Ginny

Age: 77 Place: Originally Nebraska, now Texas Family: Husband, 3 daughters, 3 sons-in-law, 3 grandchildren Occupation: Retired Education: BA, MA Nebraska; Ph.D. UT-Austin Work On hhe Double (1979-1992); taught: ta Austin, Blinn Jr. College (1993-20015), Kelly Girls intermittently.

Kennedy Sees a Herd, Iraqis a Pack

by

Free Iraqi’s report from Radio Sawa:

Citizens of Al Mudiryiah were subjected to an attack by several militants today who were trying to punish the residents of this small town for voting in the election last Sunday.

The citizens responded and managed to stop the attack, kill 5 of the attackers, wounded 8 and burned their cars.

3 citizens were injured during the fire exchange. The Shiekh of the tribe to whom the 3 wounded citizens belong demanded more efforts from the government to stop who he described as “Salafis”. [via Instapundit via Gay Patriot.]

This was a heartening juxtaposition with the news tonight, which showed Teddy Kennedy berating defense officials, raving that no Iraqis were fighting and only Americans were shedding blood. And this story is also more heartening than other current stories that make him look foolish, such as this one, which describes the twelve police recruits killed as a “lesson” to any Iraqis who might want to taint their country with the rule of law & democracy.

Both the soldiers represented by those men defending their policies in that committee room and those Iraqis who braved threats to vote are examples of courage we don’t expect to see in a Senate hearing room, a courage I doubt I could command. But I do understand what that courage serves: the vote, the open mike in that committee room where our representatives–people owing their place to our vote–can grill representatives of the army, big business, the administration. That courage serves the causes those partisan hacks abuse. But the expression of that tired and absurd anger (if not the anger itself) represents much that is bigger than Teddy. I’m just surprised that someone whose family has gained its fame and power from the votes others cast for them would not see the importance of those purple fingers and the reason those recruits were willing to take on that challenge and risk that death.

Government as Pimp

by

Clare Chapham’s article, “If you don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits”, in the Guardian was forwarded by a friend; Todd Zywicki at Volokh also comments. Some see this as an argument for keeping prostitution illegal and others as evidence of a nanny state that can’t afford to keep up welfare payments with a 10% unemployment rate. My friend believes prostitution should be illegal. I am less opposed.

The essential problem, however, seems to me that coercion in many ways – some petty and some not – are likely to come when a state casts “safety nets” broadly. I don’t see how it can’t be coercive–if we do not have to face the bad consequences of our choices then soon the state will recognize that to survive we must not be allowed to make bad choices for which it takes the consequences. But life is full of complicated choices – is it a bad one to take unemployment pay and not work or is it a bad one to enter one of the more unattractive and dangerous professions (even ignoring the spiritual problems many might have). However, if we want the state’s money then we need to prove we “deserve” it by interviewing for jobs. And frankly, as a taxpayer, I do think that some requirements for such checks isn’t a bad idea.

I would prefer a world, however, where people felt work was dignified and sought it without the government’s push, where people felt prostitution (even though legal) compromised them and they had a strong enough sense of self not to compromise themselves. A world where, in other words, we made our own choices and took our own consequences.

But this brings us to another characteristic of broad state regulations: reputation and peer pressure count for nothing; everything is either approved and therefore encouraged or not – and then made illegal. Laws then govern all. Nuances that arise from peer pressure, the pressure of traditions, of our own peculiarities, of our own desire to say “I prefer not” will be submerged by what must be. We will do as we should–or someone will want to know why. This leaves little room for our petty vices and eccentric life-choices. Such a world is likely to have few compromises in the rules – only compromises in the self.

How Fast They Learn

by

Iraq the Model begins with a joyous “The People have won” and continues in celebration. In the midst is an anecdote that shows the value of disinterestedness – a portent of what’s to come (and must come in a democracry):

The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted “vote for Allawi” less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:

“You’re a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people’s choice. This is Iraq’s army, not Allawi’s”.

This was a good sign indeed and the young officer’s statement was met by applause from the people on the street.

We don’t always remember how in modern times, the importance of the wall between the military and the political is as important in many countries as the wall between church and state. The Iraqis have learned – what they don’t want has taught them what they do.

Brian & George

by

Brian Lamb, replacing BookNotes with his patented interview technique on Q&A scores this week-end: an interview with Bush (8:00-9:00, repeated 11-12 both Sunday evening – E.S.T.). The transcripts and streamed viewing are up. The interview is 23 minutes long and followed by roundtable with Richard Norton Smith and Doug Brinkley.

That interview is on C-Span I; it is preceded on C-Span 2 by BookTV’s new program, Afterwards precedes this one; for those of you who haven’t caught this new program, an author is interviewed by someone with a different (often opposing) perspective. Of course, this is not the usual neutral take of C-Span (but, then, the interviewers aren’t c-span employees, either). This week Dana Priest (of the Washington Post) will interview Melissa Boyle Mahle a former US intelligence officer, about her new memoir, Denial and Deception: An Insiders View of the CIA from Iran-Contra to 9/11.

Iraqi Vote

by

Reynolds links to an especially well-written plea to bloggers of all stripes concerning Sunday’s election:

I’d like to ask a favor: Regardless of one’s political inclination, irrespective of your confidence in the electoral process employed, or the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, no matter what the outcome, let us all stand united in our admiration for those courageous Iraqi’s who will brave gunfire, RPGs, bombs, and reprisal, to determine their own fate? For they choose to do so in bold defiance of promised violence and certain intimidation.