I Want a New Left

Global Cooling

If the solar scientists mentioned in this article are right, then all of the fuss about global warming was completely unnecessary, as many of us have suspected for years. (And even if they should turn out to be wrong, their views show that the science is far from being settled.)

When the news of global warming was first announced in 1988, the reaction should have been something like this: “That’s interesting. Get back to us in thirty or forty years and tell us if your projections still seem valid.” Instead, our media immediately went into gear, as did our schools. We were told that things needed to be done to prevent a terrible catastrophe. We were told that the science was settled. People claimed that those of us who were skeptics were the equivalent of flat-earthers or else Holocaust deniers.

Just for the record, neither of these is a fair analogy. Anyone these days who believes in a flat earth can be shown the error of their ways by taking them on a trip around the world and letting them see that the world is round with their own eyes. There is nothing comparable for global warming because there is nothing we can be taken to see, or since we are taking about warming, feel. It’s not as though high temperatures in the summer have gotten so high that records get set every other day. The supposed warming is so slight that we instead have to trust a group of people who crunch a large quantity of data and who seem increasingly untrustworthy.

As for the analogy of Holocaust denial, the Holocaust was an event in the past whereas the global catastrophe that is being predicted in connection with global warming will happen in the future, if it happens at all. A more accurate analogy would be to Holocaust deniers before the Holocaust happened, but since there was still plenty of doubt then as to whether it would happen, this doesn’t achieve what the believers in global warming want it to achieve (namely that we skeptics are loathsome people).

Incidentally, as someone who hates cold weather, I’m not thrilled with the predictions of some that we are entering a period of miserable cold weather. On the other hand, if it shuts up the global warming crowd, it may be worth it.

Hat tip: Keith Burgess-Jackson

Short Items

American Diplomacy: This Is Disappointing

This article tells of how the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Francis Ricciardone, in light of the French bill making the public denial of the Armenian genocide a crime, made no comment on that legislation but instead said that Turkey needed to face up to its past if it wants to become one of the world’s top economies. This will just needlessly rile up people over there. Leave that for the historians and cultural critics back home. Or bring it up only if they bring up what they see as our own misdeeds. Instead, he should have condemned the legislation as contrary to the spirit of free speech.


A Good Question on the Pipeline

I am in favor of the Keystone Pipeline, but here a letter writer to the Columbus Dispatch, George Kalbouss, wonders why we need a pipeline all the way down to Texas when we could build a refinery in North Dakota instead. Anyone?


The Islamification of Nigeria

See here for an interview in today’s Guardian with a member of an Islamist group called Boko Haram in northern Nigeria who wants to impose shari’a on all of Nigeria, and eventually the entire world. He claims that Christians would be a protected group, but what this probably means is that they would be reduced to being second-class citizens subject to higher taxes, at best. At worst, the protection wouldn’t mean much of anything and, like Egypt’s Copts these days, would live their lives dreading the whims of the Muslims among them.

And see here, also, for an editorial in the same paper. Many of the commenters seem to think like me. Is there a sea change about these things going on in Britain these days? This comment, mixed in with all the serious ones, was pretty silly:

“It is tragic when 60's pop groups go on the rampage.”


The Current Rushdie Affair

This is the sort of editorial I’d like to see from our leftists in that it condemns the politicians for caving in to the demands for banning people and their artwork. In particular, this sentence says it all:

The standard explanation of politicians - that these steps are unavoidable because the books and works of art hurt religious sentiments - is a throwback to the silencing of Galileo in 1633 because his claim that the earth moved round the sun offended orthodox Christians.

This is pretty much the way I’ve always thought of the issue of the Islamification of the West, that we are regressing. Unfortunately, there are too many in our media and our colleges and universities who think that their attitudes represent a step forward.


Obama and College Tuition

Obama wants to stop tuition hikes at our colleges and universities. Good for him. However, he appears to believe that the problem is because of a decrease in state funding. This is what I was always hearing during the 1980s and 1990s when I still subscribed to leftist magazines like The Nation and In These Times. Since such decreases would not affect private colleges, then their tuition ought not to have gone up, but it has.

The real reason, as most conservatives know, is the huge increase in the number of administrators, many of whom were given jobs because of a liberal left agenda (the affirmative-action officers, the environmental overseers, and so on). And this is why his efforts will probably fail. There is nothing he will do to stop that sort of increase, and even if he were motivated to do it, he would be opposed by powerful interests in his own party. So, don’t expect anything to change.

