Bring Back the Chestnuts

Instapundit think's this is cool. Having grown up on Chestnut Ridge, so do I. Apparently, so does Dubya.

The American chestnut, prized for its timber and its crop of glossy dark nuts, once dominated Eastern forests from Maine to Georgia. The graceful trees were virtually wiped out by blight starting at the turn of the 20th century.

That loss, Case said, "was the greatest environmental disaster in the Western Hemisphere since the Ice Age."

Now, after years of breeding, cloning and crossbreeding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is ready to reintroduce disease-resistant chestnuts to Eastern forests next year.

Evolution on Trial -- Richard Dawkins Comments on the Kansas Controversy

Richard Dawkins, one of the most extreme and celebrated exponents of the Darwinian synthesis, cuts loose in the Guardian on the current debate over teaching Intelligent Design in Kansas. He writes:

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant

As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away.

Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Read it here.

Dawkins, of course, scores some important points. All too often proponents of ID have either misunderstood or misrepresented the views of evolutionary biologists. And, the evidence supporting the operation of Darwinian evolutionary processes in nature is indisputable.

But, that is not what Darwinian extremists like Dawkins are arguing. They represent the once-fashionable "Darwinian synthesis" which assumes that every feature observed in living things must be explained through the operation of Darwinian selection -- that is, it must serve some evolutionary function. They recognize no other possible influences.

This position ultimately reduces to sheer determinism and was strongly opposed by Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould who argued for a massive amount of contingency in evolution. To Gould, evolution was not deterministic, and in his work on the Burgess Shale he made the argument quite eloquently. Gould's argument's, though, were denounced by Dawkins and other Darwinian determinists, not because they were wrong, but because they gave aid and comfort to ID proponents. You see, if chance plays a large role in evolutionary processes there is no grounds for excluding supernatural agency. God could be manipulating the throws of the dice.

Gould was disturbed by this attempt to exclude what he saw as reasonable arguments simply because they might be used by religious people. This was ideological warfare, not scientific inquiry. I note that in his current diatribe Professor Dawkins argues that it is not safe for scientists to express doubts about any aspect of evolutionary theory because the "creationists" might be able to use those expressions of doubt in their arguments. This is censorship that is altogether antagonistic to free scientific inquiry.

He further misrepresents the arguments of ID advocates, many of whom are quite comfortable with Darwinian processes. They simply argue, unlike Dawkins and his ilk, that Darwinian processes are not necessarily a total explanation for everything -- that the fact that they can be demonstrated to operate in nature does not exclude all other possibilities, including supernatural agency. Dawkins has famously stated that one cannot simultaneously believe in Darwin and in God. ID advocates are saying, "yes we can!" By no means are they trying to shut down scientific inquiry and debate, and to brand them "Creationists"is fundamentally dishonest.

I myself am not an advocate of Intelligent Design -- my critique of the apotheosis of "Science" rests on other grounds, but I do recognize intellectual tyranny when I see it.

Maryland Politics -- Ganging Up on Ehrlich

The Baltimore Sun reports:

A coalition of the nation's leading news organizations filed a legal brief yesterday supporting The Sun in its lawsuit against Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., contending that the governor's ban on two Sun journalists was an act "characteristic of repressive regimes."The 27-page amicus brief was filed in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., by lawyers representing the New York Times Co., The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Time Inc., CNN, the E.W. Scripps Co. and Advance Publications Inc.

This suit is a response to Ehrlich's banning all state employees from communicating with Sun columnist Michael Olesker and Maryland political editor David Nitkin. Clearly the journalistic community sees Ehrlich's action as a threat and is mobilizing to fight it.

Read it here.

Robert Farrow, over at the Baltimore Reporter, notes that the list of the Sun's supporters is a rogues gallery of liberal interests. They allege that Ehrlich's action is characteristic of "repressive regimes" to which Farrow responds: "it is also characheristic of repressive regimes to not report the truth and lie to support a particular political agenda, as the MSM does."

I wouldn't take it so far as he does, but it is true that the MSM, including all of the listed news organizations, have had more than their share of scandals lately.

Read Farrow here.

