans to wreak various forms of destruction.

This was known as a possibility before 9/11, but was not really credited. Now instead of a hypothetical, it is a fact. One of the other myths that was exploded—along with 3,000 people—on 9/11 was that foreigners who actually have lived in this country for any length of time would come to appreciate it, or at least to like Americans well enough to lose the intense hatred that would make them capable of committing the mass murder of innocent civilians. We Americans consider ourselves to be a genial society. The persistence of the rage of the 9/11 perpetrators in the face of somewhat lengthy stays here for many of them was a shock of major proportions.

It’s been almost six years since 9/11, and those years have featured no significant organized terrorist attacks on our shores, despite our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, actions which certainly could be considered provocative. People of different political persuasions interpret this fact in ways that stem from their own pre-existing notion of things, because the truth is that we don’t know exactly why this has been true.

Many on the Right consider the lack of post-9/11 terrorist attacks here to be a combination of two things: anti-terrorist efforts by this administration nipping such plans in the bud, as well as the knowledge of the terrorists themselves that it would be in their interests not to provoke the American public into more forcible retaliation and awareness. If the American public is somewhat of a sleeping giant right now, then let sleeping giants lie.

Many on the Left consider the lack of successful post-9/11 attacks here as evidence that the terrorists are weak and incompetent (inherently so; not from anything the Bush administration has done, of course!) and that 9/11 was a rare exception, never again to be repeated. For this reason, all announcements of the thwarting of new plots must be trivialized and/or considered to be propagandist inventions of the nefarious Bushies. But in addition, I wonder whether the attitude of the Left is somehow a remnant of the long-held idea of geographic exceptionalism; certainly the Left considers America exceptional, although ordinarily in a negative way.

And so, divided we stand. Or sleep. Whether an awakening will occur, and whether it will be a rude one, is everybody’s guess.

Apologists for terror: liberty vs. social equality

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve been reading a collection of essays in the book The Survival of Culture by Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball. In a piece entitled “Burke and Political Liberty,” by Martin Greenberg, the author is discussing the French Revolution and its excesses, and how it was that so many political figures of the time made excuses for the path the Jacobins took.

For example, the relatively moderate Roland defended them by saying that their “vengeance mingled a sort of justice,” and praised them for showing restraint in not murdering everyone they could.

It turns out that Roland’s own wife ended up being the victim of the revolutionaries’ “sort of justice,” at which point he killed himself. But that was later.

Greenberg’s summary of the position of apologists for the Reign of Terror is well worth reading, and is relevant today when thinking of the many Leftists in the West who have become apologists for a different form of terror—the Islamist totalitarian variety:

How did intelligent, cultivated people, then and later, come to excuse these abominations which ordinary simplicity sees for what they are? One answer, of course partial, seems to be the deep shift, anticipated by Rousseau, of moral feeling away from concern for liberty to concern for social justice.

For “social justice” please substitute any of the following: social equality, racial equality (or “justice”), ethnic equality (or “justice”), cultural equality (or “justice”), and economic equality (or “justice”) and you have the motivation behind much of Leftist thought and action. The fact that such equality is a fake “justice,” the fact that it cannot actually be attained by human society, and the fact that all efforts towards achieving it end up profoundly compromising liberty are ignored by its champions, who have as much difficulty now giving up their Utopian dream as they did then.

Perhaps more.

Democrats on Iraq: what, us worry?

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t know whether it shocks you, but it still has the capacity to shock me that the Democrats don’t seem to care about the consequences of their current stance on Iraq.

Perhaps that’s the best indication that they are not actually interested in implementing those policies, and that their real goal is to position themselves as antiwar in order to win the 2008 elections.

As the very liberal LA Times points out (registration necessary to read the article), advocates of precipitous withdrawal have failed to devise a strategy for the bloodbath that even they acknowledge will almost surely follow.

There are many among you who say that I shouldn’t be surprised, and that my reaction is the mere tattered and naive remnant of my lifelong liberal Democrat allegiance. And naivete is hardly in short supply right now among the Democrats when looking at how to deal with the consequences were we to withdraw before calming the situation down in Iraq (this naivete, by the way, was matched by some on the other side who failed to plan for the scope and viciousness of the postwar battle there).

According to the article:

Many congressional Democrats also say that a U.S. withdrawal would encourage Iraq’s neighbors, such as Iran and Syria, to play a more constructive role in resolving the conflict.

“I believe, if we leave, the region will pull together,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a founding member of the influential House Out of Iraq caucus. “It’s important to them that Iraq stabilize.”…

But aside from broad calls for a diplomatic effort to work with Iraq’s neighbors and more involvement by international organizations, such as the United Nations, most Democrats have no “Plan B,” should a withdrawal yield chaos.

