Amitai Etzioni Notes

From Publishers Weekly: Review of From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations

Arguing against both what he casts as Francis Fukuyama’s liberal triumphalism and Samuel Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" pessimism, communitarian Etzioni sees the world edging toward a "chemical fusion" of Western individualism and Eastern social authoritarianism. This movement duly demands a transformation of an American "semi-empire" based on military coercion into a world community based on a "new global architecture" of transnational institutions that rely less on force and more on shared interests and values. Etzioni’s turgid disquisitions on such topics as "monofunctional transnational government networks" remain somewhat vague about what the new global regime actually entails. It would definitely not look like the invasion of Iraq, a "Vietnamesque" disaster that he feels has aroused intense worldwide opposition and squandered America’s credibility. But it might look something like the international police and intelligence effort against terrorism and nuclear proliferation, a de facto Global Safety Authority that could be a model for other Authorities governing other world issues like environmental degradation, poverty, sex trafficking and "cybercrime." True to his communitarian instincts, Etzioni insists that the transnational community requires informal but "thick" bonds of shared values and mores; moderate religion will play a leading role, especially a nascent "soft" Islam, which will drive out hard fundamentalist Islam and foster the growth of civil society in the Muslim world. Unfortunately, apart from perfunctory talk of international "moral dialogues," he is vague about how the "global normative synthesis" is to come about. Etzioni’s communitarian formula—not too hawkish, not too dovish, with not too much individualism, not too much social coercion and lots of moral consensus—seems even more nebulous and pat when translated from domestic politics to international relations.

(Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

European Constitutional Track

Kids First

In reference to the “Family Movie Act,” other panelists who testified before and after I did included The Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States at The Library of Congress; Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); and Penny Nance, President of Kids First Coalition (a non-profit educational and advocacy group). I found Mrs. Nance’s testimony especially compelling. To see Nance's testimony, read this article.

An Eye in the Skies

On June 16th, the government decided to proceed with a long-awaited program designed to speed security checks for air travelers. The Transportation Security Administration will begin the “Registered Traveler” program, which will be phased in five major airports in five cities: Minneapolis-St. Paul, Boston, Los Angeles, Houston, and Washington, DC. Frequent travelers at these airports will be asked to provide extensive personal information, including dates and places of birth, current addresses, and Social Security numbers. They will also have to provide so-called “biometric information” through a retina scan and finger or hand prints.

(Source: The Wall Street Journal, 6/16/04)

Can you hear the Libertarians–and the politically correct crowd–screaming?

Read All Or . . . Nothing?

In Thursday, June 17th’s House Judiciary subcommittee meeting on courts, the internet, and intellectual property, Representative Randy Forbes (VA) pointed out that the “Family Movie Act” should focus on consumer rights. Since the bill addresses private usage, Forbes argued, a consumer who wishes to purchase technology that edits out obscenities from movies or other forms of media should have the right to do so. He wisely rejected the notion advanced by the movie industry lobbyist, Jack Valenti, who argued that such filters would violate the artistic integrity of the movie director. Forbes pointed out that if he wants his search engine to pull up only segments of articles or books dealing with a sub topic, no one would insist that he read the whole book. Why should DVDs and tapes be different?

Well put.

Spammed If You Do and Spammed If You Don’t

On June 15th, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rejected a do-not-spam list as unworkable, despite its popularity and the success of similar programs to stop unwanted telephone messages and sales pitches. According to Timothy J. Muris, the agency’s Chairman, the possibility that spammers might get a hold of the list, providing them with a virtually unlimited number of valid e-mail addresses for exploitation, would prove more dangerous.

(Source: The Washington Post, 6/16/04)

I find it hard to follow why a no-spam list is more dangerous than a no-call list.

Global Safety Authority Needed

Beginning next week, The Dallas Morning News will begin running reports on priests who are sex offenders; instead of being punished or dismissed, the priests have been moved to another country, where they continue to have access to children in the parishes in which they preach.

If you need any additional evidence that a global safety authority is needed, consult Part II of my From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International Relations.

Filtering Out Offensive Content

On Thursday, June 17th, Congressman Howard Berman (CA), who happens to represent an area in which many movie makers live, mocked the “Family Movie Act,” which is discussed in this entry. When I pointed out that parents have a duty to protect their children from vile and violent material, Mr. Berman asked me how I would feel if someone wanted to cut things out of one of my books? I responded that if any of my books harm children, I hope the parents would do so–and I would provide the scissors.

Your Children Are Just a Mouse-Click Away

Last month, Utah became the first state in the nation to enact a law recognizing a parent’s right to “virtual visiting” with their children, comparable to visitation rights issued after a divorce. An article in The Washington Post on June 15 tells the story of Salt Lake City resident Michael Gough who, by court order, “virtually visits” his 5-year-old daughter Saige several times a week through a network of high-speed Internet connections, webcams and microphones. Gough, whose ex-wife and daughter live in Wisconsin, explains that the technology has enriched his relationship with his daughter, because he and Saige are now able to see as well as hear each other.

Gough isn’t alone in bridging the divorce gap through technology. The article reports that conflict over the right to computer-based communication between parents and children has played a role in at least a dozen court cases in 11 states since 2001. Although some family law specialists have praised virtual visitation as a bearer of peace during custody battles, other groups remain skeptical, fearing the technology will make it easier for a parent to move a child out of state.

OK, OK. I grant that computerized visits are better than nothing. But the real thing is much richer. Kids need hugs among other things computers do not provide.

The “Family Movie Act”

On Thursday, June 17th, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee on courts, the internet, and intellectual property met to discuss the H.R. 4586 bill, the “Family Movie Act.” The bill provides that available technology for private home viewing to edit out indecent scenes is not an infringement of copyright or of any right under the Trademark Act of 1946. Committee members and witnesses discussed the bill’s implications: should the technology be made available for parents to skip over or mute offensive content, or is this an infringement of copyright law? I testified in favor of the bill for reasons I spelled out previously in this article.