« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
April 30, 2006
It's a Good Thing That Regime Changed
Andrew Sullivan links to a report indicating that Sadaam Hussein's late sons were planning martyrdom operations against Western targets.
Posted by Conor at 09:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Muslims Attacking Muslims
Mona Eltahawy:
Look no further than the triple bombing this week at the Sinai resort of Dahab, where most of those killed and wounded were Egyptians, to fully appreciate the lie behind Osama bin Laden's latest message that the West is on a crusade against Islam.
If anyone is on a crusade against Muslims it is Al Qaeda itself, whose sympathizers most likely carried out the attack in Dahab, the third in Sinai in 18 months.
Attacks by bin Laden's henchmen and others espousing violent Islamist thought are ostensibly carried out to oppose U.S. foreign policy. But it is Muslims who bear the brunt of their violence.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/28/opinion/edmona.php
Posted by Conor at 09:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Fighting Faith
Peter Beinart explains the flaw in George W. Bush's foreign policy.
Posted by Conor at 12:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 29, 2006
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
Hit and Run has a roundup of Jane Jacobs posts.
Posted by Conor at 06:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
In Sweden Muslim Group Demands Special Laws
The Swedish Muslim Association, Sveriges muslimska förbund (SMuF), the largest Muslim organisation in Sweden, has written a letter to all the parties in the Swedish parliament to demand that separate legislation be introduced for Muslims. SmuF has 70,000 members and claims to represent the 470,000 Muslim immigrants living in the country. Sweden has a total population of 9 million. One in every 19 people in Sweden is a Muslim. It is the fastest growing segment of the population.SmuF’s proposal includes demands that divorces between Muslims should be approved by an imam, that imams be allowed to give Muslim children who attend public schools separate lessons in Islam and in their native languages, and that boys and girls should have separate swimming and gym lessons.
Sweden is holding general elections this Autumn. As in other European countries, the Muslim vote may be the decisive element in the elections by tipping the balance. This probably explains why this week the Swedish Socialist government refused to participate in an international military exercise “because of Israel’s participation.�
Jens Orback, the Swedish minister for Integration and Equality, however, categorically rejected the Muslim demands for separate laws. “In Sweden we are all equal before the law. In Sweden we have fought for a long time to achieve gender-neutral laws, and to propose that certain groups should not be treated like others is completely unacceptable,� he said. “I think it is very problematic and unfortunate that people who have been in Sweden for so long are making proposals like these, that are so opposed to our intentions, when we are fighting for women’s rights and the right to divorce.�
Though most Swedish politicians agreed with the minister, there is a notable exception. Ebtisam Aldebe, a female candidate of the Centerpartiet, the Centre Party, supports SmuF’s proposal. She says that men should be entitled to inherit more than women, because this is what the Quran says.
Posted by Conor at 10:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
McCain: 1st Amendment Less Important Than Clean Government
I really want to vote for John McCain... but when he says things like this I sure worry what else he'd do if elected president.
Posted by Conor at 10:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 28, 2006
What About the Dolphins?
Brussels Journal: The Spanish newspaper El Mundo (25 April) reports that Spain’s governing Socialists are submitting a bill to grant human rights to four species of animals. The species are chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans: the so-called ‘great apes’ or ‘pongids’ (grandes simios in Spanish).
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that Spain adheres to the international Great Ape Project, granting the animals the right to life, freedom and not being tortured. The GAP motto is: “Equality beyond humanity�. Its declaration says: “We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.�
Great apes share 99 per cent of their genetic material with humans. Champions of their rights say they have an emotional and cultural life, intelligence and moral qualities reminiscent of those of humans. Francisco Garrido, a Green representative who belongs to the Socialist group in parliament, submitted the bill on 25 April. Garrido claims the Spanish Socialists are acting as ambassadors, as defenders and as the voice of the great apes. He hopes that Spain will become the first European country to grant them fundamental human rights.
Posted by Conor at 09:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
On Writing
John Scalzi has tips for teenage writes. (Hat Tip Instapundit)
Posted by Conor at 09:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 27, 2006
The Price of Gasoline in Chinatown
I'm not a big Ann Coulter fan, but I think she's absolutely right about this:
I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.Coulter also notes that raising gasoline taxes has long been a policy goal on the left.
Posted by Conor at 09:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Bizarre Life
This is a rather devastating profile of George Allen, the aspiring presidential candidate.
Posted by Conor at 02:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It's My Party...
James Taranto points me to this "jaw-dropping story" in the Arizona Republic:
The marketing of Marissa Leigh, age 16, is a job that employs 12 people. The Scottsdale princess has a manager and a publicist, of course. She has a voice coach and a makeup artist and a hairstylist willing to jet off whenev, wherev.Read the whole thing--it just keeps getting better.Then there's the Web master. The photographer, who also shoots Lindsay Lohan. The guy who listens to Marissa humming on a tape recorder, and then puts the music on paper. And sure, she has an acting coach. Actually, two.
Her mother is the goddess of her schedule, her wardrobe, her bathroom remodel. And, of course, Daddy, whose job it is to pay.
Posted by Conor at 01:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Now Lay In It
This bed is my worst nightmare. Ann Althouse is skeptical too.
Posted by Conor at 01:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
International Reporting
Michael J. Totten has an excellent dispatch from the Middle East, comparing Israel and Lebanon, among other things.
It's well worth a read.
Posted by Conor at 01:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Full of Hot Air
After watching Bill O'Reilly complain about gas prices, Glenn Reynolds suggests sending him a copy of this book.
Posted by Conor at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 26, 2006
How More People Can Win the Culture Wars (Even if They Disagree!)
I've long touted the benefits of local authority, in part because it enables more people to live under laws that they prefer.
Let's say, hypothetically, that 50 percent of Americans believe there should be prayer in school, while 50 percent think prayer in school should be prohibited (pretend there aren't constitutional concerns for a moment).
If you have one national policy, then half the people are happy and half are unhappy.
But if states where a majority of people favor school prayer have it, and states where a majority of people oppose school prayer don't, then maybe 60 percent of people are happy and 40 percent of people aren't.
And if you decide at the school district level, maybe 85 percent of people are happy and 15 percent are unhappy.
Some are saying that this approach might be the answer to the culture wars.
Posted by Conor at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Without a Box
Only in Berkeley could a box cause this much trouble.
Posted by Conor at 09:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Strasburg Shuffle
The EU descends into self-parody more than any other government body I know of.
Posted by Conor at 09:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Sad Story, and a Future Example in a Law School Textbook
The Volokh Conspiracy links to this bizarre rape case about a drunk man who went home with one woman, got up to use the restroom, mistakenly (so he says) returned to another bedroom, and initiated sex with another woman who didn't protest because she thought, in the darkened room, that it was her boyfriend.
