Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

Abraham Maslow, Eric Voegelin, Friedrich von Hayek and many others were very critical of what Max Weber called “the value free science” that is scientism, or knowledge which ignores universal moral values and recognizes nothing else but science itself. Voegelin and Hayek’s analysis was that a “value free science” was not even really possible, and that when one set of values was taken away, another was implicitly taught. Maslow wrote that taking morality or even religion out of science separated “two things which must be together” and created a societal pathology.

Here are a few examples from two textbooks (published 2006, 2008) on the value imposition and normative assertions of the sciences (business law and economics). All of the following quotes contain words of value or normative assertions which describe subjectively how things should be disguised as fact:

• Price controls are “good“
• “Unfortunately, we do not have a world government”
• In explaining ethical legal theories all deontological theories are rejected, including natural law theory, because “there is no compelling reason to act in this manner.” While relativism, legal positivism, and consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism are only criticized in that they are “difficult” to “implement” and “often cannot achieve their ends.”
• A “successful” anti-poverty program contains “regulations,” and “welfare programs” at the very least.
• “Business laws should be judged on the basis of their economic efficiency and in some cases social justice.” (You know, instead of natural God-given human rights which respect human dignity and grounded in natural law - such “fact” blatantly rejects natural law and disguises it as fact and not opinion).

Now I do not mind. I, nor the vast majority of students, will become statist utilitarian efficiency maximizers who look to the “state” to simply seek the aggregate “social welfare” and efficiency without regard to any intrinsic natural rights with “no compelling reason” to follow even if they did exist. But, this is just an example of modern scientism. For an even more amoral anti-natural law example see modern international relations theory wherein the “state” should “seek regional hegemony” or “a balance of power” and that yes, in the words of one textbook “morality has no place in international politics.”

C.S. Lewis was right in the Demolition of Man when he said that when school children are not even allowed to know the difference between simple right and wrong then there is a major problem. Ron Paul in his The Revolution is the only candidate who discussed the importance of liberty, not simply for its own sake, but because we respect every human being’s inherent dignity. Respect for human dignity seems to be something that must remain unspoken…

Share This

The Economist has a semi-decent article today concerning the fall elections and the electoral map. The best part of the economists article is probably the picture of the electoral map itself:

Note, as I have blogged before here, and here, Obama has the edge in this election. In fact, even the right-wing Fox News’ owner Rupert Murdoch seems to have read the writing on the wall.

Many of the republican in 2004 swing states are currently leaning for Obama. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa are all leaning or strongly leaning Obama according to the Rasmussen polls. The only shots McCain has at democratic states are New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, and those are pretty weak. Obama can possibly take North Carolina or Virginia, as the Economist piece says.

I have blogged about the importance of these small states: Colarado, New Mexico, Iowa, and New Hampshire are important. All four are swing states, and if Obama won Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa then he would tie in the electoral college and thus win (because of the almost certainty of a democratic house of representatives). The Economist illustrates this point:

Geography, as so often in history, is key. The electoral map did not change much between the last two presidential elections. Only three states, all small, switched sides between 2000 and 2004: Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico.

And if Obama wins Ohio, where McCain is only leading by 1-point by the most recent Rasmussen poll, then he could lose all of those states save one and still win. And I am not even counting so many possible Obama pick ups. I agree with Murdoch, he will win by a landslide.

Share This

I often find news and op-ed articles throughout the day that are of interest.  Most of these come from the links on my sidebar.  However, because it will take a lot of space to post each individual article as a blog entry with my commentary, I have decided to create an RSS feed to let people know what I am reading.  The “Abu Hatem News” sidebar will feature those few articles I read each day which are of interest and relate to American politics, international relations, the media, political philosophy, or free market economics.

Hopefully you find it of benefit.

Soon I hope to add another RSS feed, not of my own, but an aggregate feed of all news coming out of Iraq, all Lebanon news, and all media news, to organize things for myself.  If I feel these feeds are beneficial I will post them in upcoming posts.

Share This

Just a few days after the Project for Excellence in Journalism released a study on cable news coverage of the Iraq war, as well as the American Journalism Review report, Scott McClellan has written a book criticizing the “propaganda campaign” of the Bush administration and the media’s horrible coverage of the Iraq war. Two big news anchors - CBS’ Katie Couric, and CNN’s Jessica Yellin criticized the absolutely dismal coverage before the run up to war in Iraq.

To be sure, both are not the first. Walter Cronkite who called it “shameful,” Dan Rather, and others have criticized the pre-war coverage. Phil Donnahue’s show was canceled, and PBS’ Bill Moyers did an entire documentary special about the case for war called “Buying the War” which can be seen here.

