The Republic of Dissent

It's humiliating to die a virgin

I don't know what to think of this story . Is there something about virginity, which increases the sensation that one's life was insignificant and miserable?

The Neocons haven't changed

Francis Fukuyama makes the point in an article in the Guardian that the Neocons have learned nothing from the last few years. How could they since there was nothing wrong with their policies, but only with the way they were implemented and with the people who implemented them?

Blankley and defeat in Iraq

Tony Blankley has succeeded in his editorial  in taking fearmongering to the next level by making the following point:

If we are going to throw in the towel, then we should bring the troops home promptly, lick our wounds and prepare for the inevitable Third Gulf War, which we will have to fight under far worse conditions than currently. Either option is at least honest (although the latter is dangerously foolish).
But the current mentality in Washington -- to pretend that there is a third way between victory and defeat -- is morally despicable. Washington politicians of both parties are trying to salve their consciences for the ignominy of accepting defeat by fooling either themselves or the public into believing they are doing otherwise.

The only question that I have is if the US is fighting in Iraq just not to lose or to avoid a Third Gulf War, hasn't it already lost?

Romney and McCain

John C. Fortier has an interesting paper on the AEI website analysis the Republican field for 2008. He believes that Romney in a crowded field has the chance to become the main rival of Senator McCain by going to the right and differencing himself on some issues. Sugary excerpt:

I have argued in this column that recent events surrounding the war have not benefited McCain, but he is still the frontrunner in the Republican field. It will likely come down to McCain and someone else, and Romney is angling to be that other candidate.

[...] To get to the right of McCain, he has trumpeted his stand in Massachusetts against gay marriage and reversed his position on abortion.The issue that many believe Romney will use as a wedge between himself and McCain is immigration. McCain is firmly committed to a comprehensive plan along the lines proposed by President Bush. Romney has flirted with striking a more anti-immigration stance, which would endear him to a good portion of the Republican base and to many House Republicans. But as Sam Youngman reported yesterday in The Hill, Romney remained silent on the issue at a recent conservative summit.

Running to the right of McCain might enable Romney or some other to become the Republican nominee, but will certainly make that person unelectable. I wonder however, where does Rudy Giuliani fits into this because in my opinion, he is becoming very rapidly the Republican who has more chances to get elected in 2008, but again can he win the nomination of his own party?

Secularism leads to crime

“The more secular the society, the more laws are needed to keep people in check. When more people feel accountable to God and moral religion, fewer laws need to be passed. But as religion fades, something must step into the moral vacuum it leaves, and laws compelling good behavior result.” Dennis Prager, “Forcing Girls to Cheer Girls.”

Can bloggers break Hillary's campaign?

Daniel Finkelstein has a list of bloggers he believes can make or break Hillary's presidential campaign. I'm not buying it because I remember the Lamont-Lieberman affair. I don't think that blogs can break or make Hillary's campaign, but I believe that they can make Obama's or of somebody else's who can rise from the bottom and epitomize a clear break with politics as usual.

Christian Utopia

Chris Hedges argues that the Christian Right is on the march and doing everyhting that it can to make America a "Christian State."

Forgetting Katrina

“'I often think we would have been better off if the terrorists had blown up our levees. Maybe we'd have gotten more attention.” Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana lamenting the lack of Federal aids her state has received since Katrina.

Defending Jane Fonda

PZ Myers defends Jane Fonda over at Pharyngula. He makes the following point, “Jane Fonda was exactly correct on the Vietnam War; we should not have been there, we shouldn't have thrown away tens of thousands of American lives in that futile, destructive effort.” I think that Jane Fonda knows that she doesn't have anything to gain by marching or speaking against the war and that she does it not only because she believes that the war is wrong, but also because she is an informed activist. It is easy to dismiss her as part of loony left, but even when one doesn't agree with her points of view or find them outrageous, they are well thought out and based on information not just ideology.

