The assertion in today's editorial, that "one thing must be avoided at all costs -- giving Iran a say in the governance of Iraq", very much points to the real reasons for US involvement in Iraq (containing Iran), as well as why Iraq cannot be stabilized by going big or going long.
First, the idea that Iran could or should be kept from influencing Iraq is facile, at best. Countries often stabilize and destabilize one another's respective political situations on a regular basis, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, and often simultaneously.
For example, the softwood lumber situation between the United States and Canada inflames relations and causes turmoil on both sides of the border, but its resolution underscores the connectedness of both countries. There's also no 'good and evil' here: just competing interests. It's not a crisis -- it's the basis for the way modern nations interact.
What's important is that Iran and Syria are not puppeteers making the insurgency happen -- both have very large constituencies in Iraq that look to them bring about their respective political interests. Sure, Syria wants a more Sunni-dominated Iraq and Iran wants a more Shiite-dominated Iraq. What the United States really wants is neither, but, for the foreseeable future, this is patently impossible.
But everyone in the region wants a stable Iraq, not a failed state, and that includes Iran and Syria. The on-going American presence is what makes failed statehood a very strong possibility in Iraq, since it escalates tensions all around. As the two parties considerably nurturing the problem, Iraq and Syria are the two parties most likely to nurture the solution, not the United States, in partnership with the Iraqi government.
Regardless of whether anyone likes it or not, given Iraqi demographics, Iran will almost certainly come to dominate the new Iraq. Syria can only have a modest amount influence and the United States can't stay in Iraq forever. It's time the US started a constructive dialog with Iran before we all end up in a new Cold War.
Friday, April 20, 2007
There's much askew about Richard Handler's piece "Rendering our evil ways", published on CBC.ca
There's much askew about Richard Handler's piece "Rendering our evil ways".
His paraphrasing of Marx' and Freud's positions, in particular, greatly reduce how both men thought about human autonomy. Their arguments, in principle, didn't blame class or personal trauma for misdeeds -- they only pointed to the influence that both personal and social history have on the decisions that individuals take.
In particular, they were responding critically to Kant's view of human autonomy, in which individuals could make ethical decisions mostly unfettered, suggesting that this view was an oversimplification -- which it is.
That aside, I think there's also a historical issue with the argument. The basic underlying ethical assumption of Humanism, the idea that it's wrong to harm other human beings purely because they're human beings, is a relatively new and novel thing, especially in Western history, and it forms neither a signficant part of either ancient Greek or Judeo-Christian intellectual heritage. Even in it's birthplace (Europe), this part of Humanism has never gained widespread or lasting acceptance, as the Holocaust clearly evinces.
I agree certainly with Mr. Handler's view that it is right to think of the wide-sweeping genocide and ethnic cleasning as evil, but a great number of people don't (that's why these things happen). In fact, a metaphysical sense of 'evil' is unnecessary to an explanation of the wickedness of the world, and it obscures the complexity of human behaviour.
Without suggesting that evil is banal, it remains sadly possible to explain the most infamous tragedies of contemporary history on petty laziness, a sense of necessity or entitlement, apathy, selfishness, bureacracy, greed, a desire for revenge or, more often than not, a combination of these things.
His paraphrasing of Marx' and Freud's positions, in particular, greatly reduce how both men thought about human autonomy. Their arguments, in principle, didn't blame class or personal trauma for misdeeds -- they only pointed to the influence that both personal and social history have on the decisions that individuals take.
In particular, they were responding critically to Kant's view of human autonomy, in which individuals could make ethical decisions mostly unfettered, suggesting that this view was an oversimplification -- which it is.
That aside, I think there's also a historical issue with the argument. The basic underlying ethical assumption of Humanism, the idea that it's wrong to harm other human beings purely because they're human beings, is a relatively new and novel thing, especially in Western history, and it forms neither a signficant part of either ancient Greek or Judeo-Christian intellectual heritage. Even in it's birthplace (Europe), this part of Humanism has never gained widespread or lasting acceptance, as the Holocaust clearly evinces.
I agree certainly with Mr. Handler's view that it is right to think of the wide-sweeping genocide and ethnic cleasning as evil, but a great number of people don't (that's why these things happen). In fact, a metaphysical sense of 'evil' is unnecessary to an explanation of the wickedness of the world, and it obscures the complexity of human behaviour.
Without suggesting that evil is banal, it remains sadly possible to explain the most infamous tragedies of contemporary history on petty laziness, a sense of necessity or entitlement, apathy, selfishness, bureacracy, greed, a desire for revenge or, more often than not, a combination of these things.
An American in Canada by choice published in the Globe and Mail 29 August 2005
Published as an op-ed:
It always surprises me to read pieces like David Litvak's Facts & Arguments essay (American in a Canadian body, Aug. 25) wherein he outlined why he's moving south. What's disconcerting is how much it romanticizes life in America.
