Of course the Senate primary is getting more attention, especially since the Republican incumbent is sure to win reelection. But something rather interesting happened in the Democratic primaries for governor and lt. governor - the mayor of New Haven narrowly nabbed the gubenatorial nomination while his opponent's running-mate easily won the lt. governor slot. From the news coverage on the odd phenomenon (which is very limited), the best I can figure is that it was just a day that was good for the statewide candidates who were perceived to be more liberal than their opponenets (Lamont, DeStefano and Glassman).
Posted by armand at August 9, 2006 09:31 AM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsA couple of interesting points I picked up while listening to NPR and talk radio while driving home today:
First, Lieberman is going to have to be really careful or the "sore Loserman" stuff is really going to stick. I was listening to (oh, what's that older woman's name, she's had the NPR talk show forver?) and they were taking calls from Connecticut and you could hear people's voices shaking with anger. Democrats in his state are pissed.
Second, the right wing is piling on in force to support Lieberman. I listened to Rush today and he was laying it on super thick. He went so far as to say that if Lieberman was a Republican and was different than what the base wanted, the party would encourage him to run as an independent. I know he usually makes shit up, but that was astounding, given the line toeing that's been going on with the GOP in recent years. Rush was also pushing his latest line that "liberals are liberals first" (and not anything else, including democrats or jews) and that anyone who failed to toe the line would be thrown under the bus. Again, given the enforcement by the right on moderate Republicans, it's astounding. He must think very little of his listeners.
Posted by: binky at August 9, 2006 06:13 PM | PERMALINKand so it begins:
lieberman, doing his best impression of GOP fear-mongering:
"I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said.i'm as irked by today's plot as anyone, assuming what we're hearing is anything like the truth, but at no time, in no way, could one realistically argue that the threat we currently face is worse than the one we faced from the USSR, at least ca. the Cuban Missile Crisis. to say so is irresponsible, disingenuous, and typical of the republican democrats are soft on terror for urging restraint and deliberation; republicans are strong on terror for rushing heedlessly into whatever rash action polls suggest will play or dear leader demands.
lieberman has never been more than a good man and an adequate democrat, but this summer has either revealed him to be, or transformed him into, a dishonest man and a de facto republican. good riddance to bad rubbish.
Posted by: moon at August 10, 2006 04:17 PM | PERMALINK
no you're wrong. shadowy islamic fanatics who work outside of the framework of the international system--yet are funded and armed by UN recognized governments--and who can't be checked by the threat of mutually assured distruction are indeed more dangerous than the USSR.
we are a nation of laws. groups who take the law into their own hands threaten the very premises on which western government has been based for centuries--rule of law ensured by a state monopoly on the use of violence.
Posted by: at August 10, 2006 06:10 PM | PERMALINKNot quite. The state monopoly on the use of violence precedes the rule of law business. Plus, a key part of the rue of law is that it applies equally to the state as to the citizen.
Posted by: binky at August 10, 2006 06:15 PM | PERMALINKThe rue of law does in fact seem to apply equally to the US government and to many of its citizens these days. :-P
Posted by: jacflash at August 11, 2006 09:48 AM | PERMALINKbinky, you waste a lot of time being cute instead of engaging in substantive debate. aren't you supposed to be a university professor or something?
re-read my post. i said the rule of law is ensured by the state monopoly on the use of violence. to put it another way, the state monopoly on the use of violence is a necessarry predicate for the rule of law. or, as you like to put it, the state monopoly on the use of force "comes before the rule of law business".
Posted by: at August 11, 2006 11:32 AM | PERMALINKwell, if you reject the idea that being about 12 hours from engaging in all-out nuclear war with an amply armed nuclear power with missiles located just off our coast is more dangerous than a scattered, diffuse group of terrorists with, on their best days, the capacity to kill a couple thousand people in one stroke (and in so doing expending most of their useable human resources for a few years), then perhaps you'll explain to me how "shadowy islamic fanatics who work outside of the framework of the international system" can rival, or manifest any potential to rival, the systematic extermination of millions of jews and a de facto takeover of western europe.
no, seriously, [blank], i'm all ears.
because i was specifically excoriating lieberman for making a reckless, inapt, and obfuscatory comparison and nothing you've said suggests that it was anything but. i'll grant you apples and oranges, if that's your point, but i won't grant you that the threats are quantifiably equal, and i certainly won't grant lieberman any leeway in trying to garner consensus by invoking the bogeyman of foreign policy as he tries to tuck us all in shivering in our pajamas.
Posted by: moon at August 11, 2006 02:23 PM | PERMALINKI'm glad you think I'm cute, but I think you are reading in. Or looking in the mirror as you practice flip responses. At least someone is looking, eh?
The monopoly on violence by the state is not the sole cause of the rule of law. Baltar and Armand are our European history buffs, and if they care to tell tales of the rise of the nation-state, they may, but states (whether they be monorachies, city states, etc) having (and using) their monopoly on violence is not necessarily associated with the idea of the rule of law. Divine right of kings, etc and so forth. States (and their equivalents) have long had the monopoly on violence. It's possible to have both, and modern republics are constructed to ensure both, but very deliberately.