Hitchens on 100 years of solitude

Only Christopher Hitchens could find a way to make, One Hundred Years of Solitude, the masterpiece of Gabriel García Márquez fresh. He has an article on slate on the fortieth anniversary of this book, which he celebrated by going to Columbia. His article shows why it is a timeless piece of literature. Sugary excerpt:

I gathered this information at a cocktail party in the beautiful Palace of the Inquisition, scene of many hideous dramas (including a personal appearance in the main square by the devil himself, before he was successfully exorcised) and now the home to the gentlest museum of torture in the hemisphere. It's pretty obvious that the replica of the guillotine in the courtyard does not date from the Inquisition, because the guillotine was invented by later French opponents of clerical absolutism, but underneath almost every other instrument of faith-based sadism appears the reassurance (written in Spanish only) that this particular item was never in fact put to use in Cartagena. An unsorted museum of virtual artifacts of fictional torture, or of might-have-been autos da fe, has something particularly Colombian about it.

Conservatives, Immigration, and politics

David Weigel explains in an article why anti-immigration conservatives fell flat in 2006. He argues that immigration just wasn't an issue that influenced voters last years and that conservatives have trouble accepting "The idea that Americans might be more compassionate about immigrants than they let on is a tough one for hard-liners to comprehend." I think that the problem is that Iraq is overshadowing everything right and because symbolized everything that Americans feel is wrong or right with their country. Although immigration may not yet be a vote-changing issue, it is fast becoming confused with an identity issue  because too many people are choosing to speak of it in menacing terms such as invasion, infection, disintegration, death of an identity, and infiltration.

Rewriting history

“The Carter administration’s role in assisting with the downfall of the Shah is one of America’s great foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century. In trying to get rid of the bad guy, Carter got the worse guy. His failure, as former Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, was the result of being “unable to distinguish between America’s friends and enemies.” Carter does not deserve sole discredit for these actions. This intellectual framework that shaped Carter’s misguided strategy was supplied by the political left.” Dinesh D’Souza, “Giving radical Islam its start.”

Right and wrong and Marxism

David Cox argues that globalization is proving that Marx was right and that free markets contribute to inequality when they are not controlled. Sugary excerpt:

Until a couple of decades ago, the cold war kept globalisation in check. However, once it had ended, not only were existing enterprises freer to widen their horizons, but new forces based in formerly communist countries were able to join the fray. In the process, capitalism managed to escape the nationally-rooted constraints that used to moderate its intrinsic absurdities.

The more important question isn't about whether Marx was right and whether capitalism and globalization create unfairness and inequality. The essential question is whether Marx or rather Marxism provided effective solutions to these core issues and the answer to that question is no. Chavez and other who believe in a socialist in a Marxist revolution haven't learned from history, which has proven that the answer to neoliberalism isn't Marxism, but rather an acknowledgement that free markets aren't everything and states matter.

Outlawing spanking

Emily Bazelon argues that the US should outlaw spanking even though she admits that "It's always difficult and awkward—and arguably misguided—to use the law as a tool for changing attitudes" because:

The purpose of Lieber's proposal isn't to send parents to jail, or children to foster care, because of a firm smack. Rather, it would make it easier for prosecutors to bring charges for instances of corporal punishment that they think are tantamount to child abuse. Currently, California law (and the law of other states) allows for spanking that is reasonable, age-appropriate, and does not carry a risk of serious injury. That forces judges to referee what's reasonable and what's not. How do they tell? Often, they may resort to looking for signs of injury. If a smack leaves a bruise or causes a fracture, it's illegal. If not, bombs away. In other words, allowing for "reasonable" spanking gives parents a lot of leeway to cause pain.

I don't buy it.

Perception, action, and Blairism

Janet Daley in the Telegraph gives this harsh indictment of Blair:

Mr Blair's government is a political incarnation of Bishop Berkeley's maxim, "To be is to be perceived".

If she's right, whose fault is it? The British electorate or the British press, which seems to have been fooled by the perceptions of Blair's government? It is easy to criticize Blair now that he is so close to the door and that his political power is declining with no chance of recovery. There is nothing noble about shooting at dead man walking and at the corpses who follow him.

Bringing the war home

This story in the Guardian shows that the war is never over for some soldiers.

Socialism kills the family

“Every kind of socialism creates perverse incentives, and socialism directed to the family perverts the family. Because everyone has to pay for the retirement of everyone else, it does not pay to have children. Of course, people will still continue to have some children, simply because they want to have children as ends in themselves. However, as far as economic incentives are concerned, it has become economically more "rational" to free ride on the children of others. No surprise that masses of people embrace present-oriented lifestyles and refuse to commit themselves to real marriage with children.” Oskari Juurikkala, “Making Kids Worthless: Social Security's Contribution to the Fertility Crisis.”

