Beard Of Wisdom.com

Agricultural states which, in the Medieval or Early Modern eras, fended off or emerged from nomadic invasions, had to develop large land holdings, centralized bureaucracies, efficient large-scale taxation, and huge armies– eg, the Russians, the Ottomans, the Mamelukes, and (this part I’m not as sure about) the Qings and Mogus. Even when they’re not fending off invasions, states generally hate nomads within their borders, and try to settle them so they can be taxed. In return, the nomads raid commerce and push peasants off the land, inhibiting industrialization and forcing the militarization of overland commerce.And nomads are ubiquitous. In the early modern period, Anatolia has Kurds and Turkomen, the Ukraine has Cossacks and Tatars, North Africa has various Arab and Berber groups, Arabia has Bedouin, Iran has Qashqai, Central Asia seems to have nothing BUT nomads, and presumably China and maybe India have their own groups.

But there’s one big exception: Europe, which didn’t have nomads, aside from arguably the Gypsies/Romani, who anyway don’t seem to have played much of a role in Western Europe. This seems pretty important for the development of European feudalism (apologies to Dr. Moye), states, empires, commerce, and industrialization. So why didn’t Europe have nomads? Is it geographic?

Share This

• Comments (2)

Hugh Hewitt is having a contest involving the best use of the Christmas theme in a Presidential ad.

Here is my submission:

A couple of comments. First, I know the guy who is “playing” Barack Obama looks nothing like Barack Obama. This is an amateur ad for a reason. (Mostly that I’m not getting a huge consulting fee, of course.) Second, the views expressed in the song are my own only and not that of my friends who agreed to sing the song.

Share This

• Comments (1)

I know this news that’s about a week old, which in this day and age is just about ancient history, but I have yet to really see much that was resolved by the recent break-through in stem cell research.  This NRO article sees this as a vindication of pursuing “ethical science,” and the title of this NY Times article seems to indicate that they think the “stem cell war” is reaching its conclusion.  But I’m not convinced. 

 Oh, of course, the particular issue seems to be resolved–I doubt there will be many people out there campaigning or picketing in order to continue embryonic stem cell research.  Nevertheless, the real issues that made the question of embryonic stem cell research a heated debate are not resolved.

 Let’s face it folks–it’s been nine years since this debate got kicked off.  That’s nine years in which stem cell research was hampered in some way, shape, or form.  Sure, the editors at NRO can say that this break through shows why we can stick to our moral guns while still practicing science, but what about all the research that could have already been accomplished?  What about those people who were unable to reap the potential benefits because the pro-lifers got a burr up our butts about a couple-day-old embryos?  Don’t get me wrong–I think the ban on embryonic stem cell research was the right call to make, but simply because we can do stem cell research without having to destroy embryos right now does not automatically mean that the ban was therefore the right ethical or moral decision back then.  There are legit ethical questions that cut both ways, and in order to have any real resolution to these issues, we’ve gotta address more fundamental questions, such as Which set ethics are right? and Why are the others wrong?

Just for the record, I don’t think you can ultimately do this without talking about who God is, and what he has revealed to us about himself.  I’m not saying that to try and make this merely a religious issue–it’s just to say that if we want to find any answers that are worth their salt, I don’t think we can ignore the religious, theological, or philosophical issues involved.

Share This

• Comments (0)

…but this is just ridiculous. He dropped his drivers-licences-for-illegal-immigrants plan today, saying:

“I’ve concluded that New York state cannot conduct this program on its own…It does not take a stethoscope to hear the pulse of New Yorkers on this topic.”

Most governors, realizing their constituents were against them, would back down. But not Eliot Spitzer. No, he went to Capitol Hill, hoping to get Congress to impose something like this on the whole country–not much hope for federalism in the US when a governor, in order to defy his own constituents, asks Congress to overstep its authority. This is a clever way for Spitzer to avoid paying the political price for his position, while still posturing for the Hispanic vote and the unions. But I’d expect nothing less from Eliot “180 on the LSAT” Spitzer, who, as Attorney General, brilliantly usurped legislative power to cast himself as a defender of consumers. Now he’s abusing his position as governor, asking the feds to usurp state power in order to cast himself as a defender of immigrants. I’m sure he hopes he can ride this issue into the Senate, just like he rode his sketchy lawsuits into the State Executive Mansion.

Share This

• Comments (0)

Earlier today a Stanford student wrote this of Republican Candidate Ron Paul in The Stanford Daily. The obligatory wave of Paul supporters rushed in to leave their detraction’s in the comments listed below the article.

Some of the comments:

“Perhaps if you spent as much time contemplating Paul’s stands on the issues as you do cooking up flavorful ad hominem attacks (Or not so flavorful– “Paul is insane”) you might have found some common ground with him. ”

“I thought Stanford is also a “Research Institution,” no?”

There is something dissapointing about a student at Stanford (ranked 4th in the nation) that would publish this:

“Paul’s views are a contradictory hodgepodge of conservative and libertarian positions. He opposed the Iraq War but supported Afghanistan. He’s strongly pro-life but vaguely pro-gay-marriage.”