Farrow's judgment is mirrored by that of David Wissing over at the Hedgehog Report. Wissing asks:

Seriously, is it really any surprise that a cabal of liberal news organizations is backing The Baltimore Sun in their fight with with a Republican Governor?

Read him here.

Seriously, I think that there is something more than simple liberal bias at work here. The news community insists on certain rights and privileges and justifies them as being neccessary to doing their job of informing the public. It is not surprising that major news organizations would band together to oppose any attempt to restrict their activities. The fact that they are all liberal organs is incidental, but telling.

The Rise of the Moderates -- At Last!

I seldom listen to Rush, but today I did. He's in high dudgeon about the moderate Republicans who, he argues, sold out their party and their principles. In particular he is upset about McCain's role. Hindrocket was interviewed on MSNBC and had a similarly negative view of the situation. Mickey Kaus sees the deal as being so favorable to the Democrats that no Republican would ever agree to it, leading him to speculate that there are additional, unspoken, agreements to which Democratic moderates have committed themselves. [Read Mickey here]. Harry Reid is claiming victory.

Let's get a little perspective here. The Republicans have committed themselves to what? To not invoke the "nuclear/constitutional option" for the rest of this term -- that's about one and a half years. And, the Democrats are promising not to filibuster except in "extreme cases." But if the Republicans see the Democrats acting in bad faith, they reserve the right to back out of the deal and go back to the nuclear option. The key outcome is that, for now, the possibility of a filibuster has been preserved. That is important. It is, as Senator Lieberman reminded a group of us a few weeks ago, a powerful incentive for both parties to reject extreme positions, and that, I would argue, is a good thing.

So, nothing has been settled finally and the debate over judicial appointments goes on. Kaus is right to say that they are just "kicking the can down the road." That, too, is a good thing. Final victory by either side would alienate a major segment of the American public. This is too important and too sensitive a matter to be settled for once and for all.

And John McCain is right to say that what underlies this whole thing is "trust." Both sides have to trust that their opponents will act in good faith. But trust is in short supply both in the MSM and on the internet. We have to hope that it survives in the Senate, and everything right now seems to indicate that through painful negotiations the moderate bloc [the "Gang of Twelve," or Fourteen, or whatever] has been able to work together on the basis of mutual trust. If they can continue to do so, there is hope that the Senate can achieve something other than gridlock or total ascendency of one side or the other. That, too, is hopeful.

If there is backsliding on the deal, it will come from the parties respective "bases." Already Democrat activists are trying to weasel out. Nan Aaron, Rush points out, has declared that all Supreme Court nominees are, by definition, extreme cases" and can therefore be filibustered. We will hear much more of this line of reasoning in months to come. The vitriol emanating from some precincts of the right indicates their assumption that the Dems will cheat and their willingness to jettison the compromise. We can also be sure that Democrats will be charged with acting in "bad faith."

It can be expected that the parties' leadership will reflect this reluctance of the activist bases to accept the compromise. But this does not mean that everything will collapse into mutual recrimination.

What hs emerged is a moderate bloc of Senators large enough and coherent enough to control Senate votes in the future. If you think back, this was the situation back at the beginning of Bush's first term, but Bush short-circuited it by forming an alliance with John Breaux and his group of moderate Democrats to pass tax cuts. Now Breaux is gone and the moderate bloc has come into its own. The leadership of both parties, will continue to take extreme positions and weasel out of commitments but the real deciding factor will be what goes on within the moderate bloc. In this situation trust and a degree of ambiguity are essential. Lots of things have to be left unsaid. People have to believe that good faith will hold. You won't find that among the activists, nor the controversialists in the MSM, and certainly not in the blogosphere, nor can we trust the leadership of either part, so beholden are they to their respective activist bases.

More than three centuries ago William Penn [fils] wrote that, "Governments are like clocks -- they go of the motion men impart to them." His conclusion was that the institutional arrangements of government are far less important than the quality of the men who staff them. Two centuries ago Benjamin Franklin concurred. He was far from satisfied with the institutional arrangements forged in Philadelphia in 1787 and rightly felt that they would not last long in their original form, but argued that so long as good men [he had in mind George Washington] were in charge, things would work out for the best. Today we are seeing a vindication of that point of view. Good men and good women, basing their actions on mutual trust, and honoring the ambiguity that is essential to humane government, have once again emerged in times of trial as the best hope of the republic.