Multiculturalism: The Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost

With the rise of multiculturalism a few decades ago, our elites decided not to be judgmental about other cultures. This was a strange stance to take, given that just a few years earlier they had condemned the racist culture in our South. But leave that stunning confusion on their part aside. My interest right now is in the effect it had on the Middle East. Instead of promoting enlightened values, as they had been doing up until then, suddenly our elites took a hands-off approach to the cultures in those areas. They came down hard on external oppression, in the case of Israel, but internal oppression was mostly ignored, unless of course it could be turned into a way to slam U.S. foreign policy. But any sort of outrage was tolerated “because it’s their culture.” Pointing out that since they criticize our culture we should be allowed to criticize theirs usually fell on deaf ears, “because we’ve been imperialists.” And pointing out that some of them were imperialists, too, also fell on deaf ears because, either they deny the imperialism or say that it wasn’t as bad as ours or they give some other excuse.

But what has been the result? The result is that when the Arab Spring materialized, it was hard to know whom one should root for. The current regimes were thuggish, but their likely replacements were just as thuggish. See here for an article in today’s Guardian about the abuse of pro-Gadhafi supporters in Libya. (And see here for the latest outrage in Tunisia.)

It all could have been different. If those left-of-center hadn’t gotten it into their heads to be nonjudgmental about other cultures, there would have been down through the years steady pressure on these cultures to adopt enlightened values. Those in such cultures who were already liberal would have found their ranks swelled by many others encouraged by the hope for a better life. There would have been strong and viable liberal parties in, for example, Egypt that would have overwhelmed the Islamists.

I know that leftist critics will bristle at all this, insisting that they have little leverage over these cultures. But they do. In fact, this is another part of the left’s message of guilt to us Westerners, that we are cultural imperialists. Of course, what they are thinking of when they say this is that we swamp them with McDonald’s and bad television shows, but they also get the views of our leftist elites. In addition, those elites can determine, to some extent, who gets aid, who gets support in our media, and so on. People like me who want those societies to become more enlightened can’t make our views known in that part of the world, but our leftist elites can.

The problem for the left is that they are so used to criticizing the West that they have lost all perspective on things. To invert Matthew 7:3, they can see the speck in the West’s eye, but not the log in the Muslim world’s eye.

It’s time for a change.

Common Ground between People Inside and Outside of the “Bubble”

Recently, Charles Murray has declared that, among whites, the upper class and the working poor live in different worlds with different values, and there’s an amusing test here that one can take to see how close one is to the poor. I owe this to Mark Spahn, and like him I got a score of 5 to 8 (meaning that I’m more in the bubble of the rich than I thought I’d be).

Anyway, one instance of common ground between the people inside and outside of the upper class’s “bubble” is the devotion that both groups have to the same team sports. Both groups like one or more of baseball, football, and basketball. When I first got involved in soccer in the 1970s, my naive view was that these upper class people, as well as those near the bottom aspiring to be part of their world, would be the first ones to move away from our sports to soccer since they seemed to be open-minded and internationally oriented, but that didn’t happen, and I instead found myself surrounded by a surprising mix of frat boys, sorority girls, people in the military, and suburban parents with small children. With the rise of soccer in our schools, there are now young people from both groups who are soccer fans, but the level of support for soccer is still very much below that of baseball, football, and basketball.

Let me make a few comments on the quiz.

It didn’t ask how one gets news. People in the bubble get their news from NPR, the NY Times, and the Nation. Those outside generally get it from the local newspaper or tv station, I guess.

People in the bubble hate Wal-Mart and McDonald’s and people outside generally like them.

People in the bubble sneer at the art of Thomas Kinkade, while those outside generally like his work.

People in the bubble either live on a coast or want to live on a coast. Those outside have no problem with living elsewhere.

There are more criticisms of the quiz in the comments here.

Let me note an oddity among those in the bubble. This was a young woman I met about a year ago who came from a very wealthy family. Her grandparents own lots of artwork and are on the board of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, plus she was majoring in art history at a high-priced college. She seemed like she must have had a very cosmopolitan upbringing. So, how did she spend her childhood? She said her family, in addition to their house in a big city, owned a ranch and she spent lots of time there in the summers learning how to ride horses and rope cattle. Roping cattle? It’s not exactly what I think of when I think of those in the bubble.

Update: See here for a better version of the quiz, one that has an explanation for why there was a range of scores on the other site.

I do have to complain about Murray's assertion that Chipotle is like Whole Foods. A Chipotle just opened up in my town, and it has been mobbed. The people there don't seem like the type to go to Whole Foods. Nor is it likely that a Whole Food would ever open up here.