The truth about skin color

Naina has a great post at Sepia Mutiny on Skin Color and the fact that it still makes a difference. I wonder whether it makes a difference because of aesthetical reasons or because people associate skin colors with certain characteristics and a certain class status.

Obama's rich heritage

The Times of London has an article on Barack Obama's rich family heritage, which is more diverse and more complex than it would appear. The question is whether Americans will embrace or reject the fact that Obama's family background is a lot different than the ones of not only most politicians, but all their past presidents.

The bible and dancing

“If you want to know why J.B.U. students didn’t dance until now, it makes more sense to look out your window at Siloam Springs than to look down at the Bible on your desk. The Bible doesn’t say you can’t dance. For that matter, it doesn’t say that you can’t drink or can’t smoke. The rules against these vices are what evangelicals call “prudential” rather than scriptural: they don’t have the force of commandment, but you follow them just to be careful. These rules arose as part of a Protestant subculture so determined to eradicate sin that it began to interdict behaviors that might be baby steps on the road to perdition. This subculture is not mandated by the Bible, but it’s the marrow of towns like Siloam Springs and schools like John BrownUniversity.” Mark Oppenheimer, “The First Dance.”

Debating assisted suicide and euthanaisa

Raymond Tallis reviews Neil Gorsuch's book "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia" in the London Times. Tallis who is the former College of Physicians Committee on Ethical Issues in Medicine agrees with the assertion made by the author that assisted suicide and euthanasia are going among "among the most hotly debated contemporary legal and public policy questions" of our time both in Europe and in America. While I agree with that assertion, I believe that the debate in both sides of the Atlantic will be very different and that in the US its focus will be mostly on religious issues. 

True believers and reality

“Indeed, they might, for certain parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are uncanny. A new general, David Petraeus, is taking over in Iraq with a credible new strategy, counterinsurgency. Four decades ago, General Creighton Abrams became the American commander in Vietnam, also with a new strategy. It called for taking and holding the villages and hamlets of South Vietnam. In a word, it was counterinsurgency, and it worked. Now in Iraq, Petraeus has as good a chance of success, starting with the pacification of Baghdad, as Abrams had. And the painful lesson of Vietnam applies in Iraq: Don't give up when victory is at hand.

Those in Congress who advocate retreat in Iraq refuse to acknowledge this lesson. And they may have their way, whatever Petraeus accomplishes. With their calls for troop withdrawals and fund cutoffs and their antiwar resolutions, they have put America on a slippery slope in  Iraq. And we know where it leads: to defeat while victory remains quite possible.” Fred Barnes, “Not this Time.”

Europe, blood and identity

“What bothers me in Europe is not the lack of assimilation, or the trouble caused by muslims. What bothers me is the disappearance of my own people. European governments are organizing a population replacement. European babies are replaced by immigrants' babies. Even if muslim immigrants later convert to catholicism, no one in Europe is going to mistake them for our own children. Personally, I won't feel I have anything in common with them, and I'd rather they spoke another language than me. It would give me some cultural protection.

I will make a comparison: When a European couple comes out of the hospital after having a baby, they usually won't be happy if there has been a mistake and they were handed an African baby instead of their own baby. Knowing that the baby is not muslim makes no difference at all. I realize this is incredibly racist, but this is how I feel, and how most Europeans and Americans feel.” Armor, a commentator at the Brussels Journal.

Bitch is a compliment...

The Guardian has a review of an interesting book by Kate Figes titled, "The Big Fat Bitch Book " which focuses on the word, its history, its present, and its usage. Sugary excerpt:

Many of us are still so constrained by conventional stereotypes of how women should be - selfless, kind, enabling of others, calm and supportive - the good girl essentially, that the real girl inside gets denied. We take insults on the chin and say nothing. We find it hard to compete or ask for that pay rise because we are not sure we deserve it. We are not supposed to shout or get angry about all the inequities we face as women. We become the bitch, the bad girl, when we want more, when we are not prepared to make do with what we have and when being heard is more important than being liked. That is a liberating feeling. If we fear being labelled as a bitch, we still seek validation from men on their terms rather than ours.

Well, I wonder whether a word stops being a slur because its targets succeed in making it a compliment. Would anybody make the case that the N-word is no longer a slur and should be more accepted? Who decides the meaning of a word the person who uses it or the person who hears it?