I applaud them and wish them well.

Oxyrhynchus Papyri Update

Oxford Scholars using high tech imaging techniques have recovered some more fragments of original text from the papyri. This time it's seventy lines from Sophocles and thirty from Archilochos. Interesting, if not particularly important, stuff.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

A relatively new technology called multispectral imaging is turning a pile of ancient garbage into a gold mine of classical knowledge, bringing to light the lost texts of Sophocles and Euripides as well as some early Christian gospels that do not appear in the New Testament....

In the past few weeks alone, researchers have succeeded in deciphering a 70-line fragment from a lost tragedy by Sophocles and a 30-line fragment from Archilochos, a Greek soldier-poet who chronicled the Trojan Wars.

The Archilochos fragment confirms what scholars have long suspected: that the Greeks got lost on their way to invade Troy and mistakenly landed at place called Mysia. There they fought a battle, lost and had to regroup before heading off again for Troy.

The Archilochos fragment will be published later this month. The newly discovered lines from Sophocles are scheduled for publication in August.

For earlier reports on the Papyri see here, here and here.

UPDATE:

Jim Davila over at Paleojudaica has a scathing post on journalists mis-reporting matters dealing with the Papyri [I think he may be a little too hard on the writer of the article cited above]. He also links to information from Oxford that clears up some of the problems in interpretation. Check out his post here and follow his links.

Criticizing the Critique of Capitalism

Sign and Sight cites Juli Zeh's response to the recent anti-capitalist/anti-US themes articulated by the SPD in recent German elections. Writing in Der Spiegel she outlined the choice facing German voters thusly:

"Do we long for a small, secure world, or will we continue striving to
extend the frontiers that provide equal chances (and so also equal risk) as far
as possible – even beyond national borders? And would we be ready to sacrifice
certain material things in the name of one of our older or newer ideals? How do
we want to be? Strong, beautiful and successful, or noble, helpful and
good?"

The voters responded, sending the SPD down to humiliating defeat. Let us hope it is just the first of many.

Read it here.

RELATED:

Check out the comments by Franco Aleman over at Barcepundit on the poisonous brew of "ANTI-AMERICANISM, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism" that festers in contemporary German political culture, and follow his links to a superb article by Wolfgang Munchau in the Spectator.

The Senate Compromise

Hurrah! Reason has prevailed over partisanship, at least for a while. Right wing ideologues are in a rage, looking for blood because the filibuster has not been eradicated and they might only get five of the seven disputed candidates. Lefties are relieved for the same reason, although they would like to have blocked more. Both sides were at fault. The Democrats clearly were abusing the rules of the Senate and in the response Republicans were threatening to seriously damage the institution. Such are the perils of partisanship.

A showdown has been averted, or at least postponed, and the moderates within the Senate are moving into the foreground. A potentially significant point -- the leadership of both parties were completely cut out of the negotiations and had to have the results explained to them. We may have witnessed a turning point here in which extremist confrontation gives way generally to moderation, accommodation and compromise. At least we can hope for such.

An interesting historical note: The three most significant assaults on the authority of the judiciary were launched by Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the three brightest stars in the Democrat firmament. In each case the judiciary was overwhelmed by presidential power. Yet in the current debate it is the Democratic Party that is arguing that judicial power is sacrosanct.

Samuelson Speaks Sense

Every once in a while the US media go into a declinist tizzy. The public is assaulted day after day, month after month, with predictions of imminent decline. This year is no different. We are assured that the rising powers of Asia [China and India this time; Japan and the "Little Tigers" twenty years ago] are about to inundate us and bring an end to American prosperity and influence. Well, maybe..., but probably not.

Robert J. Samuelson addresses the current wave of fear-mongering with blunt common sense. He points out that none of these apocalyptic fantasies have panned out and wonders why. They are not pure fancy -- in each case there has been hard evidence to support the declinist's scenarios. But American society and the American economy just keep chugging along -- outperforming their would be conquerors.