Posted by Conor at 08:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 25, 2006
Girls and Alcohol
Newsweek has the most overwrought leads in American journalism:
April 25, 2006 - Lauren Kennedy was only nine years old when she snuck her first sip of her dad's whiskey. At 12, she started drinking margaritas with friends. Two years later, she drank so much hard alcohol at a friend's house that she passed out. Despite the black out, Kennedy, now 21, says she loved the feeling of being drunk. "It made me forget all my worries," she says. But her drinking also led to more worries for her family. After a lifetime on the honor roll, Kennedy says she “stopped caring about school.� She got her first D her sophomore year of high school, dropped out a year later and started experimenting with marijuana and even crystal methamphetamine. "Every time I did [the drugs], I was under the influence of alcohol," she says. "I never thought I'd actually get addicted to them." But she did. Kennedy’s been sober now for two years, but only after spending more than a month at the Betty Ford Center at age 19 to treat her alcohol and drug addiction.Aren't anecdotal leads supposed to use specific examples to make general trends real? Newsweek employs them as part of a shock and awe campaign.
Posted by Conor at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Other Globalization
When you talk about globalization, most people think of American culture overshadowing indigenous cultures around the world, Jonah Goldberg points out on Blogginheads.TV
But Islamic fundamentalists have explicit contempt for non-Muslim indigenous cultures. Is that globalization too?
Over at The American Scene the bloogger Reihan has a fascinating post on this topic.
Posted by Conor at 02:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
An Urban Planning Legend
Jane Jacobs has died.
Posted by Conor at 02:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Photo of the Day
Chromasis is one of the best photo blogs on the Internet. Check it out.
Posted by Conor at 02:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Soccer and Geopolitics
The International Herald Tribune reports:
With little more than 40 days before the World Cup kicks off in Germany, the president of Iran has made a significant move to relieve at least one of the pressure points surrounding his nation's participation in the tournament.Read the rest for an interesting overview of how soccer has played over the years in international politics.
Iranian state television confirmed Monday that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had ordered the Ministry for Sports to allow women to attend soccer games and decreed that some of the Islamic dress codes requiring women to cover their heads and bodies should not be imposed by force.
And if you didn't do so before, check out the soccer videos on this site too.
Posted by Conor at 12:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Blogs and Book Sales
Glenn Reynolds: "The Oprah of the blogosphere"?
Posted by Conor at 09:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 24, 2006
Murderers
Al Qaeda continues to murder Muslims.
Posted by Conor at 09:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Duke Rape Case Update
Newsweek has a comprehensive round-up of the Duke Lacrosse rape story.
Jack Shafer wonders whether the press is treating the accused players fairly.
Meanwhile, a reader of The Missing Link writes the following:
The FBI reports that false accusations account for 2% of all reported sexual assaults. Furthermore, most rapes do not leave physical evidence of trauma in the vaginal or anal region, but such evidence is many times more likely to arise given that the alleged victim has raped than given that she has not been raped.
Regarding those who suggest that her alleged intoxication weighs in the defense's favor: let us not forget that rape laws in this country are structured around consent. If this woman was incredibly drunk or high, which was apparently exceedingly obvious to every eyewitness account I've read, then that's a pretty clear signal that she was not capable of consenting to have sex with whomever did so that evening. The lack of the players' DNA found on her doesn't mean all that much to me either--if she was barely conscious, I'm not surprised that she didn't claw at the perpetrator. And a woman doesn't have to use physical force against someone having sex with her in order for the act to be rape. It is rather unfortunate that this vestige of earlier, less-enlightened rape laws hasn't quite departed from the collective consciousness.
Those of us who wind up in the jury box have an obligation to presume innocence. They will have to weigh the evidence just as we who follow the story are trying to do. I just hope that we recognize that while the lacrosse players will have evidence weighing in their favor, the accuser has evidence weighing in hers as well.
UPDATE: Dhalia Lithwick has more:
As was the case with O.J. Simpson, Bryant, and Jackson, this is very quickly becoming an ink-blot test, not a legal proceeding: We look to the facts to confirm our own pre-existing suspicions about what inevitably happens between men and women, rich people and poor people, black people and white people.
And Eugene Robinson writes in the Washington Post:
The context? A bunch of jocks at an elite university in the once-segregated South -- privileged white kids who play lacrosse, a sport that conjures images of impossibly green suburban playing fields surrounded by the Range Rovers of doting parents -- decide to have a party, so they call an escort service and hire a couple of strippers. The hired help arrives: two black women, one of them a 27-year-old single mother who is working her way through North Carolina Central University, a decidedly proletarian institution across town. Within a few hours the woman becomes simply "the accuser" when she tells police she was raped by some of those white jocks.But is that the context?
That's the basic scenario, and it's impossible to avoid thinking of all the black women who were violated by drunken white men in the American South over the centuries. The master-slave relationship, the tradition of droit du seigneur , the use of sexual possession as an instrument of domination -- all this ugliness floods the mind, unbidden, and refuses to leave.
As much as we're led to believe that privileged white men are frequently raping black women, the fact of the matter is that nowadays such rapes are exceedingly rare. Less than 1 percent of rapes involve a white man raping a black woman (if you round the number is 0) -- the vast majority of rapes, in fact, involve perpetrators and victims of the same race.
It may fit into a convenient historical narrative to pretend it's predictable that privileged white boys would rape a black woman, but it's actually not predictable at all, and constantly sending out the wrongheaded message that it is common (instead of exceedingly uncommon) surely causes black women to falsely perceive virulent racism directed against them, something that can't be good for anyone's happiness.
Posted by Conor at 08:52 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Eschewing Spin... And Communicating Less
Jay Rosen explains why the Bush Administration chose an inarticulate man who can't think on his feet as White House press secretary.
Posted by Conor at 02:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
You Can't Show That
David Bernstein has a fascinating post on censorship at Penn State.
Posted by Conor at 01:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 23, 2006
The Water Supply
How does Arizona get its water? George Will explains.
Posted by Conor at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Green Scare?
Jonah Goldberg notes the "green scare" going on in America:
MEET AL GORE, scaremonger. In 2004, Gore denounced President Bush for "playing on our fears." Today, he is at the forefront of a "green scare" about global warming intended to terrify Americans into submitting to his environmental policies.Consider the trailer for "An Inconvenient Truth," Davis Guggenheim's documentary about Gore's green crusade. It promises to be the most adept piece of scaremongering ever captured on film, making "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" seem like "Toy Story 2." The movie's poster shows penguins walking across a desert. The trailer says, "If you love your planet … if you love your children … you have to see this movie." In case you're thick in the head, the producers spell it out for you: "By far, the most terrifying film you will ever see!"
Of course, Gore is not alone. A host of new environmental scare books are out or on the way.
Posted by Conor at 09:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
McMysterious
If you live in California, you know that In N Out is far superior to McDonalds. Neverthhless, The Golden Arches seems to be doing well.