It may be particularly disappointing to the Federalist or Constitutionalists to hear an educated person decry Paul’s efforts to protect the life of the unborn while refusing to use federal power to force a definition of marriage on the states. What’s worse is the implication that, if Paul opposes gay-marriage in his private judgment, he must seek to abuse the power of the president to force that judgement on others. It is a threat to the ”institutions and values that have brought the United States to where it is today” when even the educated see nothing wrong with such a fallacious assumption. 

Perhaps Stu will come around. Consider this comment: “Then again, he is graduating in 2009, he still has a lot of growing up to do.”

Share This

• Comments (1)

It only took six years, nine months, 24 days, and a change in Congressional power, but Bush finally vetoed his first appropriations measure yesterday.  And he did it to be fiscally responsible:

“Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it’s acting like a teenager with a new credit card,” the president said…

[…]

Bush criticized Democrats for approving a bill that exceeded his budget request for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments by $10 billion.

Good criticisms, but a little weak coming from Bush:

Since 2001, Bush signed at least 50 spending bills passed by Republicans that exceeded his budget requests, according to House Appropriations Committee records. He did not veto a single one.

Nor did he veto any bills to protest the explosion of earmarks under Republican Congresses. (Bush has vetoed only six bills, the fewest by any president since James A. Garfield, who was shot in 1881 after four months in office and died weeks later.)

Share This

• Comments (0)

People for the American Way has the most ridiculous name since HUAC, but they’ve managed to put together a hilarious Facebook parody.

Share This

• Comments (0)

I don’t quite understand Turkey’s anger over the Armenian genocide resolution. I have my doubts over whether it was actually a genocide in the technical sense, but that’s not the point here. (There’s a good commentary on this on NRO, though I take great issue with Kavulla’s offhand and unjustified comment that Turkey may have merely a “delusion” of civilization.”)

But who was responsible for the Armenian massacres? They occurred entirely under the Ottoman Empire, before the founding of the Turkish Republic. And what about the people involved? To the best of my knowledge Ataturk had nothing to do with it, and in fact didn’t get along with the Young Turks who were running the government. As for those Young Turks (this is admittedly all based on Wikipedia/Vikipedi):

• Enver Pasha: court-martialled by the Ottoman Empire for crimes including the abuse of Armenians; sentenced to death; fled Anatolia; rejected as a political partner by Ataturk.
• Talaat Pasha: court-martialled by the Empire in absentia; sentenced to death; assassinated by an Armenian.
• Cemal Pasha: court-martialled by the Empire; sentenced to death; assassinated by an Armenian.
• Behaeddin Shakir: court-maritalled by the Empire but apparently acquitted; exchanged by the British to Ataturk’s government but never took up a major position.
• Sukru Kaya: If I’m reading Vikipedi correctly, which I’m probably not, he was fairly involved in Ataturk’s government, and he definitely became a Foreign Minister from Ataturk’s party.

But I think the upshot is that except for Kaya, none of the perpetrators of the massacres went on to become a major part of the Turkish Republic. In fact, even the Ottoman Empire tried the Young Turks for their crimes—which may have been just a tool to punish them for losing the war, but still, even Germany didn’t try its own war criminals in 1945. In WWII that was left up to the allies, who in the one case here where they had the chance (Shakir’s), didn’t try the perpetrators.

My point is I think the Turkish Republic has a very plausible case for admitting the massacres, or even admitting a genocide, but denying any responsibility by the current government. Everyone in the post-war German government which accepted responsibility for the Holocaust had lived through the war, and many had even been in the German Army, though probably not the SS. But a government of Turks born long after the last Armenian was murdered still stubbornly insists on denying the massacres, even hiring washed-up US congressional leaders to lobby for them. Why? All I can figure out is that it has to do with a continued sense of the Republic as the heir to a Great Turkish Past, and maybe a sense of the artificiality of Turkish nationalism. There were certainly plenty of Turks outside modern-day Turkey (as shown by Enver Pasha’s post-war activities), and plenty of non-Turks inside it. Maybe Turks realize, even if they don’t want to admit it, that without the Armenian massacres and the population exchanges, there could be no Turkey as we know it? (Sort-of the point made here.) Thus, even if remembering the massacres doesn’t hurt Ataturk’s reputation, maybe it does undermine the founding myth of Kemalism: a historical predestination that Anatolia would be the nation-state of the Turks?

Share This

• Comments (0)

I’m not a fan of Rush by any means, but seeing this made me smile.

A letter sent to Rush Limbaugh’s boss demanding he be chastised for comments he made on the air about “phony soldiers” is now on the auction block, and the latest bid is a cool $45,000.

…

“This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of U.S. senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers,” reads the eBay announcement.

…

“I would like to issue this challenge to Senator Reid and the 41 senators who signed his letter… I would like for each of you, Senator Reid, and the 40 senators who signed, to match whatever the winning bid is. Show us your support for the U.S. military… match whatever the winning bid is and send that amount to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation,” Limbaugh said. Limbaugh sits on the board of the foundation that has dispersed $29 million for scholarships.

You can check the status of the EBay auction here.

Update #1: With 3 Days and 15 Hours left, the bidding has reached $50K

Update #2: With 10 Hours left, the bidding has exceeded $2 million. I wonder if they’ll ever actually see that money…

Update #3: The bidding has ended, reaching $2,100,100.

Share This

• Comments (1)