The spectre of Capitulation

Henryk M. Broder is arguing in Spiegel that the West is capitulating by not protecting its values when they are under assault for fear of retaliation. Sugary excerpt:

Critical souls who only yesterday agreed with Marx that religion is the opium of the masses suddenly insisted that religious sensibilities must be taken into account, especially when accompanied by violence.

I have trouble understanding what Broder would consider courageous behavior by the West, would it be confrontation or attempts to civilize the rest of the world. It's easy to call others cowards and to accuse them of capitulating, because it changes both the subject and what ought to be the focus of the discussion, which is whether a clash of civilizations is unavoidable and even necessary to pacify the world.

Iran would use nukes

“What is the likelihood that the ruling Mullahs will actually use the bomb? If they remain in power long enough to have it, they are very likely to use it, in one form or another. At the very least, they use the bomb for blackmail and intimidation in the region. Not even the all-out nuclear exchange can be ruled out. Islam is a religion centered on death with the faithful eyes fixed on the afterlife and its promised eternal pleasures. If the faithful kills, he goes to Allah’s paradise; if he gets killed, he goes to Allah’s paradise.” Amil Imani, “Would Iran’s Mullahs Use the Bomb?”

Analyzing Truthiness

Matt Hanson analyzes truthiness in an article in Flak magazine. He argues that truthiness may well be a state of mind in a world where fantasy is more important than reality and where facts don't matter if they contradict ideology. Sugary excerpt:

Maybe Truthiness isn't a word so much as a state of mind — ours. Imagine living in a constant state of disorganized belief, centered around a worldview shaped by random nuggets of data, intuition mixed with skepticism mixed with a sort of zen hiccup. Sound familiar? No wonder we need movies and television and religion to tell us how to live. Megachurches spring up throughout the land. Displaced preteens raise their siblings in wastelands still filled with Louisina floodwater. The President surges troops forward into chaos and vertigo. Given all this, the only wise recourse might very well be to get a few laughs in before the irony of our hyper-intelligent, technocratic, ultra air conditioned nightmare swallows us whole.

Multicultarism, Western Guilt, and unhealthy obsessions with scars

Multiculturalism is definitely under attack and this explains this quote by Pascal Bruckner, a French “philosopher” whose ideas I find not repulsive, but childishly simplistic because his need for purity and for homogenization is so great that it becomes cumbersome:

“Multiculturalism is a racism of the anti-racists: it chains people to their roots.”

I wrote last year in my french blog that the trouble with Bruckner is that he wants so much the West to be clean that he can’t bear dirtiness sin and difference. Bruckner rants against multiculturalism because he doesn’t believe in equality and because he believe that allowing accepting differences can only lead to competition and to communautarism. But he is wrong because his focus on the so-called Western guilt shows that his complex of superiority is disturbed by great western ideals were not also respected and were selctively applied.Western guilt is of course a trivial issue because if history is divided between the clean and the unclean, the butcher and its victims, then West isn’t always on the wrong side. To say things crudely, shit is part of our world, our history, of ourselves whether we like it or not and that fact is not enough to argue that shit doesn’t exist or that because all of our hands are unclean, we are not responsible for anything and that in a society those who have a different culture and a different history should submit and shut up. Bruckner doesn’t want any dattes next to his cheese or rather he never wants the French or the Westerner who loves dattes to argue that they will one day become as French or as Western as his cheese. Bruckner likes Ayaan Hirsi Ali not because she is courageous, which she is, but because she confirms to him that he is not only right, but superior to those who he fears will one day make him guilty by reminding him that his romanticized memories of his childhood in Algiers or his grandiose visions of the West aren’t pure, but have cracks. Bruckner reminds me of Goodman Brown in Hawthorne’s story “Young Goodman Brown,”  he is like a man who is obsessed with guilt, with sin, with scars even though they are the essential part of something beautiful.

