Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
James R. Rummel Famed blogger Steven den Beste asked me if I would mind posting a few of his thoughts. Not at all! And here they are.
During the recent war in southern Lebanon, one of the many complaints leveled at Israel was that its response was “disproportionate”. Care to hear the reason why the complainers wanted Israel to limit itself to “proportionate” responses?
An interesting theory was introduced in 1957 about hydraulic empires.
The basic idea is that, in some regions, vast empires were only possible if the state had control over access to water. Control of the populace was ensured because everyone would soon die if the crops were denied the life giving resource.
A drought was, oddly enough, a way for the reigning despot to strengthen his grip. Scarce water would be diverted to cities and regions that shown the most enthusiasm in their support of the ruler, while more troublesome populations would have to face a terrible death from starvation. The favored were even wilder in their support, while anyone who was less than loyal wasn’t around any longer to cause trouble.
Strategypage.com reports that North Korea has been doing the same thing, except that this time it is food that is scarce instead of water. The armed forces spend a fair amount of their time farming and raising food, which means that the guys with all the guns are less likely to rebel. Civilian farms in areas known for showing signs of unrest are denied desperately needed supplies, which results in mass starvation.
Policy towards North Korea seems to be based on the hope that it will eventually implode on its own. The strategy is that forces inside the country will destroy the odious Communist government if we wait long enough. It is hoped that the people will rise up just as soon as enough of them realize that they have been lied to by their leaders, or the remaining leaders will start a civil war after Kim Jong Il dies.
I first came across the theory of hydraulic empires when I was reading the Larry Niven novel A World Out of Time way back in 1976. The protagonist explains the concept, and then mentions that this type of empire exerted such control over the population that they could never be toppled from within. The society might become so rotten that a single barbarian raid could start a chain reaction which led to the destruction of the entire empire, but it always took that push from outside to get the snowball rolling downhill.
Things are a bit more complicated when it comes to North Korea, mainly because both China and South Korea have an interest in seeing the country lurch along without coming apart. But, even if Pyonyang didn’t have their support, I would be willing to bet that the government still wouldn’t fall on its own.
According to this blog post, the number one goal for baby boomers over the age of 50 is to lose weight.
I have to admit that I am feeling some conflicting emotions about this.
My interest in history has convinced me that living in past centuries was Hobbsian in that life was nasty, brutish and short. In fact, the majority of the world�s population still lives that way. I�m extremely grateful to be living at this time, in this country, where eating too much is a concern for people who would have probably died of old age a century ago.
On the other hand, I can’t help but feel that there should be some other goals that these people should try and achieve.
The rest of the top ten list also strikes me as frivolous. Number 2 is write a book. Goals numbered 3, 4, 5 and 7 is to take some sort of elaborate and expensive vacation.
I’m 42 years old. Does that make me a baby boomer?
Considering this list, I certainly hope not.
(Hat tip to Triticale, the Wheat Guy.)
I have written before about something that fills me with a profound sense of unease. Armed members of the Mexican Army routinely violate our borders, apparently acting as hired gunmen for gangs of drug smugglers.
The latest happened just a few days ago. Two members of our National Guard directly observed six armed men wearing strange uniforms on our side of the border.
Consul-at-Arms asks a good question. Why in the world are our National Guardsmen serving unarmed on the border?
There is no way for me to know. Maybe the powers-that-be don’t want our troops to, you know, shoot some invading members of a foreign military? Because that would be my first guess.
Should we allow the Guard to be armed while on the border? That all depends on whether or not you think it is a good idea to keep corrupt foreign military units and their murderous drug smuggling paymasters on their side.
(Hat tip to Bear Creek Ledger.)
Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch (HRW) has written a scathing condemnation of Israel. He claims that civilian casualties in Lebanon are too high, and that the IDF is conducting indiscriminate attacks with no military justification.
Keep firmly in mind the fact that I have devoted the last 15 years of my life to helping innocent people resist violent attack, but I still find that I really don’t care about the report. The reason is not the subject but the source.
We have seen far too many Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s) over the past few years display an appalling enthusiasm for condemning the United States for human rights abuses, while ignoring any terrible act of violence that our enemies deliberately perform. Sometimes they have to jump through some extreme hoops to try and justify their knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
So my first, second and last instinct is to reject reports like this from HRW and other NGO’s as being hopelessly biased. They have destroyed any credibility they might have with me, and I just don’t care what they have to say.
UPDATE
Kenneth Roth was a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, and he said that the report was rock-solid evidence of Israeli wrongdoing. He claimed that HRW has conducted many investigations like this in many countries, and he stands by the findings. In fact, he personally vouches for it.
For some reason I’m still not convinced, even with Roth’s very strong assurances. I wonder why that is so?
(Cross posted at Hell in a Handbasket.)