Blowback

Lawrence Auster brings to our attention an article, published by the National Association of Scholars, about a Christian student’s experiences in the Islamic Studies department at the Hartford Seminary (which is, by the way, the oldest Islamic Studies department in America). The Seminary represents itself as a secular institution dedicated to interfaith dialogue and comparative study; when it comes to Islam, however, it appears to be anything but.

The student, Andrew Bieszad, who graduated this past May with a master’s degree, describes systematic harassment and intimidation for his Christian beliefs, and for his questioning of Islamic dogma. His Muslim classmates told him on at least one occasion that he deserved to die.

Before recounting these details, though, Mr. Bieszad points out a fundamental reversal in the academic study of Islam in America (and presumably in the West generally):

Islamic studies in Europe began as a Christian missionary enterprise, born out of necessity rather than interest. Islam was the first religion Christianity encountered that, as theological doctrine, sought to convert Christians and regulate their religious practices. In turn, Catholic priests and monks, particularly in the Middle East, Spain, and Italy, worked to convert Muslims from Islam, as well as to educate Christians so they would not convert.[1] This changed following the fall of Muslim Spain in 1492 and the military expansion of Spain and Portugal and later England, Holland, Belgium, and France into Islamic countries. Catholic and Protestant missionaries followed their nations’ armies and compiled information about Islam and Muslim peoples. This information made its way back to European universities and gradually transformed Islamic studies from a missionary enterprise into a full-fledged academic discipline, sometimes called Orientalism.

Orientalism was originally defined by both political and religious visions. Politically, the colonizing governments sought to understand people to rule them more efficiently. Spiritually, missionaries sought to understand Islam to convert Muslims to Christianity more effectively. Both groups took an interest in studying the Muslim world. They translated and studied thousands of Islamic texts from Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Turkish sources. Their work formed the foundation for academic disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, Egyptology, Assyriology, and of course, Islamic studies.

Islamic studies changed significantly in the decades following World War II, with the massive reorganization of European empires, national boundaries, and colonial identities. One idea that gradually took root in academia was that the Muslim world was the victim of systematic prejudice stemming from European “ignorance.’ The only way to rectify this was through embracing Islamic ideals and peoples while repudiating the Christian and Hellenistic roots of Europe. Edward Said, the Palestinian-American professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia, eventually codified these views in his highly influential Orientalism, in which he argued that criticism of Islam or of the Muslim world is either a covert attack on the humanity of Muslims or gross ignorance in need of enlightenment.[2] Simultaneously, Muslim groups exploited this situation to promote Islam by funding Islamic studies programs and cultural venues at universities, who in turn reformed curricula in order not to offend Muslim sentiments. In a short time, scholarship in Islamic studies was overtaken by Islamic missionary and political interests.

Academia is filled with biases and presumptions upon which entire belief systems are constructed. The inhabitants of the West are privileged to have the freedom to examine and criticize ideas and beliefs and respectfully agree to agree or disagree. This concept is anathema to Islam, since in Islam academia exists to propagate orthodox Islamic dogma. In Islamic studies at universities today it has become difficult to disagree with Islam and still maintain one’s credibility, safety, or ability to study in school. Academia has refused to question Islamic teachings, and has thus become a participant in promoting Islamic orthodoxy at the expense of academic integrity. I know this because I am a product of this environment.

In other words, an academic system originally intended to prepare Westerners for projecting political or missionary influence into the Muslim world now serves almost exclusively as a conduit for Muslim influence to infiltrate the West.

In The Hinge of Fate, the fourth volume of Winston Churchill’s incomparable history of the Second World War, Churchill wrote (page 279):

I have often tried to set down the strategic truths I have comprehended in the form of simple anecdotes, and they rank this way in my mind. One of them is the celebrated tale of the man who gave the powder to the bear. He mixed the powder with the greatest care, making sure that not only the ingredients but the proportions were absolutely correct. He rolled it up in a large paper spill, and was about to blow it down the bear’s throat.

But the bear blew first.

Read Mr. Bieszad’s article here.

Hot Spot

With a tip of the hat to Norman Geras, here are some amazing photographs of an expedition to the lava lake in Africa’s Nyiragongo Crater.