He writes:

One puzzle about the U.S. economy is why it doesn't do worse when there are so many reasons that it should. Our students do fare poorly on international comparisons. In a recent study of math skills of 15-year-olds in 29 countries, done by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Americans ranked 24th. We do depend heavily on immigrants to fill science and engineering jobs. In 2000, immigrants accounted for 17 percent of U.S. scientists and engineers with bachelor's degrees, 29 percent with master's degrees and 38 percent with doctorates. And our savings and investment rates are low. In 2001, the U.S. savings rate ranked 22nd out of 25 OECD countries.

The explanation is this: every complex economy is more (or less) than the sum of its parts. What matters is not just how much we save—but how well we invest. The Japanese have squandered much of their higher savings on unproductive investments. Similarly, many work skills are learned on the job. Perhaps 70 percent of the gap in average incomes between the United States and Western Europe reflects the fact that Europeans work less than Americans. The Europeans are entitled to their preferences (longer vacations, earlier retirement), but their higher unemployment and lower labor-force participation rates mean that fewer people acquire real job skills—and that some people with skills don't use them.

But there is a larger problem with the reasoning underlying declinist scenarios -- they generalize from too few facts.

[They transform] a few selective economic happenings—a satellite here, a Toyota there, poor test scores everywhere—into a full-blown theory of economic inferiority or superiority. As often as not, the result is misleading.

He argues that the current anxiety over China and India is no different. There are real challenges in Asian prosperity, but there are offsetting benefits to be gained. The US will continue to outstrip its rivals and if there is danger in the offing it is:

that the China bloc destabilizes the world economy—not that it soon overtakes us.

There is a great deal of good sense here. But the public appetite for apocalypse and the political and economic profits to be gained from doom-mongering are too great to hope that we will see any diminution in the volume or frequency of Chicken Little scenarios.

Read it here.

Pennsylvania Politics -- Santorum Steps in It

Rick Santorum lost his cool on the Senate floor during the debate over filibusters and may possibly have compared his opponents to Hitler [although his statement is so incoherent that it's hard to tell to whom he was referring]. Here's a link to The Raw Story which runs a transcript of the relevant remarks. [here]

Santorum quickly apologized for the remarks saying "Referencing Hitler was meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues." [here] That's how I thought he meant it, but his remarks were so garbled that they could be read a number of ways.

Whatever, he's given the Democrats some ammunition they can use against him next year, and whenever anyone criticizes them for over the top remarks they can simply point to his Hitler remarks.

Jonah Goldberg over at NRO has suggested a rule of debate: Whenever anyone compares someone or something to Hitler in a debate, he loses right then and there [or something to that effect]. It's a good idea.

UPDATE:

Jonathan Chait, writing in the LA Times, argues that we really need more Hitler analogies:

Read it here.

Deep Rot at Newsweek

Newsweek is playing games with its overseas editions. While the American edition has an innocuous pop-culture cover, the overseas ones are quite different. Check out in particular the Japanese cover. Here's a link to the Riding Sun blog where the covers appear. [Hat tip to Lileks]

The writer's advice to Newsweek: "If I were to offer Newsweek a suggestion, it would be this: Any story or cover you're ashamed to run in America probably shouldn't be used in other countries, either."

Exactly!

The weather was great yesterday, so I spent a couple of hours walking some of the roads near my Pennsylvania place. Here's one of them -- the stream is the "Little Schuylkill River." 

Maryland Politics -- The Steele Band is Jammin'

The Washington Times reports:

ANNAPOLIS -- Maryland Republicans at a recent state convention were almost giddy with excitement about the possibility of Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele becoming their candidate next year for the U.S. Senate.

Buttons proclaiming "I Like Mike. Senate" adorned the shirts, coats and blouses of many Republican activists. The convention earlier this month buzzed with talk of Mr. Steele's speech the previous evening at the Montgomery County Lincoln Day dinner and how he electrified the crowd.
....