Posted by Conor at 09:16 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
A Swarm of Hostility
Thge Chronicle of Higher Education has a fascinating article on "mobbing."
Posted by Conor at 08:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Lunatic's Ideology
Anyone who still thinks that Islamic terrorism results from Western provocations needs to hear Osama Bin Laden's newest audio tape. The New York Times reports:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Osama bin Laden issued ominous new threats in an audiotape broadcast Sunday, purportedly saying the West was at war with Islam and calling on his followers to go to Sudan to fight a proposed U.N. force.Yes, that's right, preventing an ongoing genocide is another purported sin of the West.
Posted by Conor at 08:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 20, 2006
The Best Outcome in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case
The RCP Blog has a peculiar post about the Duke Lax team:
You don't have to be clairvoyant to know this Duke thing is going to end badly. If you think about the potential outcomes there are only four:I agree that the whole controversy will end badly regardless. But isn't the best outcome that the woman is lying and the players are cleared since, you know, then a woman won't have been raped?Option 1: the woman is telling the truth and the players are convicted of rape and sent to prison
Option 2a: the woman is telling the truth and the players get off
Option 2b: the woman is lying and the players are exonerated
Option 3: the woman is lying and the players are convicted of rape and sent to prisonOption 1 is the "best" (and believe me I use that term in the most relative possible way) possible outcome in that the accuser is telling the truth and the justice system works properly. In Option 2a, the justice system fails a truthful accuser, doing her serious harm. With Option 2b, the justice system works (kind of) in that the players are exonerated, but not before an untruthful accusation has done their lives and reputations serious harm. And, clearly, Option 3 is the nightmare scenario where the accuser is lying and the justice sytems fails and the players are wrongly convicted and sent to prison for a crime they did not commit.
UPDATE: This approach to the case strikes me as sensible.
Posted by Conor at 12:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 18, 2006
Me Gusta Jugal El Futbol
If you like soccer, you'll love this site.
Posted by Conor at 04:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Together We Stand, Divided We Fall
South Park is as crass a show as they come.
The cartoon’s gags include an emaciated Ethiopian boy named Starvin’ Marvin, recurrent jokes about animal sexuality and flippant depictions of child abuse.
Religion is a frequent target of creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.
A recent episode brutally mocked Scientology, basically implying that every believer is a naïve idiot. Jesus Christ makes frequent appearances on the show, most memorably when he defecated on George W. Bush.
A sensitive soul who watched South Park since its 1997 debut would’ve been offended several thousand times by now, a fact that doesn’t seem to bother Comedy Central much, though the network has recently declared one topic taboo.
It may be okay to show Jesus defecating, but network censors refused to depict the Islamic prophet Mohammed “just standing there looking normal,� as an Internet commenter put it.
In the episode in question, Americans fearful that Mohammed would be depicted by the Fox Network ran around searching for enough sand to bury their heads, hoping that if they did so the problem of Islamic radicalism would go away. At the moment in the episode where Mohammed was to be shown, viewers saw the following message: “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.�
Later the network released a brief statement: “In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision.�
They refer to recent riots prompted by a Danish newspaper’s decision to depict Mohammed in political cartoons, and the subsequent decision of radical Danish imams to use to episode to stoke violence.
Most American newspapers refused to reprint the cartoons even after they became newsworthy, arguing that doing so would needlessly offend Muslim sensibilities.
The South Park episode’s censorship is significant because the Comedy Central network clearly hasn’t any qualms about offending religious groups… unless some of their members threaten violence.
Glenn Reynolds, a law professor and well-known blogger, explains why this approach is fraught with peril.
“The lesson is that if you want your religion not to be mocked, it helps to have a reputation for senseless violence,� he wrote on his blog InstaPundit. “Is this the incentive structure we want?�
It sure isn’t, but it’s increasingly the incentive structure we’ve got.
A college newspaper in Illinois recently fired its editor for publishing the Mohammed cartoons. Borders and Waldenbooks stores refused to stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it showed them.
At New York University, law students sponsoring an event to discuss the cartoon controversy were told that if they displayed images of Mohammed the university would bar the public from attending the event.
Glenn Reynolds again proves indispensable.
“If you don’t like ideas, don’t bother arguing with them. Just threaten to kill people,� he writes. “They’ll back down. Or at least their booksellers, universities, and governments will. How long before other groups take this lesson to heart?�
I wondered the same thing after I told Borders I’d be boycotting their stores and they replied as follows: “Borders is committed to our customers’ right to choose what to read and what to buy and to the First Amendment right of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. In this particular case, we decided not to stock this issue in our stores because we place a priority on the safety and security of our customers and our employees. We believe that carrying this issue presented a challenge to that priority.�
What’s next?
After all, Islamic radicals don’t have a patent on terrorism. If their tactics work, it’s only a matter of time before neo-Nazis or environmental radicals or Reconquista groups or anti-abortion radicals step up their own campaigns of intimidation.
Even if the trend is isolated to Islamic radicals, these events are troubling because Western society needs frank discussion about the threat posed by Islamic radicalism now more than ever. It’s surely true that one need not display cartoon images of Mohammed to conduct that discussion. Indeed, I think it’s generally a good policy to refrain from needlessly offending religious taboos, and I find it defensible that many media outlets have described the cartoon images rather than publishing them.
But the South Park episode, the Borders and Waldenbooks ban and the NYU event are different. They mark self-censorship motivated by fear, censorship that treats groups threatening violence more respectfully than other groups and that impedes serious discussion about a defining issue of our time.
There is a better way.
If Islamic radicals threatened to kill anyone who flies the American flag outside their house, the best response would be for everyone in America to raise the Stars and Stripes. When they threaten violence over an obscure magazine, we shouldn’t remove it from bookstore shelves. We should make sure every supermarket and convenience store is stocked with it too.
Terrorism is a tactic employed only so long as it’s effective. Let the networks you watch, the businesses you shop at and the universities you attend know that any time they seem to forget.
Posted by Conor at 04:13 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
On Iran
Ox Blog wonders whether Seymour Hersh actually reported on anything in his piece about President Bush considering a nuclear strike on Iran.
Hugh Hewitt looks at arguments against striking Iran and finds them wanting.
James Fallows argues that bombing Iran is the worst course of action available to us.
Posted by Conor at 02:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 17, 2006
Showing 'Em How It's Done
Glenn Reynolds is lauding a college president for striking just the right tone.