It always surprises me to read pieces like David Litvak's Facts & Arguments essay (American in a Canadian body, Aug. 25) wherein he outlined why he's moving south. What's disconcerting is how much it romanticizes life in America.
For starters, there are plenty of "genteel" Americans -- if anything, there aren't enough. After you experience American road-rage for the first time, you understand why "genteel" is underrated, not overrated, as Mr. Litvak wrote. I grew up in the U.S. Midwest; in the corn belt but not the Bible belt. I was spoiled by the civility of the society to the degree that I frequently find people in Ottawa less than polite. I like baseball precisely because it's a genteel game, in principle if not always in practice.
I'm as American as they get, but I also speak both of Canada's official languages and have always supported universal health care, gun control, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose.
I was maybe 17 when I first knew that I would eventually leave the United States, mostly because what we've come to call the "red states" were clearly on the rise and the first Persian Gulf War was in progress.
I never suspected I'd head north to Canada, but by the time I was in my early 20s, I had a few Canadian friends, a Canadian girlfriend, and the great white north was looking very hospitable. Although I'm not a Canadian by birth, like many, many other Canadians, I'm Canadian by choice.
Like Mr. Litvak, I don't eat the bacon, but I do like the beer. I appreciate Canada's cautiousness, its fairness, and its commitment to good government. I prefer to give rather than to loan to a neighbour if I can afford to do so. I prefer parliamentary democracy, and look forward to proportional representation.
Now, I don't want to sound frumpy, but I don't want to have to take my credit card to the hospital, or carry a concealed weapon so that I can feel safe as I stroll in the evenings. And I hate to sound unadventurous, but I don't want my tax dollars going to nuclear weapons and wars for oil. Maybe it's anti-American, but I prefer Mike Pearson and John Diefenbaker to Lyndon Johnson and George Bush.
Canada isn't perfect, but most countries aren't. Canadian society, however, is strengthened by its willingness to have an open dialogue about its shortcomings. The United States isn't exactly known for its self-criticism and restraint, but that's not equally true of all Americans. Like Canada, there's a lot of variation among individuals and across regions.
Canadians are no strangers to regional differences, but the United States has regional difference in spades. The idea that Oregon is good, but Florida and Alabama are bad is just a stereotype. General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves before General Ulysses S. Grant did, the Klan experienced huge growth in Indiana in the 1920s, Rodney King was beaten by police in California, and George Bush spent most of his formative years growing up in New England.
The belief in an "American" type full of energy and always honest is equally romantic. Similarly, American "gusto" is mostly a national myth, a way of not talking about the ever-shrinking middle class in the United States. Most Americans, who worry about paying the rent and not getting sick, are deeply troubled by this Horatio Alger-ism. Canadians who dream of American joy-of-life romanticize a world in which this radical individualism and Canada's community of communities are not fundamentally incompatible.
I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking.
What I recommend to Canadians who fantasize about moving south is to take a page out of the snowbird book: the United States is a nice place to visit, but do yourself and the world a favour and don't live there.
Africa's Real Problem Published in the National Post 25 June 2005
Not only do gross generalizations reflect poor reasoning, they usually suggest an ignorance of the topic (judging Africa by Charles Taylor is especially difficult, considering Liberia's history).
African countries and peoples have a number of different challenges: unfair trade regulations and protectionism that do not allow their products open access to Western markets; a history of Western colonialism that created a tolerance for and the structures and bureacracy necesssary to corruption and despotism; undemocratic governments or destabilizing insurgencies that have been propped up by the West (e.g., in the former-Zaire, Rwanda, South Africa, former-Rhodesia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, etc.); loans and 'aid' that are leveraged to benefit Western economies to the detriment of African economies; Western drug companies attempting to profit from Africa's AIDS crises; and oh, yes, slavery.
Considering the damage the West has systematically done to African countries over the last several hundred years, forgiving African debt is a pittance. I'm in favour of debt relief, but as a pittance, it will do little to help Africa democratize.
To undo the harm that we've done, what is required is an equally systematic, but positive, engagement with real aid over several decades -- real commitment. Not every African regime deserves direct funding, but we can start with governments like South Africa, Uganda, and Rwanda and encourage regional and continental institutions.that have shown a commitment to better, more democratic governance.
African countries and peoples have a number of different challenges: unfair trade regulations and protectionism that do not allow their products open access to Western markets; a history of Western colonialism that created a tolerance for and the structures and bureacracy necesssary to corruption and despotism; undemocratic governments or destabilizing insurgencies that have been propped up by the West (e.g., in the former-Zaire, Rwanda, South Africa, former-Rhodesia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, etc.); loans and 'aid' that are leveraged to benefit Western economies to the detriment of African economies; Western drug companies attempting to profit from Africa's AIDS crises; and oh, yes, slavery.