A Mighty Wind

All over the Middle East and the Maghreb, freedom-loving people are shrugging off the yoke of tyranny. Soon the world will be a far better place, as the entire region emerges from a tenebrous netherworld of medieval despotism into the broad, sunlit uplands of representative government and post-Enlightenment liberal society. Everywhere you look, the yearning for modern, secular democracy shines in the eyes of brave young idealists — as we see, for example, below:

Read More »

Tale Of The Tape

I’ve been reading Here, There, and Everywhere, a memoir by the Beatles’ recording engineer Geoff Emerick, and enjoying it no end. Though Mr. Emerick’s name may not be familiar to the public at large, it’s a very different matter for those of us in the recording studio’s hermetic brotherhood; in our little pantheon, he is Jove.

The other day I had just read his recollections of the recording of Strawberry Fields Forever, when a few hours later I noticed in Science Daily an item about that very song (thanks also to Bob Wyman, who sent me the same link shortly thereafter). It seems that one Jason I. Brown, a Dalhousie University math professor with an abiding interest in Beatles arcana, had spent some time puzzling out the numerical details of a tricky little edit that Emerick and producer George Martin had made to join two takes together at John Lennon’s request, and had written a brief item about it in a mathematical newsletter.

The problem was that the takes were not only recorded at different tempos, but also in different keys. The preferred intro, from Take 7, had been recorded at 85 beats per minute in the key of A, while Take 26, the take to be used for the body of the song, was in the key of B, at 107 BPM.

To match the two takes and make a seamless edit would be trivial nowadays, because digital audio software allows us to alter pitch and tempo independently: we could pick the tempo we liked, and the key, and let Pro Tools do the rest. But this was 1966, and all that Emerick and Martin had to work with was two pieces of tape. Changing the tape speed would affect pitch and tempo together.

To solve the problem, then, they decided to try to split the difference — to speed the intro piece up a bit, and slow the body of the song down a little, making the pitch meet somewhere in between the two original keys. It wasn’t a perfect solution, though, because when the tape-speeds were adjusted so the pitch matched up, the tempos, though closer, were still a bit off. Also, everyone liked the stately tempo at the beginning of Take 7.

What to do? John, who had little understanding of studio technology, was insistent that the beginning had to be Take 7, and the production team didn’t want to disappoint him. Emerick (who was all of about twenty at the time, by the way) spent hours trying to make this edit work, and looking for the right place to make the cut. Finally, he and Martin decided to let Take 7 start at the natural tempo, then gradually (and, they hoped, imperceptibly) speed it up until the edit point they had settled on (which was at the word “going” in the second chorus, about sixty seconds in: “let me take you down, cause I’m / going to...”). The tempos still differed by about 11 beats per minute, though, which made the edit sound a bit jarring — so instead of splicing the tape at the usual 45°, Emerick cut at a much shallower angle, making the join more of what we call a “cross-fade”.

Reading all this in Emerick’s memoir brought back a lot of memories for me. When I was coming up as an engineer back in the Seventies, this was still how we did things, and I spent many an hour splicing little bits of tape together in the same sort of way. (My mentor Tony Bongiovi, the owner of Power Station Studios, was a phenomenal tape-editor — one of the best I ever saw — and he made it very clear that any engineer on his staff should be able to cut tape fast, fearlessly, and musically, as indeed all engineers were expected to do back then.) It’s interesting to read Dr. Brown’s mathematical analysis, which is very accurate and informative, but I can tell you that what happened in that control room at EMI Studios was strictly a seat-of-the-pants operation, relying only on four expert ears and two steady hands.

Mission Accomplished

Back in Gotham, but too pooped to post. Will resume shortly.

Service Notice

The lovely Nina and I will be on the road for a couple of days — off to southern CA to pay my dear old Dad a visit on his 85th birthday. Might be quiet here till we get back, early next week.

Boyling Over

Lawrence Auster asks:

“Is some kind of intensification of the world going on? At the very moment that uprisings are proceeding in several Muslim countries simultaneously, uprisings are proceeding in several states of the United States simultaneously.”

Yes, some kind of intensification of the world is going on, and I think we can find an apt metaphor in the laws that relate the volume, temperature, and pressure of a gas in a closed container.