Posted by Conor at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Future of Civilization
Brussel's Journal predicts the future of civilization:
There are many possible scenarios for the first half of the 21st century. Let us have a look at some of them:1. Another Atlantic/Western century
The intra-Western, Atlantic ties between Europe and North America will still be the most important and defining global axis. This would require that Europe regains her old, cultural and religious dynamic and repels Islam. Just as Islam isn’t the cause of Europe’s current weakness, but rather a secondary infection, it could have the unforeseen and ironic effect of saving Europe from herself. By quite literally putting a dagger at Europe’s throat, the Islamic world will force Europeans to renew themselves or die. Europe will go through a turbulent period of painful, but necessary revival, and will arrive chastened on the other side. Although not impossible, this is probably not the most likely scenario at this point, given the economic and cultural weakness of Europe in particular. The West as a whole also makes up a declining proportion of the world’s population, and globalization makes it more difficult for the West to retain its technological superiority.
2. Another American century
The USA, more than Europe and Asia, will remain the world’s unchallenged superpower. The 21st century will be a continuation of the American Age that started in the 20th century. Europe may foster the strength to repel Islam, but not enough to renew herself, and will fade off the world stage. Alternatively, Islamic-controlled Eurabia emerges triumphant, or the entire continent becomes a nightmare of civil wars where neither side gains a decisive victory. In both cases, Europe will be a source of constant instability. The rise of the Asian economies will be derailed by internal political and cultural problems, or could trigger nationalistic rivalries and devastating intra-Asian wars similar to WW1 in Europe.
3. The Asian/Chinese century
The world will return to the Asia-centric system we had before the rise of Europe and the West. Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West, which will slowly fall apart as it has lost the will to defend itself and the belief in its own culture. The wars in the Balkans in the 1990s will in hindsight be seen as a prelude to the Multicultural World War. Just as Imperialism caused WW1, Fascism WW2 and Communism the Cold War, Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration will drag the West into a war with the Islamic world. Instead of a Westernization of the Balkans, we get a Balkanization of the West. Will this be a world dominated by China, or by Asia as a whole, including India? Perhaps India and Southeast Asia will be bogged down by instability caused by Muslims. The Chinese will watch from the sidelines, quietly playing both sides against the middle as the West and the Islamic world destroy each other. In the end, China will reign supreme as the last man standing.
4. The Pacific century
The USA may remain the world’s leading power, but Europe fades off the global scene and leaves her spot open for Asia. Global affairs will be shaped by the twin pillars of the USA and Asia, mainly China, who will cooperate to contain Islamic extremism, a kind of Global Infidel Alliance. Europe will be the world’s largest open-air museum. The Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben and Parliament in England as well as many other landmarks will have been lost during the Eurabian civil wars to expel Islam from Europe. They now exist only as plastic souvenirs that Europeans sell to American and Asian tourists to scrape out a living. These “authentic European souvenirs� will all be made in China, of course.
5. The Anglosphere - Indian century
I believe this is what has been predicted by writer Mark Steyn, among others. The USA and the UK, the major powers of the previous 3 centuries, will be at the centre of this one, too. But they will share the spot with India and some other countries such as Japan, “honorary members� of the Anglosphere. US President Bush has already adopted a policy designed to draw India closer to the United States in a strategic alliance. Perhaps this will be in the shape of a Democratic Union or Democratic Infidel Alliance, which may include parts of Free Europe depending upon the Islamic situation there. This alliance will be suspicious of authoritarian China, and will have hostile relations with the Islamic world.
6. The Global Civil War - Neo-Barbarism and Chaos
The darkest scenario of all. Islam manages to derail the West, both Europe and later North America. This disrupts global trade, and the ripples create unrest even in other parts of the world not directly involved in the fighting, including East Asia and Latin America. India will be drawn directly into the conflict with Islam, as will Russia and Israel. The chaos forces created by Islam and by global mass migration by hundreds of millions of people will erode state power virtually everywhere. Perhaps this trend will be reinforced by the appearance of a new, lethal virus, which will quickly spread to all regions of the world thanks to technological globalization. All of this will create a Global Civil War, the first of its kind in human history. It will disrupt civilization, be that Eastern or Western, for generations to come.
Posted by Conor at 03:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Enemy We Face
Jonathan Rauch offers the most eloquent explanation of the enemy we face I've yet read:
Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.(Hat Tip Instapundit)But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.
No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for "the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state."
Posted by Conor at 03:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Second-Guessing the Environmental Movement's Biggest Error
A Greenpeace founder makes the case for going nuclear.
Posted by Conor at 04:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Path to Mass Murder
The Los Angeles Times reports on how a Rancho Cucamonga cab driver, originally from Jordan, became one of the most deadly suicide bombers in the Iraq conflict.
Posted by Conor at 01:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 15, 2006
The Pay Scale at the Top
Clive Crook is unhappy about CEO salaries:
Year in, year out, the median pay of top executives rises much faster than do overall wages and salaries. There is no reason why this should be so -- not if the market for CEOs is working as rigorously as the market for other kinds of labor. But, of course, it is not. There is no economic rationale, no "incentivizing" justification, for enormous severance payments to departing (failed) CEOs, or for full-salary pensions worth eight figures or more, granted to bosses about to retire. The idea is a joke.And mediocre CEOs are laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted by Conor at 01:27 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Downright Orwellian
Filip van Laenen: He who controls the way people talk controls the way they think. Hence, it is no surprise that the EUSSR is actively trying to manipulate our language.
Posted by Conor at 01:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 14, 2006
Great Moments in Higher Education
Link.
Posted by Conor at 03:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 13, 2006
A Nation of Victims
Heather MacDonald worries that everyone will soon be a victim: "If boys and girls are oppressed classes, who’s left?"
Posted by Conor at 02:57 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Skyscrapers
Slate has a cool new slideshow up.
See the whole thing here.
Posted by Conor at 02:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 12, 2006
The Prototypical Blog Entry
Heh.
Posted by Conor at 03:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 11, 2006
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Male Kindergarten Teacher?
Apparently many parents are fearful of male kindergarten teachers.
Posted by Conor at 03:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Opposite of Freedom
Charles Krauthammer says the current French protests are the atithesis of the French Revolution:
The French are justly proud of their revolutionary tradition. After all, 1789 begat 1848 and 1871 and indeed inspired just about every revolution for a century, up to and including the Russian Revolution of 1917. Say what you will about the outcomes, but the origins were quite glorious: defiant, courageous, bloody, romantic uprisings against all that was fixed and immovable and oppressive: kings, czars, churches, oligarchies, tyrannies of every kind.Perhaps the French have been listening to Janis Joplin: "Freedom's just another word for nothing less to lose..."And now, in a new act of revolutionary creativity, the French are at it again. Millions of young people and trade unionists, joined by some underclass opportunists looking for a good night out, have taken to the streets again. To rise up against what? In massive protest against a law that would allow employers to fire an employee less than 26 years old in the first two years of his contract.