If Mr. Steele enters the race, he will attract a lot of national attention and money to a state usually overlooked by both parties because of the Democrats' dominance. State Republican leaders envision the party's national stars, such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and maybe even President Bush, coming to campaign.

Money would not be a problem, party leaders say. Republican National Committee member Louis M. Pope recently predicted Mr. Steele would have $15 million to $18 million to spend on the campaign.

Read the article here.

I have seen Lt. Gov. Steele speak, and he is incredibly impressive. I was talking recently to a prominent Democrat and his wife, both close friends of Ben Cardin, and they said that Steele was the only Republican who scared them -- simply because he such an effective speaker and campaigner. If he decides to run for the Senate he could shake things up mightily.

I'm still hoping for a Mfume-Steele contest, but it looks increasingly as though the Democrats will run Cardin. Even so, if Steele declares, it will be one hell of a race.

Schroeder's Woes

Even something as potent as anti-Americanism can run out of steam. John Fund reports:

Three years ago, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder cynically used opposition to liberating Iraq to play an anti-American card just before elections in which he trailed his Christian Democratic opponents. He barely won a second term. Yesterday, facing a likely loss in elections in Germany's largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, his Social Democratic Party's union backers played another anti-American card, this time depicting U.S. investors as blood-sucking parasites. Social Democratic chairman Franz Muntefering compared hedge funds to "swarms of locusts." This time, the tactic failed. Mr. Schoeder's party went down to a stunning defeat, losing the largely working-class state, home to one out of five Germans, for the first time in nearly 40 years. Last night Mr. Schroeder announced he would hold national elections this fall, a year ahead of schedule.

I try to resist schadenfreude, but in this case....

Read it here.

Terry Schaivo -- the final word

Sometimes even as vapid a source as the New York Review of Books can surprise you. In the current issue Joan Didion has by far the best, most sensitive, and most perceptive treatment of the Terry Schaivo controversy yet published. I have never been a big fan of Didion, but this time she hit a homer.

It's long, but well worth the time to read.

Read it here.

Revenge of the Shia

Richard Beeston, writing in the Times, reports that terrorist efforts to spark a civil war in Iraq are beginning to show some results. The Shia majority has for the most part shown almost super-human patience in the face of escalating attacks from Sunni and foreign terrorists, but now they are beginning to strike back, and as they do the possibility of civil war becomes more and more likely.

THEY HAVE lived side by side for generations, but the small farming communities south of Baghdad are being split apart by a vicious sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias that many Iraqis fear could be a step on the path to civil war.

As politicians in Baghdad struggle to bring the communities back from the brink, fresh accounts are emerging from the fertile area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers south of the capital of the latest cycle of violence....

Until recently the Shias did not respond to the provocation, appearing to heed their religious authorities, who said that retaliation could plunge the country into civil war and jeopardise their political victory in January’s elections.

Now Sunnis say that restraint has ended. Last week around 50 bodies of murdered Shias and Sunnis, including 15 Sunni Arabs with links to the Muslim Scholars’ Board, were dumped in Baghdad. They included the body of Sheikh Hassan al-Neimi, a Sunni cleric who had been arrested by men in police uniforms....

It appears that the retaliations were engineered by Iranian trained forces. This should serve to remind us that it is not just Zawakari and the Baathist remnant who want to provoke civil conflict in Iraq. Iran has a strong interest in keeping Iraq divided and American attention focused there.

Read the whole thing here.

China Rising -- Interpretations

We have been seeing a lot of stories about China lately and it is a good time to stop to consider what they mean.

In the latest issue of the Atlantic Robert Kaplan views with alarm Chinese naval development that promises soon to give it a significant blue water capability. He writes:

The Chinese navy is poised to push out into the Pacific—and when it does, it will very quickly encounter a U.S. Navy and Air Force unwilling to budge from the coastal shelf of the Asian mainland. It's not hard to imagine the result: a replay of the decades-long Cold War, with a center of gravity not in the heart of Europe but, rather, among Pacific atolls that were last in the news when the Marines stormed them in World War II.

Read the article here. [subscription required]

This alarmist view is perhaps overstated.

