JayB

What size does Oprah wear?

Kind of enjoying the spectacle of watching a circular PC-firing squad in action, though.

Nope. Maybe because the historical experiences of blacks and women in the US are different enough to make equating the two seem ludicrous to most people.

I don't think that people with a poor education and little or no grasp of the local language are essentially unemployable at the minimum wage rate that prevails in most countries - but especially in Europe. They're priced out of the market in the same way that dentists would be if the government passed regulations that mandated that semi-annual checkups had to be sold for a minimum price of $1000 each. I suspect that they don't flock to the language schools because there's an incentive system in place that makes it possible to get by without learning the language. If you're priced out of the labor market, and you get the same check in the mail no matter what you do - then why bother unless there's a cultural imperative to do so? Unfortunately for Europe - the combined weight of rising pension obligations and a falling birthrate is going to leave them with few options that they're likely to be happy with unless productivity growth outpaces declines in the labor force. I'd be handing out Visas with cash bonuses in the Hindu portions of India if I were them....

They do hold some advantage but even they (or at least Canada, the US and Australia) cling to some obscure notion of what a citizen should be thats tilted towards the White Anglo-Saxon Like what? My question is just exactly what "obscure notion of what a citizen should be" that is "tilted towards White" and "Anglo Saxon" - sounds like the same old tired, bullshit (racist) rhetoric. I don't see anything about the responsibilities/expectations of a citizen in the US that is racist or "Anglo Saxon". Pay taxes, vote, participate in politics if you want, volunteer. Yeah, that's so "white". "One of the grandest ironies of cultural relativism is that it's never been embraced by it's intended beneficiaries."

i wonder why is it that immigrants from former soviet block move to england ireland, france or other countries and they don't lock themselves in a ghettos? and why is it that they can find jobs and immigrants from north africa can't? I'd venture a guess that at least part of it has to do with the fact that they're likely to have better education and training, but I suspect that the values and aspirations that they bring with them - none of which (except perhaps the strong work ethic )conflict with the culture that they've moved into - play a much larger role. Why do you think the disparity exists? better education? oh please, give me a brake. it has to do with culture and mentality of entitlement. Seems like an argument for restructuring welfare so that it promotes participation in the workforce, especially in communities that have the mindset that you speak of. I don't think it's fair to do this, though, unless you have a labor market where the guy with a fourth grade education and a limited command of the language can be hired at a wage rate that doesn't guarantee an hourly loss for whomever hires him - since no one will hire the guy under those conditions. Toss in a "negative income tax" if you're afraid that allowing employers to pay people what their skills are worth will have negative social consequences, and you've got a much less costly and more socially constructive incentive system than the "rigid labor market + high structural unemployment + expansive welfare" model.

They do hold some advantage but even they (or at least Canada, the US and Australia) cling to some obscure notion of what a citizen should be thats tilted towards the White Anglo-Saxon Like what?

i wonder why is it that immigrants from former soviet block move to england ireland, france or other countries and they don't lock themselves in a ghettos? and why is it that they can find jobs and immigrants from north africa can't? I'd venture a guess that at least part of it has to do with the fact that they're likely to have better education and training, but I suspect that the values and aspirations that they bring with them - none of which (except perhaps the strong work ethic )conflict with the culture that they've moved into - play a much larger role. Why do you think the disparity exists?

What won't help: "But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others." -Karen Armstrong. I don't often find myself strongly disagreeing with her when I come across something she's written, but she's just flat out wrong on this point.

I'm curious what the proposed solutions are. Most of the people who "realize the problem" are xenophobic isolationsts - not terribly liberal in the classic sense. I also think that Canada, Brazil, Australia, the US, etc enjoy a huge advantage in terms of immigrants since all feature an open identity that immigrants can adopt simply by choosing to do so. Much tougher when the identity in question is composed of a state, an ethnicity, and a language.

