QandO

September 18, 2004

Quick Hits
Posted by Jon Henke

*** Freeven, at Mental Hiccups, asks "What is John Kerry hiding?".....and then he answers it, too.

"I have nothing to hide. I want you to ask me questions." --John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President
Reuters, August 3, 2004

Oh really?

If Mr. Kerry has nothing to hide, why won’t he let us see the following:

John Kerry has previously said "The Nixon legacy of secrecy is alive and well in the Bush White House". One wonders if Kerry and his supporters really ever had a problem with that secrecy, or if they just wanted to get their hands on the machinery they'd just woken up to bitching about in January 2001.

That's a rhetorical question.

____________

*** Earlier this week, I wrote a piece called "Triumphalism", in which I discussed the nature and role of the blogosphere. (and what we aren't, too) A reader (unnamed, unless he tells me otherwise) sent this email, which I think deserves attention.

I liked your analogy of the blogosphere as a great big newsroom, and I think the similarities go deeper than you suggested in your article.

We have columnists (e.g. Andrew Sullivan - possibly unfair since he is an actual newspaper columnist, but he embodies a particular kind of "thinker" blogger).

We have stringers (think Glenn Reynolds: he says, "hey, look at this!" and everyone else gets to comment: the "linkers").

We have editors (just about everyone with an opinion, another kind of "thinker" blogger).

We have editorials (Bill Whittle?).

We have analysis writers (Steven den Beste, plus the myriad specialists).

We even have the cartoons! (DayByDay... soon may it return).

It's all there, with one exception. We have no "reporters", we don't break news, as some would put it. Well, I'm not so sure. After all, each one of us could be considered a local reporter. We don't need national roving reporters because we have people *everywhere*. As for breaking news.. well, if it's local we do. But how often is a local event of national or international significance? As for breaking news... liveblogging perhaps? I'm not sure about that one.

I think, however, your analogy could be improved very slightly. Yes, a newsroom. But an "open source" news room. All decisions, judgements and logical processes are there to be examined by anyone who cares to, which makes a big difference.

Maybe that could make a good reality TV show? Put cameras in the news rooms of major newspapers and TV broadcasters.

_____________

*** I've had a few people ask about Neolibertarianism in recent days. "What is it?" Well, there's no simple answer, and that's something I want to correct in upcoming months, but I also need to offer a temporary explanation until then.

There's no simple explanation. I like the term "Hobbesian libertarian"--or "Lockean ideals in a Hobbesian world"--though, I recognize the fact that this won't exactly clear things up.

I responded to a reader earlier today on that question. I'll reproduce it here for what it's worth...

Neolibertarianism is, essentially, a more pragmatic, results-oriented, version of libertarianism. It is not as ideologically rigid, to the exclusion of effectiveness. I believe that, if we truly want more liberty, then it is encumbent upon us to act in ways that actually work towards increasing liberty, rather than simply running off the cliff, flag flying high....then bitching about the fact that the world didn't see things our way and repeal the laws of gravity out of respect for our strongly held views.

To be more specific: in my case, at least, I believe the concept of "Natural rights"--i.e., "rights" that people have as a function of their very nature--is silly. We have no more "natural rights" than does any given animal. And you see how well that works out for them. (or, at least, I did last night over a steak)

The universe makes no normative judgements on "right and wrong". It's simply matter and energy.

"Rights" are only "rights" insofar as they are enforceable. Which means "power" is the absolute, and not "rights".
[...]
Once we cut past the conceit that there is some list of "natural rights" [intrinsic to humanity] we're left with the simple fact that, if we want more freedom, we have to exert power towards that end. In our modern world, "power" [to that end] is largely exerted in the form of government. (or "war, by other means")

So, a Neolibertarian recognizes that a basic component of human nature is to work within governments--or power-coalitions--and recognizes that we must work within that paradigm, rather than rejecting it wholly, like the Libertarians.

Sorry, but every time I write about neolibertarianism, I recognize
that I need to--one day--put down some coherent, logical descriptions of the philosophy. Something more user-friendly than this philosophical meandering,
and less simplistic than "Libertarians tend to be absolutist loons, and we're not".

UPDATE: Interesting article about Halliburton--a favorite Democrat whipping-post for the Bush administration--here.

"[M]any voters may have no idea what services Halliburton provides to the government but that they know Cheney once ran the company"....and that is, apparently, enough for a political indictment. Left unsaid, though, is the exceedingly minimal actual profit--a key component of the term "profiteering"--that Halliburton is actually making on their contracts.

TrackBack