Thomas P.M. Barnett has dismissed Kaplan's argument, which focuses on naval threats, as sheer propaganda generated by the US Navy for use in the upcoming budget battles. The Navy, he argues, stands to lose funding, bases, and manpower unless they can gin up sufficient anxiety about the Chinese naval threat. Read him here.

But China has indeed been building a blue water navy, especially nuclear submarines, to supplement its coastal and amphibious capabilities. This has been intepreted by many experts as an attempt to do two things:

1) gain the capacity to interdict US assistance to Taiwan in case of an outbreak of hostilities there.

2) to protect Chinese oil supplies in case the US attempts in a crisis to interdict them.

This is something far more immediate and less threatening than Kaplan's prediction of a new cold war, and it is something that is being taken seriously in Washington. In recent weeks the US and Japan have declared a common interest in maintaining the independence of Taiwan -- a clear warning to Beijing.

But Washington is clearly concerned by much more than Taiwan. One indication is the fact that the Bush administration has begun to build a strong strategic relationship with India.

The Australian, over the weekend, reported:

ITS logic is inescapable yet the idea has been inconceivable: a strategic partnership between the two great democracies, the US and India, long divided by distrust and the Cold War.

Yet it is happening. George W. Bush has reached out to India and one of the coming debates in global politics will be over the manner and meaning of his decision to support India's quest to become a global power.
....

The Bush administration, far more cohesive with Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, has launched a diplomatic offensive with India that is stunning in its rhetoric and serious in its content. "India's relations with the US are now the best they have ever been," says Rajiv Sikri, the senior official on East Asia at India's external affairs ministry.
....

In a calculated State Department briefing in Washington on March 25 (now famous in New Delhi), the real US purpose was made explicit. The spokesman said that Bush and Rice earlier this year "developed the outline for a decisively broader strategic relationship" between the US and India. When Rice went to New Delhi she presented this outline to Singh, its purpose being "to help India become a major world power in the 21st century", the abiding dream of the Indian elite.
....

Events are moving fast. The US is offering India a top-of-the-line version of the F-16, hi-tech defence and space co-operation in terms of satellites and launch vehicles, Patriot and Arrow missiles, and access to civilian nuclear technology. (India's aim is to generate 25 per cent to 30 per cent of its huge energy needs from nuclear.)

"The strategic dialogue will include global issues, the kinds of issues you would discuss with a world power," the State Department spokesman said. The US was prepared to "discuss even more fundamental issues of defence transformation with India, including transformative systems in areas such as command and control, early warning and missile defence."

After Rice's visit, US ambassador to India David Mulford said the US and India "are poised for a partnership that will be crucial in shaping the international order in the 21st century".

Read the Australian article here.

This is an extraordinary shift in policy -- one that testifies to the seriousness with which the Bush administration views recent developments in China. A set of "containment" alliances is emerging -- US, Britain, Australia, India, S. Korea, Japan, and possibly Russia, aimed at limiting the spread of Chinese power. This is very much in line with Kaplan's argument.

So, are the stories in the press part of a long preparation for a new containment strategy like that outlined in Kaplans article, or are they just propaganda issued by the military seeking to justify budget hikes? The evidence seems to favor the former position. Washington is taking the Chinese threat seriously and is making long-term preparations to meet it.

An alternative position was sketched out by Fareed Zakaria, writing in Newsweek. He argues that China poses no real threat to the US or its interests in Asia. Instead, he writes, the US and China have lots of areas of common interests where they can work cooperatively toward common goals.

The most immediate such area of common concern is the threat of nuclear proliferation. Zakaria argues that all that stands in the way of a joint US-China policy is the Bush administration's insistence on regime change in North Korea. If the US would just back off, he suggests, the US and China could work together to manage relationships throughout East Asia.

The immediate benefits of such an accommodation, Zakaria implies, would be both a lessening of tensions with North Korea that might lead to disarmament and a peaceful reconciliation between the mainland and Taiwan.

Read Zakaria's article here.

Where Zakaria urges appeasment and cooperation Robert Kagan sees inevitable conflict. He writes:

The idea that we can manage China's rise is comforting because it gives us a sense of control and mastery, and of paternalistic superiority....