Considering the damage the West has systematically done to African countries over the last several hundred years, forgiving African debt is a pittance. I'm in favour of debt relief, but as a pittance, it will do little to help Africa democratize.
To undo the harm that we've done, what is required is an equally systematic, but positive, engagement with real aid over several decades -- real commitment. Not every African regime deserves direct funding, but we can start with governments like South Africa, Uganda, and Rwanda and encourage regional and continental institutions.that have shown a commitment to better, more democratic governance.
Don't Underestimate Duceppe Published in the National Post 15 June 2005
It surprises me how much today's editorials misapprehend Gilles Duceppe's decision not to lead the PQ. Clearly, a leadership race at the national and provincial levels (with a looming federal election) will scatter sovereigntist forces, which makes Duceppe's decision sound strategy.
More important, however, is the misunderstanding of Gilles Duceppe and the sovereignty movement that these editorials reflect. Unlike other leaders of the opposition, Duceppe has made very thoughtful decisions about how to manage best his party's future, and this decision is just one more example.
Maybe it's his Maoist background, but Duceppe is a more disciplined politician and a more strategic thinker than much of the BQ/PQ leadership has been in the past. And in fact, slow, steady positioning and growth is what the sovereignty movement needs to ease the rest of Canada into the thought of a separate Quebec.
More important, however, is the misunderstanding of Gilles Duceppe and the sovereignty movement that these editorials reflect. Unlike other leaders of the opposition, Duceppe has made very thoughtful decisions about how to manage best his party's future, and this decision is just one more example.
Maybe it's his Maoist background, but Duceppe is a more disciplined politician and a more strategic thinker than much of the BQ/PQ leadership has been in the past. And in fact, slow, steady positioning and growth is what the sovereignty movement needs to ease the rest of Canada into the thought of a separate Quebec.
re: Let MPs decide, Published in National Post 14 December 2004
I had two issues with Vic Toews' letter. First, I can't agree that MPs should be deciding who is and is not married. "Such a fundamental matter of social policy" should be left to community organizations and individuals with as little involvement from the state as possible.
Second, what about all the garbage collectors, doctors, file clerks and mandarins who "have religious concerns about same-sex marriages" that Mr. Toews leaves out of his letter? Public servants should serve the public equally regardless of prejudice -- especially justices and teachers. A public service that enfranchised anyone's right to discriminate against anyone else, as Mr. Toews' letter imagines it, would be an unmitigated disaster.
Second, what about all the garbage collectors, doctors, file clerks and mandarins who "have religious concerns about same-sex marriages" that Mr. Toews leaves out of his letter? Public servants should serve the public equally regardless of prejudice -- especially justices and teachers. A public service that enfranchised anyone's right to discriminate against anyone else, as Mr. Toews' letter imagines it, would be an unmitigated disaster.
Poor logic shows weakness of case against spanking ban, Published in the Ottawa Citizen, 7 October 2004
Re: Spanking ban a step too far
Today's editorial only shows the poverty of arguments against the banning of spanking.
"To legally ban spanking" does not put "the state squarely in the family rooms of the nation without a compelling reason", anymore than laws against spousal abuse (or laws against assault in general) do. Neither is it a big step for parents to "face legal sanction" for spanking children. Parents already face legal sanction on a number of fronts for inappropriately disciplining their children, and this only adds one more instance.
As for hats, junk food, etc., these metaphorical arguments are notoriously weak in nature, showing the strain required to make an argument that does not rest on logic. Freedom of choice is hardly a workable defense in most cases of assault, and children cannot consent to being assaulted as some adults might.
Spanking only teaches children to resolve their problems with violence. If we can all agree that the reasonable resolution of disputes within a due process is preferable to violent anarchy, then we can all agree that spanking should be illegal.
Today's editorial only shows the poverty of arguments against the banning of spanking.
"To legally ban spanking" does not put "the state squarely in the family rooms of the nation without a compelling reason", anymore than laws against spousal abuse (or laws against assault in general) do. Neither is it a big step for parents to "face legal sanction" for spanking children. Parents already face legal sanction on a number of fronts for inappropriately disciplining their children, and this only adds one more instance.
As for hats, junk food, etc., these metaphorical arguments are notoriously weak in nature, showing the strain required to make an argument that does not rest on logic. Freedom of choice is hardly a workable defense in most cases of assault, and children cannot consent to being assaulted as some adults might.
Spanking only teaches children to resolve their problems with violence. If we can all agree that the reasonable resolution of disputes within a due process is preferable to violent anarchy, then we can all agree that spanking should be illegal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