The Bicentennial of the War of 1812

Today’s Wall Street Journal had an amusing article about the bicentennial of the War of 1812. Since some of the battles happened in Canada, the Canadians are also going to celebrate the bicentennial, except that not many know much about it. The article said that a Canadian poll of American visitors found that, of those Americans who had even heard of it, 74% couldn’t name a single event from it. This song should help, though. (But don’t pay any attention to the lyrics they post; Old Hitcreek, indeed.) Anyway, the article mentions that we burned Canada’s Parliament buildings. I hadn’t known about that. I knew a few other things: the burning of our capital, Francis Scott Key, and the fact that the Battle of New Orleans actually took place after the peace treaty, but before news of it could reach them. The name Winfield Scott comes floating back to me, but I can’t remember anything he did in that war. And that's about it.

Questions about “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”

I read this book back in 1986, and there are still things I’m trying to figure out about it. As it was, I had to read it twice to figure out who killed the mole. I’ve been watching the miniseries (with Alec Guinness) before I watch the recent movie, and watching it reminds me that I’ve never figured out this business about Ricki Tarr’s passports. He goes to Hong Kong with an Australian passport but with two Swiss passports hidden away in his luggage. After his adventures in Hong Kong, he thinks the Russians are on his trail, so he flees to Kuala Lumpur and throws away the Australian passport.

He then has a British passport made for him in the name of Poole, as well as two others, one for his girl friend and one for their daughter. After a few months hiding with them in Malaysia, he learns that a Frenchman is looking for him under the name of Poole, claiming Tarr owes him money. Since he doesn’t owe anyone any money, he assumes this is really a Russian agent, so he hightails it out of there and eventually reaches England.

Meanwhile, he has made two travel arrangements for his girl friend and daughter, an earlier one using the Swiss passports, which they actually use, and a later one meant to fool the Russians using the name of Poole. This is designed to protect them from the Russians.

So here are my questions.

1. Who made the three passports in the name of Poole? Tarr says, “I had them run me up a British.” Is this supposed to mean it was done by the Circus’s office in Malaysia, or was it done by an individual? Since Tarr fears not only the Russians, but worries about his own people, it doesn’t seem very likely that he would get it from the Circus, and they wouldn’t be likely to give it because they think he’s a defector. So, that suggests it was done by a lone individual, a forger. And Smiley a little later refers to “the man who faked this passport.” That makes it seem that it was some lone forger who did it. Likewise, Guillam thinks Tarr had it forged because he had suggested that Tarr used the Swiss passports to trade for the British ones.

2. In that case, how did the “Frenchman” find out about Poole? This is Smiley’s question, and Tarr never answers it. Assuming it was a lone forger, it seems awfully strange that anyone might ever happen upon the right forger or even know that Tarr had used a forger or that he was still in Malaysia.

3. How did the Russians learn what they knew? We know from Guillam’s forced meeting with Alleline that they knew
a.  what Tarr's daughter looked like,
b. that she and her mother were supposed to be arriving in London,
c. that they were supposed to meet with Guillam if they couldn’t meet with Tarr himself.
And none of this is supposed to be ordinary flight information. So, where did it come from?

At this site, it appears that I’m not alone in asking questions. One person suggests that Tarr made some very open arrangements for his girl friend and daughter using the Poole passports, knowing that the Russians would learn about them. But that still leaves a couple questions. First, why would Tarr tell them to meet up with Guillam if they couldn’t find him? There was no reason for him to do this. Second, how did the “Frenchman” learn about the Poole passports in the first place?

Anyone?

The Prudential Paradox – Ha, ha, ha!

Years ago when I was a grad student, a professor talked about the prudential paradox in Plato, the idea that no one, despite appearances, ever acts contrary to what they believe to be best for them. After class, I ran into a friend, and I asked him if he had heard of this paradox, and he responded as follows: “What is that? The paradox that wonders whether God could create a rock so big he couldn’t insure it?” Appreciating this depends on knowing that there is a company called Prudential Insurance that uses as its symbol the Rock of Gibraltar. And it also depends on knowing about the paradox of the stone, which wonders whether God could create a stone so heavy he couldn’t lift it.

This is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard in philosophy, and it was produced completely spontaneously, too.

Rushdie: More Death Threats

See here. He was going to give a speech via a video link for an arts festival in India, when it had to be canceled because of death threats. But whereas his actual appearance had led to death threats against him (see here), this time the threats were against the festival’s organizers. As a sub-headline in the article puts it, “A triumph for bigotry.”

And ponder this statement: “Muslims make up 13 percent of India's 1.2 billion population.” A mere 13 percent, yet they obviously can wield a great deal of control, at least at times. Anyone who thinks that there is no problem with Muslims coming to the West and keeping their culture is in denial.

Short Items

Are They Crazy, Stupid, or Just Plain Ignorant?

