Yesterday I was listening to a couple of Megyn Kelly's podcasts, which focused heavily on Tucker Carlson's defenestration. What struck me was her criticism of FNC on the grounds that by sacking Tucker the network was violating its obligation to service its audience. Ms. Kelly's critique was accompanied by a promiscuous deployment of the colloquialism, "bullshit." Now I have no objection in principle to a hot blonde with a potty mouth, but to me what's bullshit is the proposition that audience service trumps (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) intellectual integrity.
My old pal Mr. Orwell observed that if freedom of speech means anything at all, it means the freedom to tell people what they don't want to hear. Perhaps without intending to do so, Ms. Kelly is arguing the opposite. Servicing one's audience is intellectual prostitution.
I've included links in this edition of Global Eyes to podcasts that might be a lot more interesting. (That said, I'm fascinated and *profoundly* inspired by Megyn Kelly because she's in her mid-fifties but still qualifies as "hot." Fillers and Botox have been as much of a revolution for women as Viagra was for men. Laura Ingraham too, for that matter--she's just shy of 60!)
Well, you know Claire, I'm 73, so Ms. Kelly gets graded on a curve. The older I get, the more desirable younger women there seem to be. Fortunately, however, the younger woman whom I married back in 1986 has my heart in her change purse...
I found another article about the Buddha statue found in Berenice, Egypt which said the archaeologists found coins dated from the 2nd century AD from the Satavahana dynasty, which I just found out ruled most of central-southern India. There was a Hindi inscription from the next century during the reign of Philip the Arab.
Apr 28, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023Liked by Claire Berlinski
The excerpt you posted from Mr. Davis’ essay has one glaring mistake. The American military couldn’t defend our own shores until well into WWII. If we abandon Taiwan to China, what’s to say the Republican isolationists and Democratic pacifists don’t gut our military to the point where we’ll be virtually defenseless again? Just like they did after WWI? Isolation isn’t the answer to naked aggression.
Well, I would just note that the American military has never been obligated to defend our shores. As Mr. Lincoln noted long ago, our continent-spanning republic is invulnerable to foreign conquest. Geography, so to speak, is destiny.
Claire, you should take more vacations. Your writing (always fantastic) is even better after you’re well rested. This might be the best “Global Eyes” yet.
On American nuclear submarines in South Korea: this move by Biden isn’t really about deterring the North Koreans, it’s about deterring the South Koreans from developing their own nuclear weapons program. It’s a big mistake that’s bad for the United States and Korea. It’s one more example of the quest for American hegemony making our country and our allies weaker not stronger. South Korea should develop its own nuclear deterrent and not rely on the United States. The idea that an American President would order a nuclear strike on North Korea if they attacked South Korea is highly questionable at least as long as North Korea has nukes harnessed to ICBMs capable of reaching the North American West.
The same logic applies to Japan. It needs its own nuclear deterrent (despite its sad history with nukes). Depending on the United States is a fool’s errand. It’s too bad Taiwan doesn’t have its own nukes. If it did, China would be far more deterred than they are by American threats.
On Taiwan: Why would China invade Taiwan and risk destroying all of the valuable infrastructure it intends to inherit. A far better solution would be a naval blockade. Unable to import food or energy supplies, Taiwan wouldn’t last more than a month or two. If the United States attempted to breach the blockade, China could easily sink a ship or two or shoot down American jets thousands of miles from home. Do we really want to fight China in its back yard?
Anyone who thinks our Asian allies would spring to our defense is crazy; they won’t. At best they will pay us lip-service while working feverishly to avert their eyes.
Here’s what China has learned from the imbroglio in Ukraine; they see that the West is a paper tiger. The United States and Europe have failed miserably at convincing the rest of the world to sanction Russia. India won’t; Brazil won’t (even after Biden jumped for joy after Lula’s victory); South Africa won’t; Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs won’t. Given the failure of the world to rally around the American sanctions on Russia, only an imbecile would entertain the idea that the world would ever commit to sanctions if China invaded Taiwan.
If China imposed a blockade and the United States resorted to military action to break it, the first thing China would do is halt the export of ingredients critical to the manufacture of antibiotics and other drugs to the United States. How long could we hold out if American kids started dying of strep throat by the thousands? How long would the Democrat’s ambition to promote solar energy or electric vehicles last if China decided to halt exports of critical components?
Besides, France and Germany have already made it clear that there’s not going to be a Western coalition of the willing if China invades Taiwan. Simply put, the West is far more vulnerable to economic sanctions imposed by China than China is at the prospect of economic sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe.
The only hope we have (and the only hope Taiwan has) is a plan to maintain the status quo. Of course that would require Speakers of the American House of Representatives (of both political parties) to keep their big mouths shut. Can you think of anything more unlikely than that?
On Singapore: that’s a terrible story. Adam Garfinkle spent several months living in and writing about Singapore just a few years ago. He might have some insight into what seems like a horrific penalty for a minor crime. I’ve heard that Singapore has even outlawed chewing gum but I’ve always wondered if it’s really true.
Oh, and thank you for the kind words, though I can't claim credit for the writing here, since this is a selection of other peoples' work. I'll happily claim credit for the editing, though.