As you reduce the volume of the container, or add more molecules of gas, the average distance between particles decreases, and the energy density of the system increases. Pressure also goes up, because collisions with the walls of the container become more frequent, and because collisions between particles inside the container happen more energetically and more often, the pace of chemical reactions rises as well.

This is exactly what has happened to the world, and very dramatically so, in the last few years. Not only has crowding increased in the world’s crowded places, but far more importantly, the revolution in electronic communications — in particular, the advent of massively interconnected, global social networks that operate with zero latency and with little regard to political boundaries — has decreased the average distance between individual human beings by orders of magnitude in a very short time. In effect, the world has been compressed to a small fraction of its former volume, almost in the blink of an eye — and what we see now is the sudden increase in pressure, temperature, and chemical reactions that the gas laws tell us should happen under such circumstances. And as those reactions happen, they in turn liberate even more energy into the system, creating shock-waves of localized increase in pressure, and raising the overall temperature and energy density.

So yes, a very rapid “intensification” of the world is underway — and we should expect it to continue.

How’s It Going?

Well, it’s hard to feel cheery tonight, I have to say. Muammar Qaddafi, pausing on his way to martyrdom, is strafing his people, and blowing up oil pipelines. It is becoming clearer every day that the wave of “freedom” sweeping the Arab world is a disaster in the making. Europe watches aghast, bracing itself for a tide of human flotsam. Nuclear-armed Pakistan edges closer to ignition. Iran send its navy into the Mediterranean. World fisheries are in freefall. Christchurch, New Zealand, lies in ruins.

Here at home, the nation is cracking apart at the seams. Public-sector labor unions, having managed finally to kill the golden goose, march in open revolt against the taxpayers, while the legislators they own flee their state capitals rather than allow the will of the people to be done. With oil prices racing north as a result of chaos in the East, gasoline prices are rising fast, and economic markets are plummeting. Meteorologists predict record floods throughout the nation’s heartland, and the gigantic magma chamber under Yellowstone is expanding.

And right here in Gotham: smoking banned outdoors, and an epidemic of sidewalk rage.

Well, they say that all a person needs is something to believe in. I believe I’ll fix myself a drink.

Pinkies Up

If you haven’t heard, the University of Arizona will announce on Monday the establishment of a new alma mater, to be called the Institute for Civil Discourse. The effort to institutionalize its important new curriculum — which will target militaristic metaphors, contumacious dissent-mongering, and other unseemly manifestations of political faction — was triggered by the recent tragedy in Tucson, in which intemperate articulation of right-wing opinions led directly to violent mayhem. The Institute’s frontal assault on indelicacy of expression will be spearheaded by former presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, who seem determined to take no prisoners when it comes to winning the war against petulance in politics.

It’s going to be an uphill battle, according to Institute founder Fred DuVal, vice-chairman of the Arizona Board of Regents:

“How do we nurture robustness on one hand and not in any way chill speech, and keep it in bounds that are not destructive to democracy?’ he said. “Will it change the nature of dialogue? That will be a tall order.’

Indeed.

Anyway, I’m awfully relieved to hear that the University of Arizona is leading the charge here. After all, it’s a cinch that the I.C.D. won’t accomplish a blessed thing (other than to plague us all, starting a few years hence, with its graduates). Meanwhile, I’d been pretty sure something big was in the works, and figured we’d likely be getting a whole new Cabinet department; to have a new college instead seems just fine.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it; this is going to be great. I wonder what they’ll call the football team!

Story here.

Mail Call

We’re back from our little retreat. Over the transom while we were en route:

First, a tireless and Argus-eyed reader has noticed an item at Iran’s Press TV website reporting that Muammar Qaddafi (or however we’re supposed to spell that moniker of his; I never seem to see it the same way twice) has left Libya. Biggish news if true. Here.

Also, a correspondent has sent along a link to an in-depth item over at Half Sigma about why programming is a lousy career. Not being one of those anonymous bloggers, it might be imprudent for me to comment from a personal perspective, so I’ll just suggest that you read it here.

Political Chemistry

I’ve been “offline” for a couple of days — avoiding the computer and the news media — but plenty has been happening.