Croatia has just voted to join the EU. (See here.)With all the problems with the EU these days, this seems like a really bad time to join. Couldn’t they have waited for all the EU’s problems to be settled? The best I can make of it is that they have high unemployment and expect the EU to fix this. If I were German, I’d want out of the EU right now.


Canadian Deaths in Mexico

A little over a week ago, I read a report on Yahoo Canada that talked about how dangerous Mexico had become for Canadian tourists. The responses to this article divided into those who said they were never going there again, and those who dissented. The dissenters, all of whom seemed to be in denial, claimed either that Mexico was not any more dangerous than it had been before, or that the tourist parts were still safe, or that one just needed to use common sense when going there, or that those who declined going there were hurting the Mexican economy and therefore must be racist vermin. Ok, that last part wasn’t often stated, but it was usually implied.

Since that report, which I wish I had bookmarked, I’ve seen at least one more report of a Canadian being murdered in Mexico. And here’s the latest, a report of a woman who was beaten there.


Living in Israel

See here for the strong response of an Israeli to the claim that Israel is hated by nearly everyone. But are they in fact hated by everyone? When my wife, who is Jewish, went to China with a Jewish friend, they encountered a Chinese woman who assumed that all Westerners were Christian and wanted to talk to them about Christianity. When they explained that they were Jewish, the woman seemed astonished, saying, “I thought Jews only existed in the Bible.”


Obama Complains about the Press

Obama is complaining that the press makes him look cold and aloof. See here. And what does he think about how the press makes Sarah Palin look?


A Dilemma for the Left

See here for a report about Cuba drilling for oil a little to their north. On the one hand, leftists are always sticking up for Cuba, but on the other hand, this will hurt the environment!

Defining Conservatism

The Chronicle of Higher Education for Jan. 13th had an essay by Corey Robin in which he defines conservatism. I thought the definition was wrong, and I waited for conservatives to attack it, but no one seems to have bothered. So, let me do it, because even though I don’t think of myself as a conservative, I’ve spent the last two decades reading works by conservatives. But please correct me if I’m wrong.

Here is Robin’s definition: “Conservatism is a meditation on, and a theoretical rendition of, the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.”

Let me begin by observing that this is a definition of conservatism through the lens of leftism. Leftists want to change power relations, but in doing so they run up against conservatives who want to keep things as they are. They naturally conclude that conservatism’s main focus is retaining current power relations.

It isn’t.

They are two types of conservative, as far as I can see, and neither type has retaining current power relations as its main focus. The first type of conservative is what I would call a natural conservative. These are people who had happy childhoods and who like things the way they are. By implication, such people want power relations to stay the way they are, but this is only by implication. They aren’t thinking first and foremost of power relations when they say they like things the way they are.

The other type of conservative is an adult convert, who for a variety of reasons is no longer a liberal or leftist. These reasons could be that the changes that liberals and leftists made went too far, that they realize that there are unintended consequences to making changes, that the changes they wanted weren’t implemented, that changes were made that they didn’t want, that they no longer trust liberals and leftists to do the right thing, and so on. For this type of conservative, too, it is wrong to say that preserving power relations is their main focus; preventing the left from making things worse is a more accurate description.

Incidentally, one thing I’ve learned about conservatives, especially from being part of the battle against the Islamification of the West, is that while conservatives don’t much like change to the left, they don’t much like change to the right, either.

And one thing I learned about the left beginning in the late 1960s is that the left has its own conservative strain. The main thing for the left is its current agenda, and it resists any change to that agenda. So when feminism came along, the left resisted it. I started college in 1969, and feminism was just beginning to get going, but the other leftists all hated it. They simply dismissed the feminist movement, insisting that the problems that women had were unimportant compared with the much greater problems that workers, blacks, Indians, and Vietnamese peasants had. One day, a popular liberal professor at my university was going to talk about feminism in one of his classes. I knew a woman in the class, so I could count on getting an immediate report about what he said. When she got back from class, she said to an ardent feminist I knew, “Well, you sure were put in your place.”

That’s the way the left was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, very anti-feminist. But gradually things changed, and today when I tell this to people younger than me, they find it hard to believe.

By the late 1970s, I was fighting a battle against America’s Sports Establishment. I was trying to make a change in sports in America by supporting soccer, which was both more international than our sports and which I thought of as more progressive. And who was helping me do this? Not my fellow leftists, but frat boys, sorority girls, people in the military, and people from the suburbs with small children. I was still living in Minneapolis at that time, and of the local politicians, which of them supported soccer and which didn’t? None of the liberal politicians supported it, but it was supported by the mayor of Minneapolis, Charles Stenvig, who was firmly on the right.

While the right doesn’t generally like change, the left doesn’t like changes in its agenda.