That's a very long way from liberty, equality, fraternity. The spirit of this revolution is embodied most perfectly in the slogan on many placards: CONTRE LA PRÃCARITÃ, or "Against Precariousness." The precariousness of being subject to being fired. The precariousness of the untenured life, even if the work is boring and the boss no longer wants you. And ultimately, the precariousness of life itself, any weakening of the government guarantee of safety, conformity, regularity.
That is something very new. And it is not just a long way from the ideals of 1789. It is the very antithesis. It represents an escape from freedom, a demand for an arbitrary powerful state in whose bosom you can settle for life.
Posted by Conor at 03:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
A Bit of Hyperbole
Glenn Reynolds wants to annex Mexico.
Posted by Conor at 04:07 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Iran's Nuclear Ambitious
Mark Steyn is worried about Iran:
That moment of ascendancy is now upon us. Or as the Daily Telegraph in London reported: “Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.� Hmm. I’m not a professional mullah, so I can’t speak to the theological soundness of the argument, but it seems a religious school in the Holy City of Qom has ruled that “the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.� Well, there’s a surprise. How do you solve a problem? Like, sharia! It’s the one-stop shop for justifying all your geopolitical objectives.The bad cop/worse cop routine the mullahs and their hothead President Ahmadinejad are playing in this period of alleged negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program is the best indication of how all negotiations with Iran will go once they’re ready to fly. This is the nuclear version of the NRA bumper sticker: “Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.� Nukes don’t nuke nations. Nations nuke nations.
Posted by Conor at 02:41 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 10, 2006
Growth Industry
Is the United States slouching towards France?
Posted by Conor at 03:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 09, 2006
Help the Moderates
Instapundit says we need to do more to help moderate Muslims.
Posted by Conor at 03:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
For Freedom of Speech, Against Borders
A boycott of Borders is underway.
Posted by Conor at 03:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 08, 2006
Have You Seen Night of the Lepus?
Posted by Conor at 02:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Pope and Islam
The Volokh Conspiracy has a post up on the Pope and Islam:
Benedict is more of a hawk, pursuing a kind of interaction with Muslims one might call "tough love." ......In his March 23 session with cardinals, much conversation turned on Islam, and there was general agreement with Benedict's policy of a more muscular challenge on what Catholics call "reciprocity." In essence, it means that if Muslim immigrants can claim the benefit of religious liberty in the West, then Christian minorities ought to get the same treatment in majority Muslim nations.
To take the most notorious example, if the Saudis can spend $65 million to build the largest mosque in Europe in Rome, in the shadows of the Vatican, then Christians ought to be able to build churches in Saudi Arabia. Or, if that's not possible, Christians should at least be able to import Bibles, and the Capuchin priests who serve the Arabian peninsula ought to be able to set foot off the oil industry compounds or embassy grounds in Saudi Arabia without fear of harassment by the mutawa, the religious police. The bishop in charge of the Catholic church in that part of the world recently described the situation in Saudi Arabia as "reminiscent of the catacombs."
It's the kind of imbalance that has long stuck in the craw of many senior figures in the Catholic Church, but these complaints were largely suppressed in the John Paul years as part of the pope's Islamic Ostpolitik. John Paul, who met with Muslims more than 60 times over the course of his papacy, and who during a 2001 trip to Damascus became the first pope to enter a mosque, believed in reaching out to Islamic moderates and avoiding confrontational talk.
Benedict XVI clearly wants good relations with Islam, and chose to meet with a group of Muslim leaders during his August trip to Cologne, Germany. Yet he will not purse that relationship at the expense of what he considers to be the truth.
Posted by Conor at 01:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Blacks Leaving Public School System
Michael Strong: While pundits and academics argue away, the quiet sucking sound you don't yet hear are African-American families leaving our public schools when allowed to do so.
Posted by Conor at 10:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 06, 2006
Great Moments in Public Education
Here's the least disturbing part of the story:
Rudy Rios was stripped of his duties as junior varsity baseball coach at Chavez High School last week after using a district copying machine to make a flier encouraging Latino students to attend a rally protesting restrictions on illegal immigration.Here's the most disturbing part of the story:
Rios, who still retains his duties as an English-as-a-second-language teacher, was copying and distributing a flier that read: "We gots 2 stay together and protest against the new law that wants 2 be passed against all immigrants. We gots 2 show the U.S. that they aint (expletive) with out us (sic)," according to district officials.James Taranto comments: "Gude thing he still gots his job 2 teech english 2 da immigrant kidz cuz itd B 2 bad F dey mist sumpin so importent 4 dare future."
Indeed.
Posted by Conor at 03:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
FBI Agents Lack E-mail
Noah Shachtman writes about backwardness at the FBI:
Two weeks ago, the FBI's chief information officer admitted that the bureau couldn't afford to provide e-mail addresses for 8,000 of its 30,000 employees. The e-mail shortfall is only the latest in a series of embarrassed confessions the FBI has made about its information technology. The most significant mea culpa came when an attempt to upgrade the bureau's case-management software had to be scrapped last year after $170 million had already been spent. A Justice Department report listed all kinds of excuses, from poor "enterprise architecture" planning to shifting design requirements. But behind the management analysis is a more implacable problem. Until very recently, being computer-savvy hasn't been considered much of an asset in the FBI, and clues were something you kept to yourself.It really is shocking how inept government can be sometimes.Agents say things are changing—that there's a new spirit of cooperation and new task forces designed to dig up what's buried in investigators' files. But decades-old habits die hard. The FBI's old fiefdoms still linger. Some are regional: An agent from Los Angeles would be strongly discouraged from chasing leads in Chicago. Others are functional: The Counterintelligence Division—the investigators assigned to catch the next Aldrich Ames—still gets into turf battles with the Bin Laden-hunters in Counterterrorism.
For those who do want to share data, it can be more trouble than it's worth. Investigators are supposed to document everything from warrant requests to stakeout summaries in the FBI's Automated Case Support database. But agents can't point and click to add a record to their digital files. Instead, they have to tab through 12 different functions on a pre-Windows-era green screen. Pictures of suspects can't be scanned in. And complex searches are impossible—don't bother looking for "aviation" and "schools" at the same time. Many agents stay away from Automated Case Support and stick with paper. The 100,000 tips that came in during 2002's Washington, D.C., sniper case were circulated by fax.
Posted by Conor at 02:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Paris
I've been rather hard on France lately, so it's only fair to note what a lovely country it is. Here's a short excerpt from a travel writing project about Paris I'm working on:
In Paris my two favorite bars operate on side streets near the Odeon metro stop.
Bar Dix has quirks and character. Vintage movie posters haunt its dark, wood-paneled walls. Tables and chairs crowd the rectangular room. Cigarette smoke and dim lighting soften its hard-angled contours. An unobtrusive spiral staircase plunges so steeply toward the basement that the proprietor won’t allow patrons to transport drinks to tables downstairs.