France and principle

David Pryce-Jones has a review of “That Sweet Enemy” a book on the French and British relationship written by R.P. Tombs and Isabelle Tombs. Jones is the author of “Betrayal: France, the Arabs and the Jews” a book which takes French bashing to a new low. His review makes it clear that France has something against the Brits as he previously argued that it had  something against the Jews. His biases are clearly shown when he concludes his review with the following prediction:

In theory, both countries are now members of the European Union, and the old victories and defeats are solely of antiquarian interest. In fact, for the first time in history, France and Germany have teamed up against  Britain. This novel combination has driven all national identity underground, to fester more and more resentfully. Surprisingly for contemporary academics, the Tombs couple sense the gathering backlash, and accordingly are surreptitiously Eurosceptic. If the past is any guide, Britain will neutralize and even sink the European Union, thus causing "history's next surprise," in the far-sighted warning of likely upset that closes this book.

The problem with those types of arguments is that it caricatures France as an unprincipled nation, which foreign policy is based on nothing more than delusions of grandeur. France doesn't stand for anything and whenever it acts against Israel or against Britain, it isn't because of principle or because of its self-interest but rather because of cowardice, pettiness, and prejudice. The trouble is that the book is worth reading, but that Pryce-Jones biases don’t give one the desire to read it.

Self-interest is for suckers

“The 11th Commandment for liberals seems to be, "Thou shalt not intervene out of self-interest." Intervening in civil wars for humanitarian reasons is OK, but meddling for national security reasons is not. This would explain why liberals supported interventions in civil wars in Yugoslavia and Somalia but think being in one in Iraq is the height of folly. If only someone had thought of labeling the Korean conflict a humanitarian intervention back then, we might not face the horror and the danger from North Korea today.” Jonah Goldberg, “Fight Today or Occupy Forever.”

Messing with Gay sheep

I find this story about Gay sheep and the attempts of a researcher Charles Roselli to mess with them fascinating. The Guardian has a post on that subject on their newsblog.

The American media may not be ready for Obama

Tony Dokoupil wonders whether the media is ready for a Black president and he shows that research that the American media as much as America may have trouble covering fairly a campaign with a Black candidate who has  realistic chance of becoming the next president of the United States. Here is a long excerpt of the Dokoupil’s article:

Three main batches of research -- the most recent published this winter in the Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics builds on two others published in the summer 1999 Journal of Politics and as the book Voting Hopes or Fears? -- focus on mayoral races in New York and Seattle in 1989, and national congressional contests in 1992, 1994, and 2004. It's a small sample by social scientific standards, and shouldn't be considered conclusive. But the primary limit on its size is also a commentary: blacks are still largely absent in the pool of candidates seeking state and national office, let alone the pool of winners. In the 130 years since Reconstruction, only two African Americans have been elected governor, and only three have been elected senator. None have come from a state more southern than Virginia.

Three interesting results emerge from these content analyses of national and local newspaper coverage. First, journalists disproportionately underscore the race of black candidates, while virtually never identifying white politicians by their color, no matter the circumstances. Second, journalists covering a black candidate are more likely to emphasize party affiliation and voter demographics, while providing relatively less coverage of substantive issues; fewer policy questions are discussed in white-black elections than in any other scenario. Finally, journalists tend to muzzle racial messages from candidates, or campaigns, while nevertheless accenting race themselves.

It's highly doubtful that journalists act deliberately to hurt black candidates (or to protect them), but these findings still suggest that hope is triumphing over reality when columnists such as the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby conclude, without qualification, that America is sufficiently color-blind to float Obama for president. Despite a few press surveys to the contrary, it's still more of a dream than an established fact that voters disregard race at the polls.

Just another alarmist book on Europe

The Jerusalem Post has an article on the forthcoming book of Raphael Israeli whose title “The Third Islamic Invasion of Europe” says everything. Israeli's thesis is that Europe is again being invaded not only by Muslim immigrants but by Europeans who are converting at an alarming rate to Islam. According to him, this radical change in the demography of Europe will change not only its identity and its society, but also its policy because no politicians would be elected without getting the support of European Muslims. Sugary excerpt:

The historian [Israeli], who has authored 19 previous books, said that Muslim political power in Europe would directly impact domestic politics, including Europe's immigration policy, with millions of additional Muslims waiting at the door to gain entry to the EU as part of "family reunification" programs.

"Every European with a right mind has every reason to be frightened," Israeli said.

Israeli's main point is not only erroneous, but cartoonish and dangerous because it makes two false assumptions. The first is that all Muslims are part of the same community no matter their country of origin, their ethnicity, and their political ideology because Islam is a unifying factor. Well, the Iraq war proves that it takes more than Islam to unifying a diverse population. Second, Israeli is in fact arguing that Islam is the problem not Islamism or radicalism. If that is the case, then why isn't he arguing for a universal ban of Islam, which if one takes his argument seriously is a danger not only to Europe, but to the world.