My favorite Democratic “leader,” Harry Reid, has another solution:

Some proponents of a withdrawal declined to discuss what the United States should do if the violence increases.

“That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.

Okay, Harry. Next question?

More congressional theater on Iraq: the Senate’s all-nighter

The New Neo Posted on by

Surprise, surprise! The Senate pulled an all-nighter, but the Democratic leadership failed to garner enough votes to change anything in Iraq.

That “surprise, surprise” comment of mine was, of course, sarcastic, because it could not possibly have come as a surprise to Reid and company that they lacked the sixty votes necessary to force the proposed movement on the issue of troop withdrawal.

But actually succeeding was probably not the point for the Democrats; if they did, they might start looking a lot worse than they do now—although that’s bad enough—when the withdrawal becomes real (and dirty) rather than imaginary (and clean).

The Democrats have gone forward and put antiwar bill after antiwar bill to the vote, hoping perhaps for the magic formula to reach that all-important number: sixty. But so far the math just won’t parse.

That hasn’t stopped the flow of bills, however, because the secondary agenda (or come to think of it, maybe it’s the primary one, after all) is to force members of Congress to go on record as pro or con, and also to pressure Bush (or to get the Republicans to pressure him) into making concessions.

Perhaps that latter goal has now been abandoned as impossible; I’ve written here about how little likelihood there is of its ever happening. Whether you love Bush or hate him, or are somewhere in between, you have to admit the guy stubbornly sticks to his guns.

But, according to Harry Reid, this latest Senatorial pajama party (including cots and pizza–sounds like fun!—as well as toothpaste, toothbrushes, and deodorant) had another goal. In addition to showing the Democrat antiwar base the Party has their interests at heart, “[I]t will focus attention on the obstructionism of the Republicans.”

Of course, it also focuses attention on the willingness of the Democrats to push for what Republican Orrin Hatch called the “political abandonment . . . of the biggest threat we face of the 21st century.”

So, which Republicans abandoned their “obstructionist” ways last night and joined up with the Democrats? Here’s the list: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Gordon Smith (Ore.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

Not exactly news. Hagel and Smith have a long history of joining with the antiwar crowd, and Mainers Snowe and Collins (Collins is billed as the “surprise” vote) are hardly an astonishing duo to join the Dems. Understand that Maine—a state I know quite a bit about—is hardly Republican any more, despite its two Republican Senators. Both Snowe and Collins are RINOS—as well they might be, because otherwise they could never be re-elected, much less elected in the first place.

The rock-ribbed Republicanism of Maine is long gone. In recent years it has joined virtually all of New England in the solidly Democratic ranks on both the state and the national level (see this and this). Snowe and Collins may indeed be sincere in their alliance with antiwar Democrats, but it is also in their own political interests (Collins is up for re-election in 2008) to officially go on record as doing so.

These four are hardly typical of Republican lawmakers. Nor do they represent the persuasive powers of Democratic rhetoric. Bush isn’t the only stubborn one, apparently; both parties are hanging tough in their respective positions.

[ADDENDUM: See this for another example of Bush’s stubbornness–or his steadfastness.]

Seat belts in Iraq: an oxymoron?

The New Neo Posted on by

A while back I had lunch with Michael Totten during one of his rare moments in this country. He’d just returned from a recent visit to Iraq and Kurdistan, and was telling me what it was like to travel there.

One of the things he mentioned was that the cars he rode in invariably lacked seat belts. No, it wasn’t because the automobiles were old. According to Totten, it’s because the Iraqis had purposely ripped out the seat belts. Why?

Apparently it’s a point of honor (as in honor/shame culture; see this and this) in many Arab countries to do away with the protection afforded by seat belts. In their eyes, this shows bravery.

According to Totten, some taxis still sport seat belts. But they are somewhat like vestigial organs; the drivers take it as a personal insult if you put them on or even indicate a desire to wear them. “What’s the matter,” they say, “don’t you trust my driving?”

Although my personal experience of Israelis is that they can be mighty macho, too; according to Michael, Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where seat belts are widely used. Somehow, that’s not a surprise.

[ADDENDUM: Yes, yes, I know that not everyone in this country wears a seat belt, either. Some of my best friends (you know who you are!) refuse to wear one; something about having once been in an accident and having survived by being thrown clear of the wreckage. In this country, seat belt usage in lowest in young males (a telling fact; they tend to be higher risk-takers than other segments of the population), but most people of all ages wear them; the costs and annoyances seem small compared to the possible benefits.]