Bar Dix’s ambiance suggests an organic maturation. You couldn’t quickly recreate its décor or its clientele any more than you can quickly recreate how an old pair of blue jeans fit or the way broken-in Rainbow sandals mold to your feet. The place is therefore priceless—its quirks and character can only be acquired with time.
As a rule Bar Dix is patronized by the French, though the occasional expatriate student wanders inside. You’ll understand why as I explain its two best features:
1) It sells delicious sangria for 3 Euros a glass, about as cheap as anything you can order in a Parisian bar. A stout bartender ladles the sangria into a glass or a small ceramic pitcher depending upon how many people are being served. He smiles patiently if you try to order using bad French, and never hurries you while you dig through pants pockets or coat pouches searching for your last two Euro coin.
2) It boasts Paris’ best jukebox – a precious discovery when you are far away from home with just 18 CDs to your name. Odd how, as Le Monde scoffs at American popular culture each week, the French busy themselves importing the worst of it for mass consumption – McDonalds, The Nanny and recording artists like Christina Aguilera are ubiquitous here. The curious result is that Americans like me miss American music even while surrounded by it. So imagine my surprise when I walked over to the jukebox, surely installed just after CDs were introduced, where scrawled on worn index cards I found the following choices: Joe Cocker; Lou Reed; Peter Gabriel; The Doobie Brothers; Roy Orbison; The Band; Genesis; Jimi Hendrix; Bob Marley; Ray Charles; The Police; Dire Straits; Fats Domino; John Lee Hooker; Otis Redding; Muddy Waters; R.E.M.; David Bowie; Bob Dylan; Jerry Lee Lewis; Nirvana; Pink Floyd; Johnny Cash; Stevie Wonder; The Rolling Stones; The Velvet Underground; Sting; Joan Baez; Red Hot Chile Peppers.
If you approach Parisian bars as I do, setting aside a strict budget for the night’s entertainment, the only downside to Bar Dix is the constant tension between wanting another sangria to sip on while you do character sketches in your Moleskin notebook… and the days-old craving for Bob Dylan’s Subterranean Homesick Blues that your alcohol buzz only intensifies, tempting you to drop your last Euro into the jukebox for 3 minutes, 15 seconds of pleasure.
Posted by Conor at 05:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
How Not to Stop Global Warming
David Mastio articulates the thing that drives me nuts about the environmental movement:
We know, because the Ad Council tells us so, that "global warming is the most serious environmental issue of our time." The world as we know it is at stake. We also know, because the Ad Council tells us so, that there is "one simple way" to care for the environment - give money to Earth Share.We also know, that in the short term, there are four kinds of energy society can use that are a) widely available and b) will lower our impact on the global climate: Hydro-electric, wind power, nuclear energy and natural gas.
Yet in every case, the Ad Council is using its vast resources to raise money that makes turning to those sources of power harder, not easier.
Earth Share members, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, have filed complaints asking the government to shutter dozens of nuclear power plants across the U.S., they're standing in the way of opening a central repository for nuclear waste and they're opposing regulatory changes that would streamline the permitting process so that the United States could add new zero-climate impact nuclear power for the first time in a generation.
Today, the United States is among the top three nations in the world in producing climate-friendly hydro-electric power. It might not stay that way. In an effort to protect endangered trout and salmon, Earth Share members, such as Defenders of Wildlife, have pushed repeatedly - and in some cases successfully -- to "breach" hydro-electric dams as a way to restore fish habitat.
Of fossil fuel power sources, natural gas is the cleanest and, because it is also the most efficient, it has the least impact on climate. Yet all over the United States environmental groups both local and national are fighting to stop its use. In the mountain West, Earth share members are fighting to stop exploration for and production of natural gas. If we can't produce natural gas in the United States, then we'll need to import it. That can't happen either because Ad Council-funded groups such as the U.S. PIRG, People for the Narragansett Bay and Save the Sound, are fighting to stop the infrastructure projects that would allow that.
Which brings us to the most bizarre case of all - wind power. If there's one thing you'd think would be mom and apple pie for environmentalists, wind power would be it, but its not.
For the most part, environmentalists are embarrassed by the fact that they can't even stomach the development of wind turbines. For that reason, environmentalists are letting the local NIMBY's do most of the heavy lifting, while national environmental groups such as Earth Share's Audubon Society quietly push for greater regulations under the cover of protection for endangered bats and birds. If you talk to wind power executives, they'll tell you that one-two punch of angry locals and quietly influential national groups have stalled and scaled bank wind farms from Vermont to California.
It may be true that every single one of the environmental concerns raised to block hydro-power, wind energy, nuclear plants and natural gas development are all valid. But if global warming is really, really the "most serious environmental issue of our time," shouldn't environmentalists be willing to put their other concerns aside until we deal with the dangers of runaway climate change?
Posted by Conor at 04:34 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 05, 2006
Foreign Flag Waving
The Daily Kos says Latino protestors aren't the only ones waving Mexican flags.
Posted by Conor at 06:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Race Controversy Down Under
ACADEMIC Andrew Fraser will defy the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by not apologising to the Sudanese community for his study linking African refugees to high crime rates.(link)
Posted by Conor at 01:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
British Humor
A sense of humour was holding - just - on both sides of the Channel yesterday, after a budget airline from Yorkshire posted a website cartoon of a French frog blocking a runway with a placard reading "I am lazy".
The jibe was prompted by widespread disruption of British flights in France, culminating in British passengers chanting "Rosbifs want to go home" for two hours when their plane was marooned at Chambéry in the Alps. "It seems to me that either the air traffic controllers or the students run France at the moment," said Philip Meeson, chief executive of Jet2.Com, which has played on a no-nonsense, plain-spoken local image to build a customer base at Leeds-Bradford airport.(link)
Posted by Conor at 05:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Politics of Immigration
The conventional wisdom is that if Republicans "get tough" on immigration they will benefit in the short run... but lose the burgeoning Latino vote in the long run.
Is that true?
Critics of the conventional wisdom point out that Latinos aren't monolithic on the issue.
True.
I don't think voting Latinos are inherently antagonistic to toughening up enforcement of illegal immigration laws, and this would seem to be even more true of Latinos in the future, since more and more Latinos will be prosperous, assimilated and farther removed from the immigrant experience themselves.
It is likely, however, that Latinos will remain wary of those who seem to demonize illegal Latino immigrants, and quite rationally so--a virulently anti-illegal immigrant sentiment among American citizens is bound to affect even legal Latino immigrants and their children negatively.
Thus the question arises: can the GOP oppose illegal immigration to the satisfaction of its base without demonizing immigrants?
Theoretically, the answer is yes. Opposing illegal immigration need not involve demonizing immigrants, as this blog regularly demonstrates through my commentary. A citizen, commentator or policy maker can respect illegal immigrants and favor high levels of legal immigration, and still conclude that the best immigration policy includes strict enforcement against illegal immigration.