Attacking Iran

Yossi Melman explores, in Haarezt, the possibility and the feasibility of military strike on Iraq either by the United States or by Israel. Richard Perle is quoted in the article as saying, “I have no doubt that if it becomes apparent to President Bush that during his term Iran will achieve nuclear weapons, he will not hesitate to order a strike.” Scary, very scary.

War on terror politics

“What is true of Obama and Clinton is more or less true of Edwards, Richardson, and the others. The Democrats seem prepared to emulate John Kerry, who insisted in 2004 that "we have to get back to the place we were" before 9/11. Back, that is, to treating Islamist terrorism not as "the focus of our lives," but merely as "a nuisance" that we need "to reduce" -- like gambling, he said, or prostitution.

Heading into the 2008 campaign, our political universe is still divided. On one side are those who see the Islamists as a nuisance to be controlled. On the other: those who regard them as an existential enemy to be destroyed. On the relative strength of those two camps, the next election may well depend.” Jeff Jacoby, “Democrats’ Silence on Jihad is Deadly.”

Another unnecessary political speech

I heard Bush's speech tonight and I couldn't help wondering what was the point since he has already had a speech two weeks ago, which indicated that Iraq was his main priority and that he didn't care what anybody thought since he had made the decision to go ahead with the surge. This speech was so useless and so forgettable that I've already forgotten it.

The value of learning French

This excerpt from a post from Pierre Tristam explaining why he will teach his kids French, which is his native language cracks me up even though I share the belief that French is a beautiful and even more a relevant language:

Au contraire. I happen to think that learning French strengthens the immune system against various diseases like materialism and superstition. […] In many ways, learning a dying tongue like French is the culturally noble thing to do, a greater service to globalism and “diversity” — that favorite buzzword of the modern corporate citizen, after all — than would be the learning of those business languages that do to culture what malls do to the landscape — sprawl it down to a single, lucrative purpose. Imagine if one day all the world spoke just English and two or three other languages. Great for business, maybe. But how much poorer the world would really be. Ask yourself then, next time you’re in the middle of a business seminar about diversity, to what extent the seminar sponsors mean what they say by diversity, as opposed to projecting diversity as another one of those means toward an end that has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with more efficient productivity.

Existentialism is back

The recently deceased Robert C. Solomon has a great article on Existentialism and its too often ignored optimistic message. It's worth reading even though Solomon contributes to the false mystique of existentialism by tying together Camus and Sartre when the differences between their two philosophies are enormous.

The West and Islam

Gudrun Krämer has an essay in Spiegel on the real difference between the West and Islam by examining history and the present. She is an Islam scholar and attempts to expose what is leading to confrontations between the two sides. Sugary excerpt:

It is both pointless and counterproductive to insist that Muslims must embark on their own reformation and enlightenment if they wish to be part of the modern world. Deliberate provocations are similarly counterproductive, such as the defamation of the Prophet, which goes beyond a simple reproduction of the Prophet's image; contrary to popular belief, such representations exist in Islamic art.

It is perfectly possible to preserve and defend the fundamental right to freedom of speech, to artistic and intellectual freedom, without insisting on reopening this particular wound. This does not mean capitulating to violent zealots. But it does mean showing due respect to the religious sensitivities of Muslims. Insulting the Prophet is hardly likely to foster a critical and enlightened examination of Islam. Quite the contrary.

Supporting the forces of reform - in ways that reflect their needs - would make sense, as long as these are not presented as champions of a modern Western society. Or worse, as political partners of the West; this can only serve to discredit them in their own communities.

Dangerous illusions

“Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.” Liz Cheney, “Retreat isn’t an Option.”

Women and globalization

Patricia Daniel has an important article, which argues in a sense that globalization, that another world isn't possible without taking into consideration women's perspective. She quotes Candido Grzybowski, the World Social Forum director, which has this to say on this issue:

Women are a 'minority' created by ourselves within civil society. With respect to that, there is no point in blaming capitalism, neo-liberalism, globalisation, exclusionary states, etc. This is a major problem that is engendered, developed, and maintained in the culture of civil society itself.