Yesterday I was listening to a couple of Megyn Kelly's podcasts, which focused heavily on Tucker Carlson's defenestration. What struck me was her criticism of FNC on the grounds that by sacking Tucker the network was violating its obligation to service its audience. Ms. Kelly's critique was accompanied by a promiscuous deployment of the colloquialism, "bullshit." Now I have no objection in principle to a hot blonde with a potty mouth, but to me what's bullshit is the proposition that audience service trumps (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) intellectual integrity.
My old pal Mr. Orwell observed that if freedom of speech means anything at all, it means the freedom to tell people what they don't want to hear. Perhaps without intending to do so, Ms. Kelly is arguing the opposite. Servicing one's audience is intellectual prostitution.
I've included links in this edition of Global Eyes to podcasts that might be a lot more interesting. (That said, I'm fascinated and *profoundly* inspired by Megyn Kelly because she's in her mid-fifties but still qualifies as "hot." Fillers and Botox have been as much of a revolution for women as Viagra was for men. Laura Ingraham too, for that matter--she's just shy of 60!)
Well, you know Claire, I'm 73, so Ms. Kelly gets graded on a curve. The older I get, the more desirable younger women there seem to be. Fortunately, however, the younger woman whom I married back in 1986 has my heart in her change purse...
I found another article about the Buddha statue found in Berenice, Egypt which said the archaeologists found coins dated from the 2nd century AD from the Satavahana dynasty, which I just found out ruled most of central-southern India. There was a Hindi inscription from the next century during the reign of Philip the Arab.
Amazing.
Clair,
You are the writer who never sleeps. That's the only way you could accomplish this.
Really excellent. I agree that, if this is the result, vacations appear to be something you should do more often.
I sleep! That's why I didn't succeed in sending this out the day before.
The excerpt you posted from Mr. Davis’ essay has one glaring mistake. The American military couldn’t defend our own shores until well into WWII. If we abandon Taiwan to China, what’s to say the Republican isolationists and Democratic pacifists don’t gut our military to the point where we’ll be virtually defenseless again? Just like they did after WWI? Isolation isn’t the answer to naked aggression.
Well, I would just note that the American military has never been obligated to defend our shores. As Mr. Lincoln noted long ago, our continent-spanning republic is invulnerable to foreign conquest. Geography, so to speak, is destiny.
And in President Lincoln’s time, that was true.
And I believe that it still is true.
Claire, you should take more vacations. Your writing (always fantastic) is even better after you’re well rested. This might be the best “Global Eyes” yet.
On American nuclear submarines in South Korea: this move by Biden isn’t really about deterring the North Koreans, it’s about deterring the South Koreans from developing their own nuclear weapons program. It’s a big mistake that’s bad for the United States and Korea. It’s one more example of the quest for American hegemony making our country and our allies weaker not stronger. South Korea should develop its own nuclear deterrent and not rely on the United States. The idea that an American President would order a nuclear strike on North Korea if they attacked South Korea is highly questionable at least as long as North Korea has nukes harnessed to ICBMs capable of reaching the North American West.
The same logic applies to Japan. It needs its own nuclear deterrent (despite its sad history with nukes). Depending on the United States is a fool’s errand. It’s too bad Taiwan doesn’t have its own nukes. If it did, China would be far more deterred than they are by American threats.
On Taiwan: Why would China invade Taiwan and risk destroying all of the valuable infrastructure it intends to inherit. A far better solution would be a naval blockade. Unable to import food or energy supplies, Taiwan wouldn’t last more than a month or two. If the United States attempted to breach the blockade, China could easily sink a ship or two or shoot down American jets thousands of miles from home. Do we really want to fight China in its back yard?
Anyone who thinks our Asian allies would spring to our defense is crazy; they won’t. At best they will pay us lip-service while working feverishly to avert their eyes.
Here’s what China has learned from the imbroglio in Ukraine; they see that the West is a paper tiger. The United States and Europe have failed miserably at convincing the rest of the world to sanction Russia. India won’t; Brazil won’t (even after Biden jumped for joy after Lula’s victory); South Africa won’t; Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs won’t. Given the failure of the world to rally around the American sanctions on Russia, only an imbecile would entertain the idea that the world would ever commit to sanctions if China invaded Taiwan.
If China imposed a blockade and the United States resorted to military action to break it, the first thing China would do is halt the export of ingredients critical to the manufacture of antibiotics and other drugs to the United States. How long could we hold out if American kids started dying of strep throat by the thousands? How long would the Democrat’s ambition to promote solar energy or electric vehicles last if China decided to halt exports of critical components?
Besides, France and Germany have already made it clear that there’s not going to be a Western coalition of the willing if China invades Taiwan. Simply put, the West is far more vulnerable to economic sanctions imposed by China than China is at the prospect of economic sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe.
The only hope we have (and the only hope Taiwan has) is a plan to maintain the status quo. Of course that would require Speakers of the American House of Representatives (of both political parties) to keep their big mouths shut. Can you think of anything more unlikely than that?
On Singapore: that’s a terrible story. Adam Garfinkle spent several months living in and writing about Singapore just a few years ago. He might have some insight into what seems like a horrific penalty for a minor crime. I’ve heard that Singapore has even outlawed chewing gum but I’ve always wondered if it’s really true.
Re. Singapore and chewing gum: It's true.
Oh, and thank you for the kind words, though I can't claim credit for the writing here, since this is a selection of other peoples' work. I'll happily claim credit for the editing, though.