Furthermore, the state's monopoly on violence does not ensure the rule of law, particularly as it applies to constraints on the state itself, and the rule of law as it applies to those who govern. In fact, the state's monopoly on violence is often a way to undermine the rule of law. See for example, Fujimori's autogolpe, for example. Or hey, China, Cuba, Russia... lots of monopoly, not a lot of rule of law.
Short answer: correlation is not the same thing as causation.
Posted by: binky at August 11, 2006 05:01 PM | PERMALINKHmm, let's see what a Reagan appointee has to say about rule of law:
Posted by: binky at August 11, 2006 11:28 PM | PERMALINKThe United States is not making the case for freedom, democracy and Western law to the rest of the world, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Saturday.
"Make no mistake, there's a jury that's out. In half the world, the verdict is not yet in. The commitment to accept the Western idea of democracy has not yet been made, and they are waiting for you to make the case," Kennedy said in an address to the American Bar Association.
Kennedy, 70, said he fears many parts of the world are not yet convinced that the American form of government as designed by the framers of the Constitution guarantees a better way of life.
"Our best security, our only security, is in the world of ideas, and I sense a slight foreboding," he said.
Kennedy, a moderate justice who has become a key swing vote on the Supreme Court, argued that the meaning of the phrase "rule of law" must be made clear in order to spread the cause of freedom to other countries. He avoided singling out specific nations.
He said the rule of law has three parts: it must be binding on all government officials, it must respect the dignity, equality and human rights of every person, and it must guarantee people the right to enforce the law without fear of retaliation.
"Americans must understand that if the rules of law have meaning, such as hope and inspiration for the rest of the world, it must be coupled with the opportunity to improve human existence," Kennedy said.
haha, yeah correlation is not causation, ok, thanks for that. i'm still not sure where you're going with that (or maybe I do but cringe at the thought), unless you're arguing that a state monopoly of violence is completely incidential to the rule of law. if I take your discourse on "correlation vs. causation" at face value, I can only respond by telling you you're dead wrong. one thing i will say for your short answers: they're short.
let me put it this way for you, and the 'experts'. the state's monopoly of violence is necesarry (but not sufficient) for the rule of law. yes, thats right, boys and girls in causation 101, a consequence can have more than one cause. being necesarry for the rule of law, the state's monopoly of violence is, as i've pointed out, a necesarry precedent to the rule of law. Its remarkable how much one needs to defend and clarify such a basic proposition. as for the other side of the equation: separation of powers, elections and a well regulated militia can also be very useful for keeping the ruling parties in check.
Posted by: [blank] at August 16, 2006 01:15 PM | PERMALINK
obviously, saying that the state's monopoly on the use of violence sometimes can undermine the rule of law, does not disturb my proposition. even if you subscribed to the statement "in a world with men, not all women reproduce" or even "living in a world with men makes some women not want to reproduce", you couldn't deny the fact that the existence of men are a necesarry precedent to women reproducing.
in other words, "china + monopoly of violence = no rule of law" does not lay ground for the proposition that " state X - monopoly of violence = rule of law".
Posted by: [blank] at August 16, 2006 01:32 PM | PERMALINKmoon, you wanted an explination and i'll hint at one with the limited time I have on my hands:
history tells us that a "shadowy non-state actor" helped start WWI.
nuclear weapons helped end WWII.
moon, you wanted an explination and i'll hint at one with the limited time I have on my hands:
and in advance, let me just thank you for the hints.
history tells us that a "shadowy non-state actor" helped start WWI.
uh huh, and? and? oh, and wait -- who is this history guy / girl, and how can i arrange a meeting to discuss some things?
nuclear weapons helped end WWII.
so . . . therefore having tens of thousands of megatons pointed at every city in the united states for like forty years with the finger of an authoritarian state with a vaguely millenarian view of economic history on the trigger wasn't nearly as scary as a few thousand guys with the will to kill innocents and access to the latest in suicide bomb vests from l.l. bean? sorry. not convinced. but then it's only a hint, i understand.
by the way, if you're going to lecture everyone here on necessary and sufficient conditions, you might present a more credible case were you to spell necessary correctly. a nickel's worth of free advice.
[blank] wrote:
history tells us that a "shadowy non-state actor" helped start WWI.
Actually, there is a great deal of evidence that the assassins of Archduke Ferdinand were supported in a material and intelligence capacity by the government of Serbia (likely the Serbian intelligence services; there is continued debate today whether they were acting independently of the Serbian government or not). Thus, calling them "non-state actors" is not entirely correct.
Posted by: baltar at August 16, 2006 02:24 PM | PERMALINK
baltar, worthy point that he might have been sponsored by a state-actor. although I think thats probably similarly true about many of the non-state actor's that pose the greatest threat to the West and those who sympathize with it.
