Pro-War Lobby Attacks Russian Influencers
by Ted Galen Carpenter, antiwar.com, September 10, 2024.
Excerpt:
But even in the unlikely event that the charges are accurate, other more fundamental issues should concern all Americans. The statutes that he is accused of violating are sufficiently vague as to pose a threat to freedom of speech and to badly needed debates on numerous international issues, especially the tense relations between Russia and the United States. Could, for example, publishing an article in the National Interest or participating in a discussion sponsored by the Center inadvertently violate pertinent statutes? What about a paid interview? How could an author or participant be confident one way or the other? The mere existence of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and various sanctions laws directed against specific countries pose an intolerable threat to the 1st Amendment.
Surface Transportation News: Questions about the Key Bridge replacement
by Robert Poole, Reason, September 10, 2024.
Excerpt:
In a recent release, the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA), said:
“The formal designation of the I-695 corridor as an Interstate highway…federalized the bridge replacement project, extending all the limitations on revenue uses contained in Section 129 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code.”
This statement implies that there would be a federal problem with using toll financing to replace the Key Bridge. That’s false. Congress explicitly revised that section of the statute in 1991 to make clear that toll financing can be used to replace bridges on the Interstate system, regardless of whether they were tolled or not. That is how Louisiana is underway replacing the aging Calcasieu River Bridge with a toll-financed new bridge. (italics in original)
The Islamic Moses: The Key to the Judeo-Islamic Tradition
by Mustafa Akyol, Cato at Liberty, September 10, 2024.
Excerpt:
It is, in a sense, a sequel to my earlier book, The Islamic Jesus (2017), which examined the Qur’anic depiction of Jesus Christ, revealing the intricate connections between Christianity and Islam. This time, I examine the Quranic depiction of Moses, who, curiously, is the most dominant human figure in the Islamic scripture, eclipsing even the latter’s own prophet, Muhammad.
The Quranic Moses is just the key to a much larger story, though. The Jewish prophet was so central to Islam’s founding text because he was the role model for Islam’s own prophet. Muhammad embraced the core ideals of Judaism — a staunch monotheism with a comprehensive religious law — only to proclaim them to his people, the Arabs. The theological continuation between two faiths was so strong that modern Jewish historian Shelomo Dov Goitein (d. 1985) defined Islam as “from the very flesh and bone of Judaism.” This new religion, Goitein added, was “a recast, an enlargement” of its Jewish precursor.
For many people in the West today, all this may be surprising to hear, because they are used to hearing about the “Judeo-Christian tradition,” while Islam is often considered, at best, a distant cousin. But the Judeo-Christian tradition is a modern concept popularized only in the twentieth century, when Western civilization finally began to question its dark history of antisemitism, while parts of the Muslim world sadly began to absorb it.
The Supreme Court Reined in Federal Regulators. What Happens Now?
by Peter Suderman, Reason, October 2024.
In 1984, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in favor of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule stemming from the Clean Air Act. The EPA rule allowed states to treat all pollution from a unified industrial group as a singular pollution source for regulatory purposes. A cohort of environmental groups challenged the rule, arguing that it allowed pollution-emitting devices to operate that would not have passed regulatory muster considered on their own.
It was a technical exercise in statutory interpretation—but the case’s long-term impact had little to do with pollution or the intricacies of the Clean Air Act. Embedded in that decision, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., was a small revolution in administrative law.
DRH comment: When I taught a public policy class, one of the examples I gave of how we could get a lower cost of reducing pollution was the Chevron case. I liked what the EPA did, but I now understand that it went beyond its mandate. The EPA allowed an industrial polluter to hit the targeted reduction by reducing pollution more from the source for which the cost was lowest. That meant that it hit the target at least cost. You can see why, I, an economist, liked it. I wasn’t familiar with the law.
We Still Live in the Physical World
by Virginia Postrel, Reason, September 10, 2024.
Excerpt:
Unfortunately, the book fails to meet an author’s obligations to the audience. It is riddled with contradictions, cherry-picked examples, and question begging. It is bereft of historical context. And contrary to the promise of the subtitle, it never reveals how Rosen imagines “being human.” That ideal seems to involve writing handwritten letters to distant loved ones—but not texts! never texts!—and embracing the boredom of long lines at Disney World.
Rosen gives some of her most promising evidence short shrift. She accords pandemic Zoom classes about a page. She doesn’t explore why online schooling is ineffective, nor does she consider when instructional videos—such as the how-tos found on YouTube—do work. Letting the abysmal effects of Zoom schooling stand in for all online instruction, she simply ignores the value of digital convenience for teaching such real-world skills as making a sewing pattern, fixing a garbage disposal, improving your passing game, or tying a tie. Perhaps she simply doesn’t know that how-to videos are common on YouTube. (Khan Academy also gets no mention either.) From Rosen’s viewpoint, if something is online it has nothing to do with the real world except to undermine it.
Virginia is at her best in laying out the huge benefits to virtually everyone of much technological change.
BTW, when I saw the title of her review, I thought of Madonna and I wanted to add, “And I am a physical boy.”
READER COMMENTS
steve
Sep 15 2024 at 12:21pm
Once someone has registered as a foreign agent they are then free, as I understand it, to say anything an American citizen would say. It simply lets us know that they may have a bias. It’s not that much different than what is required in much of science and the medical field. When you publish a paper you are required to reveal any potential conflicts of interest. It helps with integrity of information. This should be the norm among all of the sciences including the soft ones.