We absolutely have a free press, (semi)-free markets, and thus not all the media is to blame. The “news” part of the war was not false, the Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, United Press International, and Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) and other news wire services were providing true news. Reporting blatantly false and fabricated news will eventually get you in trouble from competitors and consumers in the market. It was not the news or newswires which were offbase, it was primarily the TV networks’ opinion talk shows and the journalism in some newspapers (such as the leftist NYTimes’ Judith Miller who did fabricate stories and did get in trouble).

Only two newspapers - The Christian Science Monitor and Knight Ridder Newspapers were continually printing material against the administration’s claims. CSPAN and PBS’ NewsHour were not 100% on board with the war. And the McLaughlin Group’s Pat Buchanan was a strong critic of the war (which he called “the war for Israel”). But for the most part, times of crisis increase government power, and the government pressured journalists to cover the war their way. When Bob Novak wrote column after column opposing the war, the President forbade him access. This was the punishment to those who didn’t toe the government line.

Years later, with the war unpopular and a disaster, the media has generally been much more critical of the administration’s claims. Yet Scott McClellan was right, the media in the run up to war was less than critical.

Jessica Yellin said, according to the Politico:

“And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president’s approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time….”

But then a shocked Cooper jumped in, asking, “You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?”

“Not in that exact…. They wouldn’t say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces,” Yellin said.

Katie Couric called it the media’s “most embarrassing” time and described “corporate pressure” as the source.

To be sure, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, NBC’s David Gregory, and many others dismissed the remarks saying they think they did a good job although it could have been a lot better.

Being an avid TV news viewer during the Iraq war, I can only say that Fox News (which goes without question) and MSNBC’s coverage truly was the most biased. Phil Donnahue, Katie Couric, and Jessica Yellin who all worked at MSNBC strongly have criticized the network’s Iraq coverage. Now with MSNBC moving closer and closer to being a liberal left-wing alternative to Fox, things have only changed slightly, but with Chris Matthews’ random stupid remarks during the presidential race it is obvious that MSNBC is the least professional of all the cable networks.

CNN did a much better job both in coverage and in bias. CNN had some “hard news” reporters on such as Aaron Brown’s NewsNight, Christiane Amanpour and Nic Robertson who were a little more balanced. Yet they too failed.

I am very glad that McClellan has let the cat out of the bag and begun this self-realization by the media of their big blunders. If anything, it has without doubt improved the medias coverage especially in 2007-2008 from the strong biases that existed back in early 2002-2003. As an avid TV news and newspaper fan, I am glad the medium of the internet has come in and challenged the TV networks formerly shallow coverage. The Associated Press piece reports:

“It’s a great day for the American public that finally, after five years of such well-documented criticisms of the media’s failure … to see them finally having to come clean and do a self-examination,” Cohen said.

“The irony is that it’s one of the Bush prevaricators that is forcing it,” he said.

Five years later, Donahue’s former time slot is filled by Keith Olbermann, who has drawn attention for his sharp commentaries against the Bush administration.

From the other side of the podium, McClellan offered criticism of the media’s performance. He said reporters were “complicit enablers” by covering the preparations for war instead of more aggressively questioning the need for it.

Share This

Dear blogreaders,

I am an extreme newsjunkie and often run across newspaper, magazine, or web articles as well as YouTube videos which are very beneficial.  To post all of these as seperate blog posts would be a futile excercise which would aesthetically ruin my blog.  Thus I am faced with a conundrum: is there any way I can use an RSS feed or something of this nature through my blog to be updated with important links as I find them important?  Does anyone know a better way at doing this?  Such as a “Hot Links” feature which would be updated.

Thanks ahead of time (please email AbuHatem[at] AbuHatem [dot] com as I think comments are disabled).

Share This

I often disagree with Pat Buchanan but I am a fan of him nonetheless. However, ever since 2004 he has been steadily falling in line with the GOP establishment. In 2004, Buchanan endorsed Bush for president because while Bush was wrong on democratic imperialism and the expansion of the welfare state, John Kerry wasn’t any better (honestly, that is pretty much true though). In 2007, Buchanan said that although he opposed the war, the surge strategy in Iraq was working and a “good idea” to POTUS08 radio. Earlier in the year on the McLaughlin group, Buchanan said that the war in Iraq was not really affecting the American economy in the long term. Where is he coming from there?

Anyways, after the McClellan book allegations today that Bush had been using deceptive propaganda to the American people in making the case for war, Buchanan totally ripped McClellan tonight on MSNBC’s Dan Abrams. Buchanan told Abrams that it was disloyal for McClellan to do this and that loyalty should not be a thing of the past. He also said that if he really opposed the war to such a degree he should have resigned at the time and not advocated the war.

When a foreign policy of democratic imperialism is taking place, to use Mr. Buchanan’s term, then the ultimate loyalty is to one’s country, not administration. Thus, of course, McClellan is good for coming out on this.