What about in practice?
Two obstacles suggest the GOP will have a difficult time opposing illegal immigration without demonizing immigrants.
1) A significant part of the anti-illegal immigration base--though not a majority of it, in my estimation--are irrationally antagonistic toward illegal immigrants, and Mexican illegal immigrants particularly. Their extreme, angry rhetoric, many examples of which can be found in the comments section of this blog, give observers the false impression that everyone who opposes illegal immigration shares such sentiments.
2) The media is generally very sympathetic to the mistaken notion that opposing illegal immigration is inherently anti-immigrant, overly solicitous of identity groups willing to cynically play the race card, and willing to paint extreme opponents of illegal immigration as the norm without rigorously ascertaining how common their views are.
The media is also generally uninclined to nail down the views of Democrats on immigration.
Given these factors it's easy to see why GOP strategists find themselves in a pickle.
Mickey Kaus and Robert Wright have more thoughts on the politics of immigration here.
Posted by Conor at 12:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Confronting Evil
Arnold Kling: Unfortunately, large segments of American society no longer have the ability to confront real evil. People lack the confidence and moral clarity to stand up to intimidation.(Hat Tip: Instapundit)
Posted by Conor at 12:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 04, 2006
A Crack in the Cartoon Boycott?
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, April 4 — A group of prominent Muslim scholars has called for ending a boycott on a Danish food products company over the publication in Denmark of derogatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Posted by Conor at 07:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Sick Man of Europe
Job protests continue in France:
PARIS (AP) - Demonstrators opposed to a new jobs law swarmed parts of downtown Paris on Tuesday, throwing stones, tearing down street signs and ripping up park benches. Riot police, firing tear gas canisters and making several charges, carried away protesters in handcuffs.Police said at least 1 million people poured into the streets around the country in the latest protests against the law, which makes it easier to fire young workers. Organizers said 3 million people marched.
A nationwide strike shut down the Eiffel Tower and snarled air and rail travel for the second time in a week while students barricaded themselves in schools.
It was the second time in a week that unions and student groups had succeeded in mobilizing such numbers. The largest march, in Paris, drew at least 80,000 people, while 935,000 marched in other parts of the country, police said.
(AP) Protestors in Lille, northern France, Tuesday April 4, 2006 burn dustbins following a students'...
Full Image
Organizers put the figure in the capital at 700,000.Violence erupted at the end of the largest protest, in Paris, with youths pelting police with stones, fighting and using metal bars to break up chunks of pavement that they hurled at helmeted riot officers.
One young woman twirled flaming batons. The sounds of blowing whistles were heard throughout the plaza.
Officers carrying batons and shields charged several times, making arrests.
Protesters have mounted ever-larger demonstrations for two months against the law. But President Jacques Chirac signed it anyway Sunday, saying it will help France keep pace with the global economy.
(AP) French riot police officers detain students in Lille, northern France, Tuesday April 4, 2006 after...
Full Image
He offered modifications, but students and unions rejected them, saying they want the law withdrawn, not softened.
Posted by Conor at 07:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Rebuilding New Orleans
Bill Cosby has good advice for New Orleans citizens.
Posted by Conor at 05:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Sting?
Is NBC News conducting a sting operation on discrimination against Muslims?
Posted by Conor at 05:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 03, 2006
What Would Ghandi Do?
I'd like to applaud the University of Texas professor who favors a 90 percent reduction in humanity, arguing that catastrophic diseases are a good thing that we ought to applaud.
Here's my question, though: why wait for disease?
If Professor Eric Pianka and his followers have the courage of their convictions, they ought to let Ghandi's advice guide them: be the change you wish to see in the world.
Posted by Conor at 05:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Jihadist Threat to Hollywood
It's a shame we must worry about such things these days.
Posted by Conor at 02:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Still No Weapons... But Some Still Search
Now any American can search for Iraq's WMDs!
WASHINGTON, March 27 — American intelligence agencies and presidential commissions long ago concluded that Saddam Hussein had no unconventional weapons and no substantive ties to Al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion.But now, an unusual experiment in public access is giving anyone with a computer a chance to play intelligence analyst and second-guess the government.
Under pressure from Congressional Republicans, the director of national intelligence has begun a yearlong process of posting on the Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents captured by American troops.
Less than two weeks into the project, and with only 600 out of possibly a million documents and video and audio files posted, some conservative bloggers are already asserting that the material undermines the official view.
Posted by Conor at 02:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them
RIYADH (Reuters) - Tired of playing second fiddle to men in conservative Saudi Arabia, five women decided if you can't beat them, join them.
Al Watan newspaper said the five women underwent sex change surgery abroad over the past 12 months after they developed a "psychological complex" due to male domination.
Women in Saudi Arabia, which adopts an austere interpretation of Islam, are not allowed to drive or even go to public places unaccompanied by a male relative.
The newspaper quoted a senior cleric as saying the authorities have to fill what he described as a legal vacuum by issuing laws against sex change operations.
An interior ministry official told al Watan such cases are examined by religious authorities, and sometimes by psychologists, but those who undergo sex change are never arrested.
Posted by Conor at 01:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
On Academic Freedom
NYU's President has written a statement on academic freedom.
Eugene Volokh responds:
Excellent words. But NYU's deeds in the cartoon controversy are not consistent with those words. These are, as people have pointed out, likely the most newsworthy cartoons in the history of cartooning. It's impossible to thoughtfully discuss the controversy over them, certainly with the concreteness and depth that an academic exchange demands, without showing them. Are they racist, as some say they are? Are they fair criticism or excessive criticism? Would much of esthetic or political value be lost by foregoing the representation of Mohammed in cartoons, movies, and the like? It's impossible to discuss this without displaying the cartoons and pointing out their details in the process of discussing them.Though some have argued that the cartoons are outside the bounds "of civil discourse," that is the very point that the cartoons panel was trying to explore; and it seems to me that no university committed to academic freedom can just categorically accept claims that any depiction of Mohammed, or even any depiction of Mohammed used in the process of condemning Islam, is outside "civil discourse" and thus censorable. Discussing them in front of not just a purely NYU audience, but one that includes both NYU students, faculty, and staff and members of the public, simply fulfills the university's traditional role as a creator of knowledge and debate for the public's benefit, rather than some insular community of savants speaking only among themselves. NYU's own rules, and I suspect NYU groups' consistent practice, specifically contemplates that student-group-run events may be open to the public.
The sentiments set forth in Sexton's statement would thus dictate that NYU unambiguously protect a student group's rights to display and discuss the cartoons. Yet the theoretical possibility of some violent reaction -- coupled, of course, with concern over "the sensibilities of its students" -- seems to have been enough to make NYU abandon its high-minded academic freedom principles.
Posted by Conor at 01:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Out of This World
You could win a trip to space!