Steve
Scott Sumner
Sep 15 2024 at 7:38pm
“Pro-War Lobby Attacks Russian Influencers”
So those who oppose Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine are the “pro-war lobby”? The author seems to live in an alternative reality where it is Nato that launched a war against Russia, not Russia that launched a war against Ukraine
David Henderson
Sep 15 2024 at 9:51pm
You write:
No. I oppose Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, but I’m not pro-war. I want the United States government not to get involved and I want the two sides to stop, which they might have if Biden hadn’t sent the British PM, Boris Johnson, early on to persuade Zelensky to keep fighting.
steve
Sep 16 2024 at 10:47am
Ukraine knows what it’s like to live under Russian rule. The Russians killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and deported almost as many, a lot of them being children. They have started to replicate that in the area they have taken over by deporting children and killing Ukrainians labeled as Ukrainian sympathizers. Zelensky and Ukrainians always wanted to fight, we just let them know we would provide support. Doesnt seem so awful to support people who want to fight for their freedom, but lets call it liberty to make it palatable.
Steve
David Henderson
Sep 16 2024 at 11:40am
There’s no doubt that the Russian government and its army are horrible. That was one of the good reasons to have a peace agreement early. Think of all the innocent Ukrainian lives and, for that matter, innocent Russian lives that would have been saved.
steve
Sep 16 2024 at 7:21pm
David- I dont really understand how Ukraine would have benefitted from conceding to Russia and then having the Russians selectively kill and deport the Ukrainians in the area that Russia took over. It’s not really just a change in government, in which case I might agree with you. It’s a change to a government with history of treating Ukrainians very brutally which they are continuing to do now and which history suggests they will do again as soon as the war is over and they have control. That’s their history. I also dont know why you seem to think it is wrong for the Ukrainians to fight to try to retain their freedom/liberty.
Just to clarify this was true not only in Ukraine but also in the Baltics, Poland and elsewhere. There is a reason those countries want to join NATO and dont like or trust Russia.
Steve
Craig
Sep 16 2024 at 10:30pm
“I dont really understand how Ukraine would have benefitted from conceding to Russia”
Well now that it is known it sets up a situation where there is a major known milestone that Ukraine now needs to do better than, right? I mean, for sure, if they do worse many will naturally say that they could just as well have accepted better terms from the get go without much bloodshed. I’d suggest it might be the ultimate sunk cost fallacy playing out. Nevertheless the issue really is what are the terms and what, if any territorial concession might be made. As of this writing, I have not heard Ukraine shown any willingness to accept anything less than Ukraine 1991, right?
I could say why doesn’t 36+6 = 1, well, maybe because many in Northern Ireland didn’t want to be part of Ireland. Pre-invasion the DPR and LPR gained de facto independence as a result of the Donbass War which claimed tens of thousands. 90% of the population there speak Russian. The Crimea has never seen a majority Ukrainian population, ever.
How much has our regime pissed away on this? Hundreds of billions now? I dunno, I can’t count that high, but for that amount we should own some Black Sea beachfront property.
We were told just how urgent US aid was to keep Ukraine afloat and I guess they gave Johnson something where he flipped on Ukraine. And then Germany is free to halve their aid I guess: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-halve-military-aid-ukraine-despite-possible-trump-white-house-2024-07-17/ [We’re suckers, right?]
Back when Bush II was President Putin invaded Georgia, a country much smaller. He absolutely could have annexed the entire thing. He didn’t. He did slice away areas of Georgia that didn’t want to be part of Georgia like South Ossetia.
From 2014 until the invasion the Ukraine did not assert sovereignty over the DPR/LPR and Crimea. Know what changed in my life? Nothing, I was busy being told the Houthi were now my mortal enemies. I had never heard of them either. Its like I’m living in 1984 instead of 2024. At the end of this conflict, Russian and the Ukraine are going to be neighbors, whether the border is Ukraine 1991, Ukraine 2014 or Russia gets these 4 ‘oblasts’ they have nominally annexed, frankly I just don’t care and ultimately I genuinely believe that forcing the issue with respect to Crimea where there is a majority ethnic Russian population, the historic home of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol, might trigger a nuclear war. Many have opined that the Russians might be thinking in terms of ‘escalate to deescalate’ inasmuch as Ukraine itself is NOT armed with nuclear weapons. If Putin tosses a nuke will the US respond with a nuke? Maybe I am wrong, indeed I suppose I hope I am wrong if it is to be, but as off 9/2024 I’d just rather not find out.
Over what? To ensure that an area with a majority Russian speaking population should yield to the principle of territorial integrity? All while the regime stands for the EXACT OPPOSITE PRINCIPLE halfway around the world?
Scott Sumner
Sep 16 2024 at 2:55pm
David, To be clear, my comment was not directed at you; it was directed at the author of that article, which I found very disturbing. He was basically accepting Putin’s excuse for the invasion, that it was Nato’s fault.
The only way to have peace is to have military aggressors stop their aggression. Appeasement will merely lead to additional invasions, as we’ve seen throughout history.
Ahmed Fares
Sep 15 2024 at 7:57pm
Antisemitism is the glue that binds Jewish people together. Alan Dershowitz was holding meetings with prominent Jews to find something to replace antisemitism.
The Vanishing American Jew
Ahmed Fares
Sep 15 2024 at 8:03pm
After posting my comment, I realized that I should have quoted the fourth paragraph also for the benefit of those not reading the whole article, which really makes the point I was trying to make:
David Henderson
Sep 17 2024 at 9:20am
steve writes above:
I have no idea why he thinks I think that. I will ALWAYS defend the right of people to fight off foreign invaders. Indeed, as I said on this site over 2 years ago, my wife and I sent money to Ukrainians to help them.
My objection is to the U.S. government getting involved.
Comments are closed.