There was a lot of media news today. Last night the ratings on the cable news networks for the past quarter were released, the Project for Excellence in Journalism also released a study on Iraq coverage, and Katie Couric said this morning that the media prior to the Iraq war did not do a good job. Thus the next post, when I get the time, will be on the media and the Iraq war (no conspiracy theories, we do have a free press running in a free market but a critical look nonetheless).

Share This

Bastiat summarizes conservatism (well, precisely the natural right classical liberalism school of it) thus at the very end of his great work The Law. This succinct sentence wholly describes the natural and spontaneous order:

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

For the nation which came up with the awful Rousseau, it is indeed refreshing that the French are also home of De’Maistre and Bastiat (combine the two and you get a traditionalist conservative!).

Share This

Good for Tom Coburn, who’s column today in the Wall Street Journal explains why the GOP are going to lose big this election and how the Republicans have transformed themselves into a liberal left-wing party. Coburn does not mention the war in Iraq, which was the biggest of all big government programs, but has said before that he thinks it was “probably a mistake to invade Iraq.”

Coburn’s message of limited government makes Donald Devine’s more traditional conservative American Conservative Union rate him as the most conservative senator in the U.S. Senate. Devine opposed the Iraq war, and the patriot act, so this is notable. Coburn voted for Patriot Act renewal, but he did voice his opposition to many parts of the bill on MSNBC’s Meet the Press saying:

I think we need to be very careful with the Patriot Act. We should not ever give up freedom on the basis of fear, and any freedom that we give up should be limited in time and limited in scope. And so therefore I believe the Patriot Act across all levels should be sunsetted just as I believe every other law we passed in terms of giving the government new powers or new programs should be sunsetted so that we come back and have to make a decision about it. The Patriot Act coming out of the House has no sunset provisions. And I believe it’s important for Americans’ rights that we sunset those and look at them again.

As a medical doctor, Coburn has been the leading senator opposing the oppressive nationalization of healthcare which both Obama and Clinton support.

Thus Coburn is no perfect slate traditional conservative, but his anti-spending, anti-socialized medicine, pro-life, and pro-civil liberties message is at least a start. If only he would go against the Iraq war.

Coburn says in the WSJ today about the GOP meltdown:

Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn’t good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising…

The fruit of these efforts is not the hoped-for Republican governing majority, but the real prospect of a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in 2009. While the K Street Project decimated our brand as the party of reform and limited government, compassionate conservatism convinced the American people to elect the party that was truly skilled at activist government: the Democrats.

Coburn opposes “compassionate conservatism” which was just George W. Bush’s phrase with the esoteric meaning of “spreading oppressive dependency on government.” Instead Coburn affirms the fallacy of welfare, using an argument that mirrors that of traditional anti-war conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet, saying:

Compassionate conservatism’s next step – its implicit claim that charity or compassion translates into a particular style of activist government involving massive spending increases and entitlement expansion – was its undoing. Common sense and the Scriptures show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor’s possessions. Spending other people’s money is not compassionate.

At the end of the column though, Coburn endorses a McCain presidency as a way out of this mess. The same left-wing John McCain who supported liberal programs such as no child left behind, expanding medicare, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, and voted against the Bush taxcuts twice.

John McCain is the epitome of Coburn’s arguments of where the GOP has gone wrong, he is the classic example of a liberal republican like 8-years under the left-wing president George W. Bush.

Share This

I have been reading the Ottoman business law handbook al-Mejelle for the past few days which contains traditional Islamic regulations concerning the doing of business. One of the most impressive parts of the book, which is still used and studied in some Islamic countries, is the emphasis it places on the right of the seller to set a price and the right of the buyer to agree or disagree with the price. The rejection of price controls and the fallacious notion of “just price” has been central to Islamic affirmations of the market economy. Al-Mejelle also notes the importance of property rights, economic freedom, and commerce when honest and ethical.

Overall a recommended book for more on Islam and the market.

Share This

Barry Posen wrote in the fall concerning U.S. aid to Israel:

U.S. military assistance to Israel makes the occupation of the territories relatively inexpensive for Israeli political leaders, and implicates the United States in the deed. This may not be “central” to U.S. problems in the Arab world, as so many insist, but it certainly does not help. The United States should therefore develop a ten-year plan to reduce U.S. government direct financial assistance to Israel to zero. Israel is now a prosperous country that happens to be surrounded by military powers lacking any capacity to conquer it. Two of these countries, Egypt and Jordan, have peace treaties with Israel, and the rest have no possible superpower patron to back them with new supplies of modern conventional offensive weapons. Israel has to decide on the merits, and within its own sovereign capacities, how much the occupied territories matter to its security, and how to allocate security spending accordingly.

Posen is a very intelligent international relations theorist, a defensive realist who leans strongly on the side of non-intervention, although not wholly a non-interventionist himself.

Share This