almost a diary, Political Theory, USA, web 2.0

Stupid, stupid, stupid idiots!

Lillimarleen links to “pro-gun” tirade by Rachel Lucas called just like this entry. Rachel furiously tries to point out why previous cases of civil strife, ethnic persecution, or class warfare are valid arguments in favour of uninhibited gun ownership in general, and specifically in the USA –

“If you make self-defense illegal, or even problematic, you’re making life easier for criminals and tyrants.”

Well, if I were living in a Hobbesian state of nature I would probably have to subscribe to the strict version of that theory, too. But, luckily, I am not. Maybe she is – she lives in Texas, according to her webpage – that would explain her position.

In the real world however, it just doesn’t make much sense. But just like I am, Rachel and everybody else is entitled to tell the world about his or her opinions.

So when there’s nothing to argue, what am I doing here? Well, I am not really concerned with the substance of her rant, but rather with the style.

Unfortunately, Rachel (although she’s far from the worst) seemingly believes in the bizarre discourse theory a lot of bloggers, in my experience predominantly American right-wing bloggers, are spreading these days – that calling people who don’t share their opinions “idiots” as frequently as possible is making their points more convincing. Generally, they seem to follow the rule “the more aggressive, and insulting, the better.”

Rachel herself admits this practice on her FAQ page

“Q: ‘How does Rachel expect to make her point by insulting people she disagrees with?’
A: Easy. I don’t expect to make my point to people who can’t see past the insults. Also, this is just a blog, not the New York Times op-ed page.”

Don’t get me wrong here, there are instances for the application of “idiot”. But the word’s inflationary use is a kind of verbal pollution, is simply annoying, and possibly preventing a good deal of the debate theoretically made possible by advances in communication technologies – who likes to talk to people who begin the discussion by saying “shut up, you idiot”? In Rachel’s words – why should they want to see past the insults?

I wonder if some phd student is already trying to capture the early changes personal publishing is making to the style of written opinion in general – can anyone imagine a NY Times op-ed headline that reads “Stupid, stupid, stupid idiots”? Probably not – for the time being. But who knows what the future, and the effects of personal publishing will have on other forms of media?

Standard
oddly enough, quicklink, US Politics

Strange, but interesting.

Brad DeLong ponders about the difficulties of a humanitarian military intervention in Congo and sparks a lively debate about the principles humanitarian (remember: operation Iraqi Freedom”?!) foreign policy. Here’s a great quote from Abiola Lapite:

“Funny how a discussion about mass murder in the Congo manages to drift off into arguments about “neocons”, Israel and anti-semitism. If one were cynical, one might surmise that for most western commentators, what goes on in Africa isn’t really of any interest unless it can be tied in to their political agendas in some way …”

Standard
Iraq, oddly enough, US Politics

“Vanity, definitely my favorite sin.”

The Devil's Advocate Now if *that* couldn’t become a conspiracy theory of truly Faustian dimensions… instaed of simply forging evidence and continue lying about the real reasons for the war in Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the brains of Washington’s neo-conservative foreign policy gang, has taken the high road of telling the truth for once – what else should one expect in a “Vanity Fair” interview. Here’s how Deutsche Welle reports it (my highlights):

“US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has admitted that the decision to wage war on Iraq was not based on the regime’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. Wolfowitz, an outspoken hawk in the Bush administration and a key architect of the Iraq campaign, said in a magazine interview that the weapons issue was agreed on simply for “bureaucratic reasons”. He told “Vanity Fair” that it was something everyone in the administration could agree upon. Wolfowitz indicated that the real reason was that a toppled Iraqi regime would allow the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia thus removing them as terrorist targets.”

Well, the “real reason” of the day is probably as questionable as the “real reason” chosen for “bureaucratic reasons”… But that’s not important. What’s important right now is to understand why Wolfowitz chose to tell the world about this now.

“Vanity Fair” makes one think of, well, vanity – possibly not just Al Pacino’s favorite sin. And hubris, pure and simple – “look people, if you all had my brains I would have told you – but haven’t – that’s why you have me.” Plus the added joy of explaining once more that the US can do whatever it wants even when it is lying straight to the world’s face.

All this is certainly possible. But I am not convinced. Why now? Why play in the hands of the former opponents and weaken Bush’s position on the eve of the St. Petersburg/Evian G8 reconciliation meeting?

More research is clearly necessary…

Standard
self-referential

Less Common Browsers.

I recently had the opportunity to look at this page with an old NS 4.x browser and – it was not pretty. I checked this page in NS 7 and Opera 7 and there were only minor deviations from the intended look (in IE 6). The share of users with less common browsers is evidently limited, but there are nonetheless quite a few. So if those of you not using any of the above mentioned browsers plus IE 5 get the impression that your screen would prefer to explode instead of displaying this page, I would be grateful if you could send me a screenshot to figure out what the problems are. Thanks in advance.

Standard
media, quicklink

Congo.

Read the Economist’s ( premium link | 2) and Die Zeit’s (Africa’s First World War) current coverage of the genocidal slaughtering occurring in Congo almost unnoticed by the rest of the world. How many deaths in a single instance does it need to wake the West up that something is going on in Africa, Die Zeit asks a German diplomat in Burundi.

His reply – “500 plus, in my experience”. Tragically – that even bodes well for Congo, where 966 people died in a recent massacre.

Standard
quicklink

It’s A Big Deal

although it’s actually only 30m. The city of Munich’s decision to use Linux not just on its servers but on all the 14,000 city computers, despite a personal marketing (and allegedly price-cut) intervention by MS CEO Steve Ballmer earlier this year, is almost unanimously interpreted as a huge blow to Microsoft’s grip on the market. Cynthia L. Webb of the Washington Post even calls her press survey “The Munich Revolution”.

Standard
compulsory reading, German Politics, quicklink

The Slow End Of German Corporatism

Almost unnoticed by the media, an important part of the medieval remnants of German corporatism was silently buried by the Federal cabinet today.

The ‘Meisterprivileg’ – master privilege – effectively keeping people from opening businesses in a lot of markets – mostly those with medieval guild-predecessors – by handing over the right to grant the permission to do so to the “guilds” of those who already own one. It certainly kept the returns high for those who were in the business and thus it was not too surprising to hear them scream today that increased competition will cost employment.

In the short run, this is a possible scenario. In the medium run, this reform is a major step to help create the sort of entrepreneurial environment this country needs so badly, especially in conjunction with the small business tax simplifications about to be implemented. Go Gerhard, go!

Standard
quicklink

Amnesty International Report 2003

Amnesty International Report 2003 The situation of human rights in 151 countries in the year 2002. This is what they say about Germany, France, the UK, the USA, and – for the last year of Saddam Hussein’s reign – Iraq. May I just say that I am happy to live in a country where a prison guard punching a prisoner is a sufficiently grave infringement of human rights to be reported by AI.

Standard