Posted by Conor at 12:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 02, 2006
When There's Controversy on Campus
Tigerhawk has an excellent post up about how educators should react to political controversy:
I'm for speech, and particularly political speech, in large quantities, in schools. Let us examine the many ways in which these school officials are teaching precisely the wrong lesson.First, just as I am a strong believer that it must remain lawful to burn a flag, even an American flag, in the service of political speech, there must also be an unimpeachable right to wave a flag for that purpose. School officials especially must defend that right, not trample on it. An educator who shows contempt for our most basic values is not worthy of the name, and if he uses his position of power to circumscribe the lawful First Amendment rights of students, he should be stripped of that power. What are these schools teaching our children about democracy?
Second, an educator is not excused from the requirement to defend political speech -- or at least should not be -- simply because others might be offended by the speech in question, or even respond violently to it. It is the job of government officials -- and, regrettably, most educational administrators in this country are government officials -- to defend speakers from the violence against them. If the school is not up to it, then it must call in the police. Either way, speakers must be defended from the mob, and thugs who propose to censor speech through threats or actual violence need to be disciplined.
There is obviously a great temptation to pass rules to limit provocative speech, especially when there is a risk that a mob will form and turn violent. It is at precisely those moments that people in responsibility need to act courageously. This is not always easy for educators, who are not used to contemplating physical threats. Almost exactly 35 years ago, my father confronted this problem at the University of Iowa, which then proposed the adoption of rules to guide faculty and staff when there was civil unrest on campus. The draft Statement on Professional Ethics asserted that a “professor’s first priority should be to do all in his power to prevent death and injuries due to violence� during periods of high tension on campus. My father objected strenuously to that formulation, writing then:
[w]hen conditions on campus are abnormal, the threat usually involves a demand for scapegoats, as some tried to make ROTC a scapegoat for last year’s Cambodian intervention. It is at these crucial moments that the first obligation of faculty members must be to act rationally and to stand firmly behind any member of the community whose rights are threatened. Standing firm is a difficult matter, since capitulation often appears to be the only way of averting violence. Nevertheless, every time we sacrifice somebody else’s rights in the hope of avoiding bloodshed we are guilty of unethical and unprofessional conduct and make our own rights less secure and less respected.
One would think that point would be so obvious that it did not need to be stated, but there it is. When rights are involved, avoiding violence can never be the highest priority. Otherwise, the exercise of our rights would always be subject to veto by the first people who threatened violence.
Posted by Conor at 07:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Photo of the Day
Check out Moodaholic for more.
Posted by Conor at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Europe's Baby Bust
How long before there aren't any Italians left in Italy?
Posted by Conor at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Mysterious Explosion in Canada
Has there been an attempted suicide bombing in Canada? Early reports are inconclusive:
Toronto — The heart of Toronto's trendy Yorkville shopping district was shocked to a standstill Sunday after an explosion killed one man at a Tim Horton's outlet.Police would not confirm early reports that a man had entered the washroom shortly before the blast with explosives strapped to his body.
Police Insp. Nick Memme confirmed that an explosion occurred in the washroom at the rear of the restaurant, but said few other details were immediately available.
"We're early on in the investigation, still," Insp. Memme said.
Posted by Conor at 03:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wednesday Column Draft
Every newborn American baby has won life’s lottery, though we didn’t do anything to deserve it. A life that begins here, rather than sub-Saharan Africa or Central America, simply lasts longer. The average American can expect to live roughly 78 years. In Zimbabwe you’re lucky to reach your fortieth birthday.
The United States also offers unparalleled material comforts and life opportunities. If you’re born to a loving family here, you’re luckier than 99.9 percent of people in human history. That puts things into perspective when you’re having a rough day.
And it shapes the way some of us see the world.
Many Americans fear illegal immigration precisely because they appreciate how unique and fragile our society is. If most of the world has been poor for most of history, prosperous nations like America ought to be very careful about rapid, unpredictable changes of any kind, they reason. Otherwise prosperity might slip away from our citizens and future citizens, whether immigrant or native born.
In short, these Americans worry about preserving what we have more than sharing it with others.
Other Americans react differently to the undeserved luck of our birth. They feel an obligation to extend American opportunities to others by allowing them to immigrate here, and don’t worry so much about the negative effects uncontrolled immigration might have.
While most Americans see the truth behind both views I’ve sketched, and try to find a balance between them, this column’s composite character sees the immigration debate mostly through the lens of the latter position.
Caitlin can’t bring herself to support any crackdown on illegal immigration. She is 27 years old, has a bachelor’s degree from Swarthmore and works as a research assistant at Harvard, where she interacts with some of the most interesting and accomplished immigrants in the nation. If you hooked Caitlin up to a lie detector test and offered to make a $1,000 donation to Amnesty International for her blunt views on immigration, here’s what she’d say:
“All my life I’ve been privileged.
“Yes, I have bills like everyone else. I wish I could afford a bigger apartment. I’m still paying off student loans.
“But I work at a job that I like. I have health insurance. If my boyfriend and I get married one day we’ll be able to afford our own house and kids. I’ve taken a backpacking trip to Europe, and my parents have a time share in the mountains. I buy more new clothes than I really need, and I don’t think twice about ordering an $8 cosmopolitan when I go out for drinks with the girls.
“My ancestors come from Norway and Scotland. They arrived here generations ago, when there weren’t really limits to immigration. My privileged life is possible because they were allowed to come here back then. How can I say now that it’s not okay for others to come? Now that they’re young Africans and Latinos and Asians, instead of my European great-great-grandparents, is it really fair for me to keep them out just because they make my taxes a little bit higher?
“That just seems so selfish to me. Don’t get me wrong. I try not to judge people who care about those things, because I can imagine how hard it is for working class families to pay higher taxes or compete for jobs. I feel for them, and I support government programs to help working families.
“But I care most about government policies that help the poorest people to live better lives. They’re the least powerful, and the ones who need our help the most. Even if immigration makes things a little bit harder for some poor Americans, just like its costs make things a little bit harder for me, it makes things so much better for so many poor people from other countries.
“They gain so much more than we give up.
“Even low-wage jobs for immigrants seem unfair on some level. Every time I see an immigrant working as a janitor or a bus boy or a maid, I feel guilty that they are serving me, and adding luxuries to my privileged existence, when they probably can’t even afford basic human rights like health insurance. That’s why I think the living wage movement is so important.
“Even so, I understand when some people get upset that they are here illegally. But it just doesn’t bother me. These are good people who only broke the law because poverty forced their hand. If we did a better job fighting poverty we wouldn’t have illegal immigrants to begin with. Anyway, since I don’t think it’s fair to make it illegal for people to come here, I guess I’m glad we don’t enforce the unfair laws very well. It causes problems, I know, but it’s better than racially profiling all these immigrants and sending them home.�
Posted by Conor at 06:12 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack