Klein's Quips

« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »

December 21, 2005

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

I'm heading out of the country for the holidays and I'm not sure what kind of Internet access I'll have, so I just wanted to wish everybody a Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!

(And I have a roommate who will be here, so don't think of this post as an oppourtunity to sneak into my apartment and rob me blind!)

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:14 PM | Comments (0)

Strike Sale

Along my 7-mile walk home to Brooklyn tonight, I passed a health club advertising a "strike sale." A sign out front boasted: "STAY IN SHAPE FOR YOUR WALK TO WORK!" I love New York. I love capitalism.

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:10 PM | Comments (0)

New Yorkers: Let's Sue the Transit Workers Union!

I'm not sure of the legal precedent for this sort of thing, but it would be nice to see a class action lawsuit filed against the Transit Workers Union on behalf of millions of New York commuters and business owners who have been affected by the strike. The economic damages as a result of the strike could be as high as $660 million per day according to New York's Economic Development Corporation. There is the lost productivity as a result of people being late to work or missing work altogether and lost retail sales during the busy Christmas shopping season. Also, there are additional costs incurred by subway or bus commuters who are forced to shell out money for cabs or car services and some businesses who have rented shuttle buses for employees. Surely an enterprising lawyer can dig up claimants who suffered injuries after being forced to take a four hour walk home. Trial lawyers find a way to sue everybody under the sun, surely there must be some way to sue the TWU for this premeditated, malicious and illegal act of economic sabotage. The union won't be able to pay all of the claims coming from such a lawsuit, but maybe they'd be forced into bankruptcy like manufacturers who are the targets of asbestos litigation. That would be a just punishment as well as a warning to other public unions who are contemplating illegal strikes.

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:42 AM | Comments (3)

December 20, 2005

Dump Them for Johnny Cabs...

Maybe New York City should consider replacing subway conductors with something like the Johnny Cab robots from "Total Recall":

Posted by Philip Klein at 4:21 PM | Comments (1)

Ronald Wilson Bloomberg?

Today, I think every right of center New Yorker out there is wishing Bloomberg could utter these words to transit workers:

"They are in violation of the law, and if they do not report for work within forty-eight hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated."

(Ronald Reagan, August 3, 1981)

Posted by Philip Klein at 10:54 AM | Comments (3)

December 18, 2005

Will John McCain Please Stand Up

John McCain voted in favor of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act last week and came out in defense of President Bush's decision to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on the international calls of people with links to terrorists. It would be nice to see McCain push for renewal of the Patriot Act with the same rigor he displayed when leading the charge on campaign finance reform, banning torture and compromising on judicial nominees.

Posted by Philip Klein at 10:42 PM | Comments (0)

Bush on Christmas and Hanukkah

President Bush has taken heat from conservatives during the ongoing "war on Christmas" controversy for sending out cards wishing everybody a happy "holiday season," but it seems he is now perfectly comfortable being politcally incorrect. During tonight's speech about Iraq, he said, "Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah" and ended by quoting a "Christmas carol" (rather than a holiday carol).

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:36 PM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2005

Giuliani on the Patriot Act

In an op-ed in today's New York Times, Giuliani writes:

YESTERDAY the Senate failed to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, as a Democratic-led filibuster prevented a vote. This action - which leaves the act, key elements of which are due to expire on Dec. 31, in limbo - represents a grave potential threat to the nation's security. I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:04 AM | Comments (0)

December 16, 2005

Conseratives and Culture

Mark Helprin has an excellent essay in the 50th anniversary issue of the National Review. Unfortunately, the full article is not available online, but you can read an excerpt here.

In the article, Helprin contrasts the way conservatives approach politics with the way they approach culture to explain why they are successful in one area, but not the other. He argues that when it comes to politics, conservatives succeeded because they (and specifically William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan) offered fresh ideas when liberalism went stale. By concentrating on “assertion rather than defense” and making a positive case for conservative ideas, Reagan triumphed and left opponents in “a reactive hissy fit.” But while conservatives recognize that initiative is more powerful than reaction when it comes to politics, when it comes to culture, the roles are reversed. In art, music, literature, film and education, liberals seize the initiative while conservatives are reduced to being mere critics. It doesn’t matter if their cultural criticisms are valid, because “for here as well as almost everywhere the initiative rules.” Helprin writes that, “any gains in politics, no matter how indelible they seem, can easily be washed away—in a generation, in a decade, year, month or minute—by culture… Even though frequently mistaken as something for which you can buy a ticket, culture is the cradle and crucible not only of all politics but of those things that politics serve and for which they exist in the first place.”

Helprin’s point is a very important one that I’d like to expand upon. I have always been partial to the self-selection hypothesis when it comes to complaints that liberals dominate academia and the arts. Any person considering a career in such fields must weigh their creative desires against practical concerns such as earning a decent living. The practicality impulse tends to be stronger in conservatives than liberals. Many conservatives view artists as lazy or flaky and are more reticent about joining their ranks.

So, to take over academia and the arts, there has to be a conscious movement to encourage younger conservatives to go into those fields. For decades, conservatives have poured money into magazines, think tanks, internships, fellowship programs, etc., and all of these things have been instrumental in furthering conservative ideas. There’s no reason why conservatives couldn’t create more endowments to groom young conservative artists, musicians or literary writers. As Helprin writes, “Cultural abominations thrive not because they are insufficiently criticized but for lack of adequately supported competition.”

The success of Fox News Channel demonstrates that a large portion of the population was underserved by the media. Along the same lines, perhaps conservatives could start an independent film studio to produce movies that promote traditional values. At the end of the day, Hollywood is more interested in money than politics, and studios are especially desperate these days given that box office receipts are in the toilet. There is no doubt a demand for movies that promote values in line with a majority of the country.

I’m not saying that it will be easy for conservatives to conquer culture—it’s a process that could take decades. But in every other area, conservatives have faith in the power of initiative to overcome any obstacle. When liberals defend social programs by arguing that poor people need the government’s help because they are trapped as a result of racism, insufficient education, etc., conservatives argue that the government should step back to allow people to dig themselves out of poverty through their own initiative. Liberals whine about the oppressive power of corporations. Do conservatives really want to reduce themselves to whining about leftists in Hollywood?

Posted by Philip Klein at 12:47 PM | Comments (2)

December 15, 2005

Sullivan on Free Speech and Gay Rights

A recent trip to Los Angeles and other projects have prevented me from keeping up with this blog in the past week, but I want to take a moment to give Andrew Sullivan credit on this post, in which he takes gay rights groups to task for challenging the free speech and free association rights of those who are hostile toward homosexuality. He says, in part:

It seems to me that gay groups need to end their silence about this and rigorously defend the free speech rights of our opponents, as well as their right to practice their religious faith in any way they see fit, and to proselytize within the law as aggressively as they want. We need to defend the free association rights of groups like the St Patrick's Day parade organizers and even the Boy Scouts, however repugnant their views of gay people. Words cannot harm people; in fact, because those in favor of gay equality are telling the truth, we have every incentive to magnify and extend the debate. Silencing opponents is a sign of weakness, doubt and intolerance. Gay groups can and should do better.

I addressed this topic myself in an article I wrote about a decision by California's Supreme Court to force a private golf club to extend marriage discounts to same-sex partners. Because of my belief in limited government, I side with gay rights groups in my opposition to sodomy laws and support for gay marriage. But gay rights groups can't have it both ways. If they want the government to stay out of their lives, they shouldn't use it to bully individuals and private institutions into accepting their lifestyle. I'm happy that Sullivan can acknowledge this distinction, and wish more gay rights advocates would join him.

Posted by Philip Klein at 12:37 AM | Comments (0)

December 6, 2005

Mel Gibson and the Holocaust

When I saw this Drudge headline:

Mel Gibson plans nonfiction miniseries about the Holocaust...

I accidentally read it as:

Gibson plans fiction miniseries about the Holocaust...

Posted by Philip Klein at 10:49 PM | Comments (0)

December 5, 2005

Why Bush Didn't Lie

My latest column, published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, explains why it doesn't make sense to believe that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. The gist:

One thing that never ceases to amaze me about the "Bush lied" crowd is that when it comes to Iraq, they ignore the fact that President Bush is a political animal. On other issues, they are quick to attribute Bush's actions to Rovian political calculations, but when it comes to Iraq, they pretend that the president has no interest in winning elections...

Bush's critics would have us believe that in a desperate attempt to gain support for the war, he began to exaggerate intelligence and outright lie to make it seem as though Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But this requires believing that Bush knew that no WMD would be found in Iraq after the war. Why would Bush make false claims about WMD while advocating regime change — the one policy that would conclusively prove that all of his claims were untrue?

It's one thing if Bush made a passing reference to WMD. But instead, his critics argue, he set himself up for further humiliation by making WMD the central rationale for the invasion of Iraq. As Bush's critics have reminded us, his administration spoke of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and exploited the image of a "mushroom cloud."

If Bush knew that these claims were false, why would he subject himself to global embarrassment with the 2004 presidential election approaching?

Viewed from a raw political perspective, the only explanation for Bush's prewar statements that makes sense is that Bush did believe that Saddam had WMD that would be found once he was toppled. This would have bolstered Bush's image as a war leader.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:04 PM | Comments (6)

December 1, 2005

Chomsky v. Dershowitz, Continued...

Some defenders of Noam Chomsky have used the comment section to take issue with my post about Chomsky’s debate with Alan Dershowitz, and I’d like to respond. Although I don’t expect to convert anybody who shares Chomsky’s worldview, I would like to address some of the points, because they are often repeated in debates about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I give you fair warning that this is going to be a long one.

Chomsky’s defenders have criticized me because I accept Bill Clinton and U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross’s accounts of the 2000 peace process, in which they blame Arafat for the collapse of negotiations. During Tuesday’s debate, Chomsky scoffed at this view, instead blaming Israel for rejecting peace and he cited the scholarship of Israeli Ron Pundak, who was not present at Camp David during the negotiations. In an odd bit of logic, Chomsky’s defenders in my comment section argue that Pundak is a reliable source precisely because he wasn’t there—the people who were present were “interested parties.” However, commenter Matt also says Pundak was “in the background, involved in the negotiations” and that he was “an ISRAELI source close to the Labour Party, i.e., the people who made the "historic offer.”” So, if Pundak was close to the people who made the offer and “involved in the negotiations,” doesn’t that make him an “interested party” too and therefore disqualify him as an objective source? I mean, it makes perfect sense that a liberal scholar such as Pundak, who favors more Israeli concessions, would argue that peace failed because Israel did not make Palestinians a good enough offer.

Furthermore, Chomsky makes a big deal of the fact that Pundak is Israeli, as if to say, “see, even an Israeli recognizes that his own country was at fault.” But the fact that he is an Israeli scholar criticizing his own government demonstrates that Israel a free and open society where many different points of view are tolerated. In Arab countries, scholars cannot criticize the government so openly.

Also, Matt links to this article as reliable. Benny Morris, who Chomsky often cites as an authoritative source, responded to it here with an article based on an interview with Ehud Barak, who was the Israeli Prime Minister during the 2000 peace process.

Matt said that Dershowitz accused Chomsky of spreading conspiracy theories to dodge Chomsky’s points about Israeli atrocities. But what actually made Dershowitz accuse Chomsky of spreading conspiracy theories was Chomsky’s assertion that the U.S. media covered-up reports of a major transfer of U.S. helicopters to Israel at the outbreak of the Second Intifada. I think Chomsky said that it was the largest deal of its kind in ten years and that it was reported in Jane’s Defence Weekly. Unfortunately, Jane’s is a very expensive publication that I don’t have access to, so I cannot confirm if the deal happened or if it was as huge as Chomsky asserted. I will say, however, as somebody who has worked for a global news organization, Reuters, and who knows plenty of critics of Israel in the mainstream media, I find it hard to believe that this story would be intentionally suppressed. And since Chomsky presented no direct evidence of a media cover-up (i.e. in the form of, say, memos from news executives ordering reporters to ignore the story) it is perfectly valid to categorize Chomsky’s assertion as a theory.

I was also asked to respond to the statistic Chomsky cited about more Palestinians than Israelis being killed during the Second Intifada. For the sake of argument, I will give Chomsky the benefit of the doubt. Again and again, Israeli critics use this “disproportionate death” argument to indict Israel and portray Palestinians as the victims. But I’m not sure what such a statistic is supposed to prove. In an armed conflict, why should the side that has suffered the most deaths automatically be deemed to be morally superior? During World War II, Germany suffered far more deaths than America did, does that mean that the Nazi regime was in the right? Now, I’m not saying that the country with the least deaths is automatically in the right either. What I am saying is that the relative number of deaths is not the ultimate arbiter of moral culpability in an armed conflict.

The casualty issue is extremely complex. Many of the statistics on the Palestinian death toll that get cited include suicide bombers, for instance. Furthermore, Palestinian terrorists specifically target innocent civilians with suicide bombings, whereas Israelis target terrorists. There’s something disingenuous about using statistics that equate the death of a terrorist leader with the death of an innocent Israeli child who was intentionally killed by a suicide bomber.

Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations against terrorist leaders receives a lot of criticism, but it is the most humane way conceivable to fight terrorism. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent Palestinians die because terrorists hide among Palestinian civilians, using their own people as human shields. Israel goes to great lengths to prevent civilian deaths, and terrorists know this, which is precisely why they hide among civilians. They know that Israelis have too much respect for life to indiscriminately carpet bomb cities, which Israel has the military capability to do. So, while Palestinian terrorists will intentionally put their own civilian populations at risk, Israelis do everything in their power to protect life. They thwart terrorist plots and planned suicide bombings, and have among the most sophisticated emergency medical response workers in the world, who, sadly, became quite adept at reacting to suicide bombings. (For more about Palestinian terrorists’ ideology of death see this prior post.)

Given the military superiority that Israelis have over Palestinians, Israel should be commended for exercising the restraint that it does. If Hamas possessed Israel’s Air Force, would it hesitate to indiscriminately carpet bomb Israeli cities? Israel has a nuclear arsenal that it has never dipped into. If Hamas had such an arsenal, would it restrain itself from using a nuke to wipe Israel off the map? After all, Hamas’s stated goal is the destruction of Israel. The terrorist group has already demonstrated that it is willing, even eager, to sacrifice the lives of its own people to achieve this goal.

In closing, I’d like to address another point that Chomsky made during the debate. He said that he intentionally choose to start his discussion with 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza during the Six Day War. That is very convenient for him. By doing so, he ignores the fact that Arab possession of those territories pre-1967 did nothing to prevent three out of the four major Arab-Israeli wars. The bottom line is that the occupation issue is and has always been a red herring. Now, I’m not saying that the occupation has been great for Palestinians. What I am saying is that it is not the root cause of the conflict. The conflict is and has always been about the desire of Arab leaders to destroy Israel. With Arafat out of the picture, and as a result of Israeli vigilance, there have been some signs that the tide is turning. Let’s hope that it does, and that Israelis and Palestinians can live peacefully next door to one another.

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:54 PM | Comments (19)