Potpourri
* Jim Manzi has a great little post on controlled experiments and economics. But then he ends with, “But there is an unconsidered alternative that permits us to constantly recognize our ignorance, yet not be paralyzed: The Open Society. This is the whole point (in my view) of the institutions of representative democracy, limited, law-bound government, and free markets.” I totally understand why he says that; I myself would have thought free markets and representative democracy go hand in hand, before I read Rothbard. But once you go down that path, you realize that Manzi’s statement is a bit like saying, “Because of our ignorance, it’s necessary for the police to promise that they have really good reasons before locking someone up. This is the only way to safeguard our liberty.” Or if that’s too much for you, try this: “Because the public often makes mistakes, we require a 75% supermajority before allowing them to impose price controls; this is the only way to preserve a free market.”
* Tom Woods sics the zombie video on somebody.
* Robert Wenzel bumps into G. Gordon Liddy. I don’t think it’s out of place for me to say that when I was on Liddy’s show (in studio) to promote my PIG to the Great Depression, during the commercial break somehow Liddy worked into the conversation that he could start with his gun in his holster and shoot to kill in x seconds later, where x was much smaller than you would have guessed. And the weird thing was, the conversation flowed naturally.
* Paula Peck (I think, sorry if I got mixed up with my emails) sends this video. I’m not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I think it’s very plausible, but on the other, I am creeped out by the underlying message which seems to be, “Save the country to spite the Chinese.”
* I can’t imagine why, but someone thought I would enjoy a website called KrugmanIsWrong.com. In any event, move your cursor over Krugman’s picture. (Speaking of which, the pledge total has now exceed $18,000. Next week we begin Phase II of the campaign.)
* I really didn’t like the way Glenn Greenwald handled the firing of Juan Williams. (In contrast, my own take is very similar to Lew Rockwell’s.) GG is basically saying, “Two wrongs are better than one. And oh yeah, I suppose they don’t add up to a right, but still.”
This is a very disturbing trend, where people are getting booted for saying something that wouldn’t even make (say) 30% of the country bat an eye. I’m not even talking politics here; I’m saying it’s not healthy if everyone is walking around, thinking, “OK if I didn’t have a mic on me, I would say this, but I have to put my TV face on now, lest I get fired.”
I know full well half of you are going to disagree with me in the comments; go ahead. I promise I won’t ban you from the blog for telling me how you feel about this situation. But one thing: I understand this isn’t a “free speech” issue (although it’s complicated with NPR getting government money). I also understand that sometimes corporations do things to avoid losing advertising revenues etc. But look, I am allowed to say, “I think it’s a sign of a rotting society that there are 90%-naked women on every checkout line in the grocery store.” (Calm down, I am referring to the magazines; I know some of you wanted to know where I do my shopping.) Yes that should be legal, and yes the magazines are doing that because it sells. And I’m saying, that is a bad sign. It would not have been profitable to do that in 1960, even if it were legal.
Back to Glenn Greenwald: The most hilarious thing in his post, is that he himself uses the exact same tactics he is criticizing, almost to the paragraph. For example, he is mad that Juan Williams is lumping all Muslims in with terrorists. OK I agree that’s bad. But then Glenn, when responding in an update to people who oppose the firing, writes:
For those objecting to Williams’ firing as some sort of oppressive act of PC censorship: in addition to wanting to know whether you also objected to CNN’s firing of Nasr and Sanchez, and to Thomas’ forced “retirement,” I’d also like to know what you did to protest CNN’s firing of executive Eason Jordan in 2004 for observing — correctly — that the U.S. military had repeatedly attacked war journalists; and CNN’s 2003 firing of Peter Arnett for criticizing the Iraq War; and MSNBC’s demotion and firing of Ashleigh Banfield after criticizing media coverage of American wars, or the same network’s firing of Phil Donahue for being too anti-war; or, for that matter, the University of Colorado’s dismissal of Ward Churchill for arguing that the World Trade Center was a legitimate target to retaliate against American foreign policy. If you only object to speech-based firings when you agree with the ideas being expressed, then you don’t actually believe in the principles you claim to support.
Wow, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say Glenn was lumping guys like me in with Sean Hannity. That’s not fair, Glenn! Stop making completely false accusations about whole groups of people, based on the actions of a loudmouth subset.
And then Glenn doesn’t think that Williams should get off scot-free because he tried to backpedal out of the main point of his remarks: “It’s true that Williams went on to say that not all Muslims are extremists and that Terrorism shouldn’t be attributed to Muslims generally…” and then Glenn gives some other examples of clearly bigoted statements, then says, “[A]fter-the-fact caveats don’t mitigate the original statements.”
Right, which is why I don’t release Glenn from my criticism, simply because he says–in one sentence in the middle of his original post–“I’m not someone who believes that journalists should lose their jobs over controversial remarks, especially isolated, one-time comments..”
Well OK, Glenn, but then Juan Williams isn’t someone who thinks all Muslims are terrorists, either. After all, he explicitly said that.
Bob,
Please understand that I basically agree with you. I don’t think Juan should have been fired. I think he did express a prejudice but the way we get out of our prejudices is to have the courage to express them and then work our way through them.
But I think you are incorrect in saying that Glenn was lumping you in with Sean Hannity. He asked a question that you seemed to take as rhetorical but might not have been. He asked:
For those objecting to Williams’ firing as some sort of oppressive act of PC censorship: in addition to wanting to know whether you also objected to CNN’s firing of Nasr and Sanchez, and to Thomas’ forced “retirement,” I’d also like to know what you did to protest CNN’s firing of executive Eason Jordan in 2004 for observing — correctly — that the U.S. military had repeatedly attacked war journalists; and CNN’s 2003 firing of Peter Arnett for criticizing the Iraq War; and MSNBC’s demotion and firing of Ashleigh Banfield after criticizing media coverage of American wars, or the same network’s firing of Phil Donahue for being too anti-war; or, for that matter, the University of Colorado’s dismissal of Ward Churchill for arguing that the World Trade Center was a legitimate target to retaliate against American foreign policy.
I think you would answer that question very differently from Sean Hannity.