The history of rising powers, however, and their attempted "management" by established powers provides little reason for confidence or comfort. Rarely have rising powers risen without sparking a major war that reshaped the international system to reflect new realities of power....

He warns that, rather than seeking to accommodate itself to western style liberalism, it is

possible that China does not want to be integrated into a political and security system that it had no part in shaping and that conforms neither to its ambitions nor to its own autocratic and hierarchical principles of rule? Might not China, like all rising powers of the past, including the United States, want to reshape the international system to suit its own purposes, commensurate with its new power, and to make the world safe for its autocracy?

Whatever the outcome, Kagan insists,

we need to understand that the nature of China's rise will be determined largely by the Chinese and not by us.

Read Kagan's article here.

So there we have the three major positions so far articulated in the American press [of course there are variations on each of these]. Zakaria argues for a carefully managed future in which China and the US work cooperatively toward common goals; Kagan argues that such management is probably not possible and fears armed conflict as China attempts to expand its influence at American expense; and Kaplan sees a strong possibility of a long period of antagonism, not unlike the Cold War, in which a gradual mutual accommodation will be painfully worked out over the course of several decades.

Which interpretation will be borne out by future experience -- who knows? But it seems that the Bush administration as well as Beijing are preparing for something like Kaplan's vision. One thing is certain -- the future of China's development will hold many surprises for us.

Stay tuned....

Star Wars -- The Politicization Thereof

She Who Shall Not Be Named and I went to see Star Wars, part whatever, on Friday. It's pretty much a waste of time. The FX are good, but nothing you haven't seen before. The acting is horrible. Even good actors are reduced to hack work by Lucas' dialogue and direction. Regarding the screenplay, the less said the better. Bad writing, bad directing, bad acting, mediocre FX -- an altogether annoying couple of hours. The only thing that can be said for it is that Lucas has done worse.

In an attempt to create some points of interest for people to talk about [other than how idiotic the whole thing is] there has been a [probably studio generated] buzz about hidden left-wing/ anti-Bush messages coded into the excruciatingly bad dialogue. This, of course, is just a futile attempt to impart meaning to an essentially mindless exercise. And, as Toby, the "Bilious Young Fogey" points out -- the movie could just as easily be read as a right-wing fantasy. He writes:

In summary, looked at without leftist blinkers:

The senate is the UN/EU

The dark side is Islamism

The Jedi are the US and Australia (alas, not the UK)

Kofi Annan is Jar Jar Binks - the bumbling appeaser who unwittingly hands democracy to the dark side (not the hideous Jamaican caricature)

The assorted evil countries who have voting power in the Senate equal to the votes of the good are Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe

The role of Naboo [a country that thinks that the processes, rather than the substance of democracy, must be preserved (see Padmé's successor in II)] is shared by Canada, New Zealand and the EU

China is the Trade Federation (subverting the Senate to increase its GDP and disregarding human rights in the process, rather than Lucas' woeful caricaturing of inscrutable and lisping Mandarins)

Read his review here.

The ease with which Toby [apparently without even having seen the film] constructs a plausible alternative interpretive framework shows how silly and superficial are these attempts to ascribe political significance to films that are nothing but mindless adolescent fantasies. There are serious films embodying political significance out there -- but Star Wars is not one of them.

Toby is right -- nobody who was not already suffused with leftist perspectives could possibly see this piece of tripe as a political film.

On the general problems associated with attempts to attribute sociological or political [or even cultural] significance to broadly popular heroic fantasy films see Timothy Burke's excellent post over at Easily Distracted here. He feels that such materials function powerfully at an intensely personal level and are not designed to carry sociological or political or even cultural messages. Attempts to analyze them in terms of their "messages" inevitably miss the point of the films, the reasons for their popularity, and their deep meanings.

By the way, Tim sorta liked "Revenge". Read his review here. His judgment, "It Doesn't Suck", is one with which I would respectfully disagree. It sucked big time! Even if we consider it on the level of meaning he prefers, it did not speak to my boyhood fantasies, [and I was once a "faan" who knows quite well what it means to be a "slan." -- of course I've been "gafiating" for several years].