Abortion and depression

I read the long article in the Sunday Times on Abortion, depression, and the way that some anti-abortion activists are using the possible correlation between the two to argue that it should be outlawed, and I kept asking myself this simple question: If abortion leads in fact to depression does it put into question its legality ? The answer is obviously no. Abortion is a personal choice and whether it causes depression is a matter, which the woman should consider when she makes that choice. Knowledge is also important when making a choice, but the fact that a choice may have negative consequences doesn't mean that it should be forbidden because otherwise that would just be a form of paternalism. After in democratic societies, people have the right to choose things that are bad for health provided that it doesn't affect anybody else, but them. It is for that reason that the emphasis shouldn't be on eliminating the choice, but on dealing with the consequences. Why not invest in helping women who have had abortion deal with their depression if they feel it. After all, I haven't never head anybody argues that women should becoming mothers, because they may experience post partum depression.

Christopher Hitchens on Mark Steyn

Christopher Hitchens reviews of Mark Steyn's America Alone, whose thesis I find ridiculous and ignorant. He gives it high marks for being entertaining, but points out some of the short comings of Mark Steyn's assertion that demography is destiny and that Europe is will become Islamic because of its increasing Muslim population even though he doesn't totally disagree with his thesis. Sugary excerpt:

Yet Steyn makes the same mistake as did the late Oriana Fallaci: considering European Muslim populations as one. Islam is as fissile as any other religion (as Iraq reminds us). Little binds a Somali to a Turk or an Iranian or an Algerian, and considerable friction exists among immigrant Muslim groups in many European countries. Moreover, many Muslims actually have come to Europe for the advertised purposes—seeking asylum and to build a better life. A young Afghan man, murdered in the assault on the London subway system in July 2005, had fled to England from the Taliban, which had murdered most of his family. Muslim women often demand the protection of the authorities against forced marriage and other cruelties. These are all points of difference, and also of possible resistance to Euro-sharia.

The main problem in Europe in this context is that many deracinated young Muslim men, inflamed by Internet propaganda from Chechnya or  Iraq and aware of their own distance from “the struggle,” now regard the jihadist version of their religion as the “authentic” one. Compounding the problem, Europe’s multicultural authorities, many of its welfare agencies, and many of its churches treat the most militant Muslims as the minority’s “real” spokesmen. As Kenan Malik and others have pointed out in the case of Britain, this mind-set cuts the ground from under the feet of secular Muslims, encouraging the sensation that many in the non-Muslim Establishment have a kind of death wish.

Steyn cannot seem to make up his mind about the defense of secularism in this struggle. He regards Christianity as a bulwark of civilization and a possible insurance against Islamism. But he cannot resist pointing out that most of the Christian churches have collapsed into compromise: choosing to speak of Muslims as another “faith community,” agreeing with them on the need for confessional-based schooling, and reserving their real condemnation for American policies in the war against terrorism.

Race, the West, and Immigration

Gary Younge denounces the use of race as one of the main criteria for too many countries to decide what immigrants are acceptable. Money quote:

Facing hunger and destitution, the poor move in search of work. But when they seek to gain access to the wealthiest countries - the very ones which created the rules that keep them poor - the doors are closed. Politicians desperate to galvanise popular support at home argue not for correcting the global inequalities in wealth but instead for stiffer immigration laws to keep the poor out. Since most, but by no means all, of these impoverished people are not white, racism almost inevitably informs and infects these immigration laws and the debate that surrounds them.

The sad fact is that increasingly the use of race in immigration policies has been has been camouflaged under the banner of culture, which enabling those who supports it to argue that the question isn't race, but whether one's culture isn't too foreign for the country and whether as Pat Buchanan has argued people who are different that the local population should be allowed to change its ethnic and cultural makeup. Unfortunately, the idea that allowing people of different races to immigrate in the West will lead to the disappearance of its Judeo-Christian ideals  and of its culture is popular because diversity is no longer a Western sacrosanct and multiculturalism has become an evil and a proof that people of different races can’t live with one another.

Chávez and America

The Telegraph has an article on Chávez and his bellicose hatred of America, which makes the argument that on the contrary to what the Wall Street Journal asserted last week he isn't a big danger to America:

Mr Chávez is more a gadfly than a serious threat to continental stability. And his rhetoric – he now calls himself a communist – far outruns his actions, which so far have been cannily pragmatic.