And, of course, I think its equally worthy to note that whatever state might sponsor such activity, they often find it more convienent to do so from a far. i think its a fair bet that they choose the sponsorship instead of primary actor role because, and this ties in nicely to my point this entire time, doing so circumvents the nation-state system and the various official mechanisms through which international disputes are dealt with. states who sponsor these non-state actor, see this route as the best way to blunt the innternational community's response to violations of international norms.
moon, counter-points are always good. it unfortunate you felt the need to buttress (sp!) them by including spelling corrections. i can't take a critique of my "lecture" seriously that includes spelling corrections. wait, their wasnt a critique...just spelling corrections. oh well.
Posted by: [blank] at August 16, 2006 06:12 PM | PERMALINKat last, you make a good point: states who sponsor these non-state actor, see this route as the best way to blunt the innternational community's response to violations of international norms. U.S. in Latin America, anyone? U.S. in Iraq? U.S. getting a little pissant named bin Laden off the ground? and now . . . extraordinary rendition? supplying arms to a despot in Uzbekistan? anyone? anyone?
as for the spelling correction, you're right, it was snarky. but that was in response to your lecture of other people. and you're correct as well that i offered no counterpoint to your "hints." there can be no substantial sur-rebuttal to a rebuttal that says nothing of substance.
so i got bored. and i think you meant "there." :-p
Posted by: moon at August 16, 2006 10:40 PM | PERMALINKat last, you make a good point: states who sponsor these non-state actor, see this route as the best way to blunt the innternational community's response to violations of international norms. U.S. in Latin America, anyone? U.S. in Iraq? U.S. getting a little pissant named bin Laden off the ground? and now . . . extraordinary rendition? supplying arms to a despot in Uzbekistan? anyone? anyone?
as for the spelling correction, you're right, it was snarky. but that was in response to your lecturing other people on causation, necessity and sufficiency, and so on.
you're correct as well that i offered no counterpoint to your "hints." there can be no substantial sur-rebuttal to a rebuttal that says nothing of substance.
so i got bored. and i think you meant "there." :-p
Posted by: moon at August 16, 2006 10:41 PM | PERMALINK(and now you have clear evidence, if you look closely, that i compulsively copy-edit my own writing, not just others'.)
Posted by: moon at August 16, 2006 10:42 PM | PERMALINK[blank] wrote:
states who sponsor these non-state actor, see this route as the best way to blunt the innternational community's response to violations of international norms.
You could be right, but rather than circumvent international norms, I suspect the primary cause for states to become involved with supporting non-state actors is that the states do not have the power/force to directly confront their antagonist. If they could, they would; since they can't, they use deniable non-state actors to try to accomplish their ends. Yes, it (somewhat) gets them around international norms, but that may not be the primary purpose.
Posted by: baltar at August 16, 2006 11:17 PM | PERMALINKYou should have used the Occam's Razor quote.
Posted by: binky at August 17, 2006 10:42 AM | PERMALINKDo you know where it is? It's a useful reference.
Posted by: baltar at August 17, 2006 11:30 AM | PERMALINKHere's a page that has an explanation, and some latin versions of the quote.
Posted by: binky at August 17, 2006 12:24 PM | PERMALINK
"You could be right, but rather than circumvent international norms..."
I'm not really sure what you mean by "circumvent international norms". I think i talked about violating international norms and circumventing the international system, through which violations of international norms can be dealt with most efficiently.
"I suspect the primary cause for states to become involved with supporting non-state actors is that the states do not have the power/force to directly confront their antagonist."
Exactly. And I think this supports my point. What you mean when you say these states can't "directly" confront their antagonist is that they can't "conventionally" confront their antagonist. But, just because state A strikes state B unconventionally that in no way means that state be will not respond conventionally (which is is exactly what the state sponsor wants to avoid). Mere lack of conventional capabilities explain why these states adopt unconventional means. BUT that doesnt explain why suicide bombers in israel or the 9/11 hi-jackers werent wearing uniforms of the iranian, or syrian, or saudi arabian army. after all, suicide bombings, and flying commercial planes into buildings are examples of "unconventional means". there is no reason why the syrian army could not launch rockets into israel . . . EXCEPT the fact that there would be clear accountability if the rockets were launched by the syrian army instead of hezzbollah, and syria would be faced with a direct confrontation with their antagonist. for whatever reason, the international community does not generally sanction retaliatory strikes to trace back the money trail. international norms will sanction (after the fact) retalitory strikes that trace back the vapor trail.
in other words, state-sponsored terrorism is motivated by differences in conventional military capability (i guess what you would called "capaibilities in direct conflict") BUT ONLY BECAUSE it effectively skews the accountability for acts that would be deemed acts of war (in the international legal sense) if they were traced back to a nation state. or, if you will, because using a proxy allows the agent to confuse, confound international institutions, and as a result, circumvent the reponse power these institutions have under international law and in accordance with international norms.
Posted by: blank at August 22, 2006 04:41 PM | PERMALINK