Amending the Constitution: protection from the tyranny of democracy and republicanism

The New Neo Posted on by

In the many posts I’ve written attempting to explain the basic neocon attitude towards the spread of democracy-(see this and this) I’ve tried to be careful to use the term “liberal democracy” to describe what is advocated. Why? Because democracy alone is not enough.

Democracy can devolve into tyranny almost as easily as a powerful central government can. The genius of our system is that it makes it exceptionally difficult for tyranny to occur by making it extremely hard to change our Constitution or to give up the basic rights guaranteed there (absurdly hyperbolic discussions of the Patriot Act notwithstanding).

This is not to say that some encroachments can’t, and don’t, occur. But they have been relatively minor compared to what is possible; so far, our system has worked to insure that we are among the freest people on earth.

Not only are we a republic rather than a pure democracy, but our republican form of government is designed with an exquisite system of checks and balances in place among the three different branches. But that’s not all. Our Bill of Rights establishes that certain basic liberties will be protected, and the mechanism for amending the Constitution and changing that system (including that Bill of Rights) is made almost fiendishly difficult to implement.

History teaches that the Bill of Rights was adopted with an eye to limiting the power of both the executive and the legislative branches, as well as to make clear that all powers not specifically listed in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government were retained by the states and the people. But what would prevent the people from voting away any of those rights? History also teaches us that crowds are strange and fickle things, subject to persuasive demagoguery as well as coercive threats, and that Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor wasn’t lying when he said that humankind is often willing to lay down the burden of freedom for easy answers and the promise of protection from its responsibilities.

As Lincoln wrote, our government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” But the overwhelming power the people would wield in a pure democracy is limited by the powers and balances among the three branches, the fact that we have a representative republican form of government rather than a pure democracy, and by the aforementioned difficulty of amending the constitution.

Without these guarantees, democracy can mean “one person, one vote, one time.” The Ayatollah Khomeini was given dictatorial powers in a process that began, after the fall of the Shah and the Ayatollah’s triumphant return, with a nationwide referendum that was passed with an extraordinary 92.8% percent of the vote. This established the theocratic dictatorship that exists to this day, with the constitution of Iran being totally rewritten shortly afterwards.

Hitler came to power without ever winning a majority vote for his party, but the German government had another weakness—under its constitution, it was relatively easy to suspend civil liberties and establish a dictatorship. This did not even require the vote of its people, merely a two-thirds majority of its legislature. Therefore it was done by republican means; the Reichstag obligingly voted to abolish itself, although not without the “persuasion” of Hitler’s storm troopers surrounding the building with cries of ““Full powers—or else! We want the bill—or fire and murder!”

And recent less dramatic, but similar and still worrisome, events by which Venezuelan dictator Chavez has seized power with the full cooperation of the Venezuelan legislature—which, as in Germany of old, can amend the constitution by a mere 2/3 vote—demonstrate once again that there are not only “democratic” ways to seize power, but “republican” ones as well (and please note the small “d” and the small “r”).

One has only to look at the makeup of our own Congress, with its power-hungry politics-playing on both sides, to understand that we would by no means be immune from such a vulnerability if our own Constitution were similarly written. But, just as our checks and balances work to protect us from one branch of the government easily gaining ascendance over the others, and our Bill of Rights works to protect our liberties from encroachment by any branch, the entire edifice rests on the difficulty of changing any of this. The framers purposely built such roadblocks into the Constitution itself when they implemented the amendment process.

I haven’t done an exhaustive search, but my guess is that our constitution just might be the most difficult on earth to change. Yes, the first step is a vote by two-thirds of the legislature (with a never-used alternative form of proposal, two-thirds of the state legislatures calling for a special convention for the purpose of making an amendment), just as in Germany and Venezuela. But that, fortunately, is only the first step. The next one is approval by three-quarters of the states, either their legislatures or special conventions.

These hurdles placed in the way of easy amendment do not, of course, assure that our liberty will be protected. But they certainly make it more likely than it is in most countries. In the end, of course, even the constitution only rests on the general social contract and the consent of the governed (and, by the way, this is where the guarantee of the right of the people to bear arms comes in handy; at least it gives them a fighting chance against a possible runaway military).

How does this apply to the attempts to spread democracy to a country such as Iraq? It makes it clear that democracy itself is a highly flawed “solution” without the guarantees inherent in a liberal democracy, and that none of it is of much use if the constitution of a country is too easily amended or suspended.

Blog week in review

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that the Sanity Squad is on summer vacation, those of you who may have been aching for the sound of my voice can listen to this week’s “Blog Week in Review,” in which I discuss the recent Live Earth concert and the phenomenon of rockstars advocating political causes, as well as the advent of the iPhone and its cultural ramifications, with host Austin Bay and fellow guest Jeff Goldstein.