I'm curious what the proposed solutions are. Most of the people who "realize the problem" are xenophobic isolationsts - not terribly liberal in the classic sense. Seems accurate in the Euro context. Liberalizing their labor markets and reforming their welfare policies so that immigrants have the incentive and the means to participate more extensively in society, instead of being locked out of the job market and warehoused in housing projects is where I'd start. I think that workforce participation is a much more potent driver of social harmony and integration than most people realize - and is often at least as potent in shaping the attitudes of native citizens as it is immigrants.

I'd hazard a guess that it could be what happened for the west that didn't happen for Islam: The Reformation. The fracturing of the Catholic Church and the plethora of Protestant sects that sprung up led to a diversity that slowly diluted the power of any one church, and led to both the flowering of Liberalism and encouraged the development of rational science. I'm weak on my middle eastern history. When did Wahabbism come about? Wasn't that essentially a fundamentalist reformation within Islam, something that put the blinders on and hit the brakes? I know it's what my step grandmother would have liked to see happen here, she used to complain that God didn't want people to know so much, and that too much education was a bad thing. Seems like I recall it was WWI that really put the nail in the Ottoman Empire's coffin, but things must have been slipping for quite awhile before that. Albert Hourani's "A History of the Arab Peoples" is a good summary if you have the time. The basic narrative that seems to resurface over-and-over is Muslim societies pondering the rise of the West and their own relative decline and deciding to follow one of two paths in order to restore their civilization(s) to its rightful path in the world - that of Attaturk or the Taliban. Adopt the the technology and other practices of the infidels and use them for our own ends or...conclude that corruption by the same is the source of all woes, restore society to the perfection it had in the golden past and "voila," - the Great Caliphate will rise again. Cartoonish shorthand, but that's pretty much the gist of most of what I've read. Doesn't address how the West rose, or precisely why they stagnated - but there's plenty of discussion about both out there. Pretty much agree with your thinking vis-a-vis the reformation, but there's plenty of chicken-vs-egg questions to ponder when you consider what got the ball rolling and what kept the momentum going. The efforts by the church to integrate the classical heritage (preserved and expanded upon by the Muslims) with the biblical picture of the world seemed to play a fairly significant role in catalyzing quite a few of the changes that brought about the reformation. Then there's the fact that the church - while not a disinterested friend of natural philoshophy, reason, and scholarship - was just about the only friend that any of the above had in the Middle Ages and things start to get good and muddy. Spent quite a few hours in college reading about all of the above, and hope to revisit the material during the upcoming mini-sabbatical...

Jay, I've read that the Romans were "tolerant" of religion too. Tolerant as long as you stayed in your place. And of course, there was no doubt as to who was a first class citizen - and who was not. To be in a position of power you had less room to deviate from the norm. And of course, there was always an undercurrent of brutality and the cheapness of life, even during Pax Romana. So, when someone tries to claim that the Golden Age of Islam was marked by religious "tolerance", you'll have to excuse me for challenging just exactly what that means. Judging from the course of history, including the rise and spread of Islam, I have a pretty damn good idea. I think what most people mean is that they were generally spared death, allowed to practice their faiths, and administer their own affairs in exchange for acknowledging their status as second-class citizens and paying an additional set of taxes. This was all after the conquest was final and absolute. I'd personally put the Caliphs generally on par with the Romans on this front, or perhaps somewhere between the Romans and the Mongols (I seem to recall that Ghengis, Hulagu, at all could be surprisingly accommodating to those who gave no resistance). Certainly no higher. In comparison to Europe from the 8th-12th century, I'd even give them the edge when it comes to the general level of superstition, backwardness, and barbarism that prevailed within their societies. At some point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, however, the balance started to shift pretty decisively in favor of the West - and the disparity has only grown over time, IMO.

Seems like there's a pretty big spectrum between doing nothing and empowering the state to enforce a centralized emissions rationing scheme. Returning to the drug analogy, I think it's possible to develop a set of policies that discourages addiction and minimizes the harm that addicts inflict on themselves and others without criminalizing the consumption of particular substances and funding a vast enforcement bureaucracy to monitor what people consume, seize their assets, and imprison them when they decide to ingest something that the rest of society has good reason to believe will be harmful to them and those around them. The analogy is a bit forced, but I'm personally much more comfortable with climate change policies that use liberal ends to accomplish the same means that might be obtained via coercive, enforcement heavy methods. I think it's possible to envision using liberal means to create a state of affairs where cranking up the heater to 82 degrees in the winter is seen as being as foolish as stoking a chimney with a stack of 20s, or as socially acceptable as taking a dump on your neighbor's lawn.

