New APPS

I've ended up writing two posts worth of material on European Union Institutions, so there will be a second part to this post, itself part of a series of posts on the direction of the EU. 

The European Union has got caught up in a strange mix of technocratic centralisation, inter-state politics, and federal political institutions, which is not a satisfactory form of federalism, or confederalism, or consociationism, or whatever transnational  or interstate political structure one might believe best describes the European Union now, or what it should become. The reasons for this mix are themselves a mix of shifting compromises over  time and the belief of Jean Monnet and other 'Founding Fathers' of the European Union, that European politics could follow on from 'institutionalisation', that is the formation of European institutions with economic and 'technocratic' functions that are somewhat below the horizon of everyday political awareness. This began with fostering trade between France and Germany in the post-war period, bringing great economic and political benefits at that time. The time has come for more explicit politics, including an acceptance that integrationist schemes must be abandoned if lacking political support from citizens of the European Union. 

(more…)

here

(thanks to Amy Ferrer for the heads-up!) 

Congratulations to Andrew Bacon, Sally Haslanger, William Lycan, Larry May, and my co-editor, Elisabeth Lloyd!

In the thread about the Nietzsche club affair, Sam Clark of Lancaster University posted a comment that I think is worthy of discussion:

————

Let me disclaim any ambition to adjudicate this particular case, about which I know next to nothing, and focus on the issues of principle that might apply to it.

[Let's call PL the position]  that harm or the threat of harm is a necessary condition of our using power to interfere with speech, discussion, public meeting, political organization, or political recruitment.

I have three objections to PL:

1) PL is politically naive. If you don't interfere until there are blackshirts on the street beating people up, you've probably left it too late.

2) PL assumes a contentious definition of 'harm'. The 'who gets to decide?' question is a problem for everyone, not just for me: in particular, [the defender of PL] is claiming the right to decide (a) that a discussion seriously entertaining the idea that some historically and systematically oppressed kinds of people are inferior and should be subjected to hierarchical authority does not do or threaten harm; and that (b) preventing a group from using institutional capital (meeting rooms, communication networks, attention) to facilitate that discussion is or does.

3) PL takes as settled what should be subject to democratic deliberation: the bounds of toleration.

—-

Most readers seemed to be squarely in the "PL" camp.   How do they respond to these points?

story here and here.   None of this is good for even the most cynical defenders of American geopolotical  and economic interests.    Its certainly no good for American security against "terrorism."   Even from the most cynical 'Merika-owns-the-world point of view possible, this a greater failure than even the most strident opponents of the Iraq war  predicted.