Here’s an item in the spirit of “when the state does more good than harm” (a conversation Roderick and I are having below): my university recently got a $100,000 NEH grant to run a series of courses and create a minor on the role of the city of Paterson, New Jersey in regional and American history. Continue reading →

I don’t consider myself a libertarian any more, and am not sure I ever was one in a wholehearted way, but I can say this much: once upon a time, I held a more clearly libertarian position about politics than I currently do. I heard a story on NPR yesterday that reminded me of a puzzle that my libertarian commitments generated (in combination with some of the commitments that I took to cohere with it), but that I never ended up resolving. Maybe some reader can resolve the puzzle and tell me where I went wrong. Continue reading →

My friend, erstwhile Felician colleague, and quasi-neighbor Joe Biehl has a nice piece in Areo on philosophy’s role as resistance to social reality.  Read it.

Does anyone understand the Katie Hill “scandal”? I had trouble sleeping last night, so I used an article about the scandal as a sleep aid–which worked like a charm–but then I woke up wondering what it was about. So I looked into it. As far as I can tell, this is the whole scandal:

1. A woman has a three-some with someone plus her husband.
2. The woman’s marriage goes south, so she ditches her husband and starts up with the someone (or maybe a couple of people).
3. Somewhere in there, she gets naked, brushes the someone’s hair, and is photographed doing it.
4. She gets elected to Congress, where some of the preceding breaks some newly-passed rule.

Continue reading →

Just checking here, but is it an “interesting angle” or “espionage” if Jared Kushner, Stephen Greenblatt, or David Friedman advise the Israeli government on how to circumvent long-standing American objections to the settlement of the West Bank? Or is that not a place where John Woo and Laura Ingraham want to go?

‘Some People Might Call That Espionage’: Fox Panel Questions White House Official Testifying in Impeachment Inquiry

Whether you think the U.S. should have had troops in Syria or not, or agree with Trump’s decision to pull them out or not, or agree with his decision to pull them out as and/or when he did or not, this passage, from a story about “our” dealings with the Kurds, is worth dwelling on, and remembering for future reference: Continue reading →

From an article in this morning’s New York Times, “As U.S. Leaves Allies in Syria, Kurdish Commander Struggles with Fallout.”

Mr. Trump’s decision to pull United States troops out of the way of a Turkish advance and to begin withdrawing them from Syria deprived Mr. Kobani of his strongest backer and left him scrambling to reach new accommodations with the region’s other powers. This has put him in touch with a surprising number of powerful people for a man who heads a relatively unknown militia in an obscure corner of Syria.

Since the violence started, he has met with senior aides to President al-Assad of Syria, whom the United States considers a war criminal; spoken with top brass from the Russian military, which backs Mr. al-Assad; and had phone calls with prominent Americans like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who opposes Mr. Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria. On Saturday he talked to Mr. Pence, and he spoke with Mr. Trump last week.

“The issues are very complicated,” Mr. Kobani said. “I meet with everyone, and I will make any decision that is in our people’s interest.”

In other words, by Hillary Clinton’s standards, Mazlum Kobani is now an “apologist for Assad” who’s being “groomed” as a Russian asset. Borrowing Clinton’s conspiracy-theoretic assumptions, why is that a strike against Tulsi Gabbard but not against Mazlum Kobani? If those are such terrible things, why should we be supporting the Kurds at all?

Granted, given HRC’s latest venture into geostrategy, it’s doubtful anyone can refer with a straight face to her “standards,” but I think you know what I mean.