Depends on what the belief is, and why you are basing your belief on, no?

I don't take as much interest in McDermott's political career as you do, but if you'll compile a series of links where one can discern the rationale for his stand, and review the actions that he took while making it - then I'll be happy to review them and render a judgment while I have time. *I* find it interesting that you are bemoaning the fact that everyone who opposed the war is - in your imagination - uncritically branded as a "traitor," (Zinni, Obama {look how his political career has suffered}, etc -? Really),while simultaneously maintaining that everyone who supported the war is a naif, a dupe, or a participant in a nefarious cabal or conspiracy. You are free to do so, but realize that you're engaging in the very practice that you're bemoaning.

Only if you assume that we had a right to carry out enforcement of UN resolutions without letting the UN decide how to do so, or if you assume that the reason we invaded Iraq had much to do with enforcing any UN sanctions. Neither is true. As for the history of Islam, you have rejected the idea that there could have been any historic tolerance or liberalism or whatever associated with the Golden Age of Islam, but you are incorrect in your argument on this point. It is not "moral relativism." It is history. It is simply not the case that Europe (or Europe and the U.S.) = good guys and Moslems = bad guys. It wasn't true a thousand years ago and it is not true today. I actually agree with you on this point. I would not consider the practices of those who ruled the Islamic Caliphates from the 8th to the 14th century "liberal" in any modern sense of the word, but the term may have been apt if you consider the alternatives available at the time. One question worth pondering, though, is "what happened?" If you think that the modern, contemporary West and the modern, contemporary "Dar El Islam" are equally liberal you are clearly smoking trainloads full of crack via firehose hooked up to a 10,000 horsepower, turbo-diesel air-compressor each and every second of your existence. How did this happen? If you are as familiar with the history of Islam as you claim to be, you will be able to articulate a reasonable answer.;

There's a saying out there that I generally agree with "It's not so much what you believe as why you believe it." When it comes to evaluating the choices that people made concerning the US invasion of Iraq, I think the reasons that people based their support or opposition to the invasion on are at least as important as their final decisions. I don't think - by any means - that opposing US entry into WWII, for example, was an immoral act, much less treasonous or worthy of contempt or being labeled as a traitor. I do think it's possible, though, to evaluate the reasons why a person either supported or opposed US entry into the conflict, and to use that evaluation as a basis for determining whether the person under consideration is commendable or contemptible. I personally think that Lindbergh falls into the latter category, but there are doubtless many millions who opposed the war for reasons - and in a manner- that it would be difficult to find fault with. I'm not terribly familiar with why McDermott opposed the war, or the manner in which he chose to communicate his opposition to it. What in particular about how McDermott's arrived at his decision, and the manner in which he chose to communicate it, praiseworthy in your eyes? Is it possible for you to envision coming to the same conclusions about a politician who supported the war - depending on his arguments and his motives - even if the conclusion that he arrived at is the polar opposite of your own?

Say what? Bush and the Republicans have done absolutely the WRONG thing in Iraq and it doesn't look as if they've done well in Afghanistan either (the Democrats went along with it, but Bush and the Republican led Congress were in charge). Probably a more accurate statement would be One thing is for sure, though, Baghdad Jim was right. The French were right. General Eric Shinseki was right. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson was right. Simply because they spoke against the war in whatever media or with whatever opportunities were available to them, they were all branded as cowards and traitors except maybe Shinseki who was merely sacked. There were many opponents of entering WWII, who were inspired by various sentiments and who used various means to communicate their message. Not all of them are remembered in the same way, or were thought of in the same way at the time. Do you think that Charles Lindbergh was treated unfairly for the manner in which he spoke out against US involvement in WWII?