Looking for Female Bloggers?

Check out Philobiblon here.

Zimbabwe Update -- The Legacy of Anticolonialism

In case you were wondering what has been happening in Zimbabwe since Mad Bobby Mugabe won re-election. Well, here goes:

On the election itself see here.

Then Mugabe's gangs of ZANU goons [the "green bombers"] quickly and efficiently suppressed all protests following the disputed elections. [here]

Then, to tighten his control Mugabe began to create a "Youth Militia," membership in which will be mandatory for all young men. Shades of the Hitler Youth! [read about it here].

Even as political control was tightening down, there was some hope for economic reform.

The one potential bright spot in Zimbabwe's dismal prospects was the possibility that Mugabe's insanely racist and socialist land redistribution policies, which had devastated the national economy, would be repudiated. Back at the beginning of May there were unofficial reports that Mugabe was trying to lure white farmers, whose lands had been stolen, back so as to restore at least some of Zimbabwe's agricultural production. [posted here]

Even as hopes for economic reform were being whispered about, Bobby once again affirmed his commitment to his disastrous expropriation policies. [here]

That left the question open -- would Zimbabwe continue its insane redistribution policies, or would it be open to rational reform?

Well, a decision seems to have been made. Now the unofficial offer has become official, but the legacy of expropriation seems to have precluded any positive response, at least so long as Mugbe survives. The Telegraph reports:

White farmers evicted by Robert Mugabe's government have reacted with contempt to an offer that they should return to Zimbabwe to take part in "joint ventures" with those who brutalised them and stole their land.

Gideon Gono, the governor of the country's central bank, suggested the idea last Thursday as a possible solution to Zimbabwe's economic crisis.
….
The prospect of a return for white farmers was dangled by Mr Gono, Mr Mugabe's leading economic policy maker, in a rambling three-hour statement in which he also announced a 31 per cent devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar.
….
During the evictions, some white farmers were murdered and many others were beaten and their families abused. The evictions prompted the collapse of the agriculture sector, the traditional engine of the economy.

Those who took over the farms had no specialist knowledge - and most farmland now lies uncultivated. The machinery has been stolen, buildings have been plundered and the former workers are starving.
….
Eddie Cross, the economics spokesman for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change - which was heavily defeated by the ruling Zanu-PF party in recent parliamentary elections that were widely condemned as being rigged - said that Mr Gono was desperate.

Mr Cross said: "He's got no power and he can't deliver. The reality is a thousand miles away from everything he says. He wants to regain some credibility with multilateral institutions. He has meetings with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank next month. This is about having something to say to those guys. The only salvation will be a change of government and a return to the rule of law.

"Until then, no one's going to invest here or come back. Who on earth is going to do anything in agriculture when there is such dispute over land ownership? They'd be mad."
….
One tobacco and cattle farmer, who was forced off his property by armed squatters in 2000, said: "He can't be serious. My house has been burnt down, my fields destroyed and he wants to invite me back?

"There has to be a proper return to respect for property rights. We need facts, not words and a legal framework. No one's going to go back on the basis of this."

And so it goes -- precipitous economic decline coupled with open racial hatred and brutal dictatorship..., and no hope for recovery. This is the legacy of anti-colonialism in Mad Bobby Mugabe's Zimbabwe. And who will pay the most? The common people who were seduced by Mugabe's mad racist fantasies.

RELATED:

The opposition to Mugabe has been reduced to praying for him to die. Read about it here.

Greens vs Preservationists

Two of the nuttier constituencies in Western political culture -- historic preservationists and green activists are going at each other over a proposed alternative energy site in Britain.

The Rotherham Advertiser reports:

Campaigners fighting to stop three towering wind turbines springing up on green belt land at Loscar, near Harthill, say the site is surrounded by evidence of Roman settlements dating back to the first century.

Read the whole thing here.

I love it when these utopian sects collide. Both sides are animated by romantic visions of an alternative dreamland and are united only by the fact that they don't like the world of today [and that they are incredible pains in the butt to normal people and seem to relish that role].

It seems that utopian true believers cannot unite, the only thing they can lose is their dreams.