The thing that scares me with Chávez is the fact that his anti-American rhetoric seems to have escalated and will more than likely continue to do so as long as it helps me survive politically at home and thrive in Latin America. I fear that at some point, the US will not have a Cuban missile like crisis with Venezuela and I wonder whether when it happens the situation won't lead to some kind of explosion. There are no worst attributes for a world leader than ego, money, and recklessness and Chávez possesses all three.

Overcoming the scars of war with love

The best article of this Sunday, in my opinion, is in the Times of London about the love story and between Ty Ziegel, a marine who suffered severe burn in Iraq, which destroyed his face and an all-American girl who just marred him. Moving story:

Ty gets headaches sometimes, but he just takes an aspirin and gets on with it. In hospital he saw soldiers and marines with fewer injuries than him behave more self-pityingly. “Anger has a lot to do with the person,” he says. “I’ve seen guys who had no complaints, really, act pretty pissed off.”

Ty has a plastic skull now, and the old one is still stuck in his insides. He taps the side of his waist, where there is a slight bulge. The lump of bone will be removed one day but he is in no hurry to undergo another operation. There will be plenty of those ahead: he hopes the sight in his blind eye can be restored, though he doubts he is going to rebuild his nose – it involves too many awkward skin grafts.

In Metamora, people know him well enough not to stare a lot, but he gets plenty of looks elsewhere. Mostly he shrugs it off. “I give people the benefit of the doubt. If you were me, I might look at you.” If they are particularly rude, he will turn and say: “So what were you going to ask me?”

Hillary as the new Thatcher

“HILLARY CLINTON is to be presented as America’s Margaret Thatcher as she tries to become the first woman to win the White House. As she entered the 2008 presidential race yesterday, a senior adviser said that her campaign would emphasise security, defence and personal strengths reminiscent of the Iron Lady.” Sarah Baxter, “Hillary runs for the White House as ‘the new Thatcher’.”

The Christian Right and American History

Jeff Sharlet analyses the Christian right’s view of American history in an excellent essay, which shows that it has been a constant element of American society since the founding of the United States:

We don’t like to consider the possibility that they [members of the Christian Right] are not newcomers to power but returnees, that the revivals that have been sweeping America with generational regularity since its inception are not flare-ups but the natural temperature of the nation. We can’t conceive of the possibility that the dupes, the saps, the fools—the believers—have been with us from the very beginning, that their story about what America once was and should be seems to some great portion of the population more compelling, more just, and more beautiful than the perfunctory processes of secular democracy. Thus we are at a loss to account for this recurring American mood.

Those observations lead to two fundamental questions:

1. Since the Christian right is as American as Apple pie is its view of American history the right one?
2. If the Christian right is right and that Americais indeed a Christian Nation does it meant hat it has to remain that as it society evolves and change?

Reviewing Trash

Alan Wolfe reviews Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11” in the New York Times. The following excerpt says it all:

D’Souza has fallen on hard times lately. Political correctness and affirmative action — the issues he has addressed in inflammatory ways in the past — no longer inspire the same passion. “The Enemy at Home” is clearly designed to restore his reputation as the man who will say anything to call attention to his views; charging prominent senators and presidential candidates with treason can do that. (One can dismiss D’Souza’s claim that “I am not accusing anyone of treason or even of anti-Americanism” as either self-delusional or dishonest; my guess is the former.) Yet despite all his heated rhetoric, D’Souza’s book is unlikely to make much of a dent. It relies on a distinction between traditional and radical Islam that even he does not take seriously; there are no theological differences between the two camps, he suggests at one point, and even the “few” political differences between them are disappearing. It is filled with factual errors (Milton Himmelfarb, not Irving Kristol, compared the voting behavior of Jews to that of Puerto Ricans; Diana Eck is not a historian, but Thomas Frank, wrongly identified as a political scientist, is). In a line D’Souza will surely wish he had never written, he brags of the “remarkable progress” in Iraq“since Hussein’s removal from power.” Some of the people he elevates to the status of major enemies of the United States— Kristine Holmgren, Robert Jensen, Glenda Gilmore — are (no offense intended) anything but household names.

Understanding the world and governing America

“I don’t think he understands the world. I don’t think he’s particularly curious about the world. I don’t think he reads like he says he does.” John D. Rockefeller, Democratic Senator from West Virginia.