Your recollections aren't correct on this point. Have you read the book?

true, but would you legalize all forms of drugs, incuding crack cocaine and meth? I think if I had to choose between the current drug policy and complete liberalization of all drugs - I'd go with complete liberalization since the aggregate social and political costs would be lower. If I actually had to construct a policy to legalize all drugs that had to be both politically feasible and structured to minimize the social costs I'd start with marijuana and work from there. Decriminalize possession, change enforcement and incarceration priorities so that non-violent dealers get roughly the same treatment as white-collar criminals, and eventually work up to a situation where there are legal sales channels that yield revenue to fund education and treatment efforts. Once these pieces are in place, I'd incrementally expand the roster of substances that can be legally sold and consumed by consenting adults. Addiction would still be a scourge, and it's possible that addiction would increase over current levels, but I think that society would be much better off than we are with the current "War on Drugs" model. In your mind, is there an analogy between this topic and the various "anti-climate change" policy-models being tossed around?

Except that the same people that have you convinced that it is so preposterous that human caused pollutants could affect the climate (we've already caused proven, drastically negative effects to the quality of many air, water and ecosystems) are also fighting emissions regulations tooth and nail at every turn. They now just use global warming as an efficient stall tactic. The actions being proposed that would theoretically curb global warming are largely things that we should be doing anyway and are being stifled by energy industries concerned with maximizing profits. Lie in bed with them if you like, dumbass. Blaming energy companies for rising C02 emissions is like blaming Columbian druglords for increasing rates of drug addiction in the US. Not always the most savory characters, but brought into existence and sustained entirely by the underlying demand for what they produce. The idea that it's ultimately the energy companies that are "stifling" reductions in C02 emissions, and not the aggregate choices made by the consumers of their products just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny. It's also worth noting that in the absence of: -New technology that reduces C02 emissions per unit-energy produced, and that does so at the same price as conventional sources; Or... -Technologies that use less energy to create the same output; any reduction in C02 consumption per capita will have to be gained by reducing per-capita power consumption. Some increment of this reduction can be obtained at a relatively low cost by increasing conservation, but in the end, unless you increase efficiency at the same rate you reduce consumption, the net effect is to lower global output. If global output increases at rates that fall below global population growth, that will inexorably translate into an reduction in the global standard of living - and guess who will bear the brunt of that reduction? The guy who has to cut back on the joyrides in his Hummer every now and then, or pay more for his flight from Seattle to the Vegan Yoga Retreat in Sedona to combat his S.A.D. every winter will feel it quite a bit less than the folks in remote clinic in Togo who can no longer afford to keep running the generator that powers the refrigerator housing the vaccines and anti-biotics. Ditto for anyone who's already having trouble buying enough to eat when the real cost of food increases. I'm not advocating inaction, but I think that we should at least be honest about what's really driving global C02 emissions instead of engaging in unproductive populist crusades against a cliched roster of scapegoats and bogeymen. We should also take an honest assessment of the real costs associated with reducing emissions by reducing output at rates that exceed the rate at which technology can deliver increased efficiency and reduced emissions, and who will bear them. In the final analysis, it may turn out that a certain net reduction in human well being in the present is a price that has to be paid in order to avert much worse consequences for humanity in the future, but let's not pretend that these costs don't exist.

Aside from the "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" inspired support of the various Islamists fighting the Soviet Union (this was long before the Taliban took control of the country from the various warlords who reigned after the Soviet retreat), I can recall the US (can't recall whether it was the Bush or Clinton administration) either engaging with the Taliban or proposing to engage in them in pursuit of the common goal of controlling poppy production. Seems like the general consensus at the time was that the Taliban were reprehensible but that they were calling the shots in Afghanistan and would continue to do so for the foreseeable future, and there was neither a plan to remove them, nor a strategic imperative that would justify the costs of doing so before 9/11.

The free-trade/globalization figures are the most surprising to me.

Just in case you are wondering why you can't see the film on LiveLeak anymore... "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers. This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one. Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture. We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high."