If you’ve been waiting for the Muslim Brotherhood to extend its hand in Egypt, wait no longer. The Ikwhan’s éminence grise and foremost theoretician Yusuf Qaradawi — the one who explained to the ummah that Hitler was simply one of the many agents sent periodically by Allah to punish the Jews, and who urges Muslims to reconquer Jerusalem and finish the job — addressed an enormous rally in Cairo yesterday.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the similarities between various ideas in the physical sciences and the processes that drive global social change (there are many), and in that context a simple metaphor for what’s happening in Egypt comes to mind. It’s hardly an important insight, but I never metaphor I didn’t like, so here it is anyway.

Are you familiar with “supercooling”? It happens when a liquid drops below the conditions of temperature and pressure at which it would normally freeze, but doesn’t. This can happen when there are no particles in suspension around which crystals can begin to form. Highly purified water can be held in a supercooled state at temperatures far below 0° C. When a “seed”, like a grain of sand, is dropped in, the water solidifies around it at once.

Egypt has been in a similar condition for the past week or two, caused by the sudden release of pressure, and subsequent expansion of political freedom, brought about by the toppling of the Mubarak regime. It’s been just like a supercooled liquid, looking for a seed upon which to crystallize. When one appears, the phase transition can happen in a twinkling.

Meanwhile, the plates are slipping, and the fault-lines rupturing, here at home as well, as we see in Wisconsin. There is rage this week in Madison — where, as elsewhere, disruptive change is necessary and inevitable. John Derbyshire made an important point about it all in last night’s podcast (transcript here):

I won’t play down the degree to which these unionized public-sector workers have been parasitic on the national economy. I mentioned Scott Walker raising state employees’ health-care contributions to 12 percent and their pension contributions to 5.6 percent. Who pays for the other 88 percent on health care? Who pays for the other 94.4 percent on pensions? Why, the taxpayers of Wisconsin, of course. That’s the kind of distortion, the kind of injustice, that public-sector unionization has brought us. It’s wrong and it needs fixing.

We’ll be seeing a lot more of these kinds of battles, and the public sector will have to lose them, if the dollar is to retain any value at all. So there’s a certain glee, a certain anticipatory triumphalism among conservatives here. The public-sector unions are, after all, the backbone of the Democratic Party.

Let’s please remember, though, while we’re exulting, that these are our fellow citizens here. The root cause of the problem is a systemic one that we have to fix, and I hope we do fix it. A patriot should always be troubled by large-scale civil dissension, though. America has enemies enough in the world, without us exhausting ourselves battling each other.

Let’s fix the problem; let’s get the public sector into some kind of reasonable alignment with the private sector on benefits. When it comes to vituperation against our fellow citizens, though, let’s keep a sense of proportion. Someone has to teach the kids and collect the garbage. These sweetheart deals arose from faults in our political arrangements. I want the faults fixed, but I don’t blame anyone for taking the deals.

We’re going to win these fights, listeners, and the public-sector unions, and the Democratic Party they nourish, are going to be humbled and brought low. Let’s just keep in mind the American tradition of magnanimity in victory. These are our neighbors, our friends, sometimes our family members; and we’re all Americans.

Well, enough for now. Time to switch this thing off again for another day or two.

Femme Fatale

After a very busy spell we’re traveling tonight, and things might be quiet here for a couple of days (though you never know). But for now, here’s a gruesome item about the Tunisian uprising, with an odd twist: a mysterious blonde sniper.

Units

How one thing leads to another! With my glory days as a globe-trotting big-shot recording engineer behind me (for now at least), I earn my daily crust in a small cubicle in midtown Manhattan, writing C++ code for a medium-sized global corporation. It is now 9:15 P.M., and as is so often the case, I am still here in the office (whence all but I have fled), trying to get some software to work.

Earlier today someone mentioned Donald Knuth, the great programming pioneer and all-round Renaissance man, and as I sat at my computer just now waiting for my compiler to do its work, I looked him up on Wikipedia to see what it had to say about him. I discovered that among his many distinguished achievements, he had even written an article for MAD magazine back in 1957, on the “Potrzebie System of Weights and Measures” (which, as I also found out, is an available system of units in Google Calculator).

All this led me in turn to Wikipedia’s List of unusual units of measurement and List of humorous units of measurement, where I learned about such useful quantities as the beard-second, the attoparsec, the microfortnight, and my favorite of the lot, the Sheppey, which is “A measure of distance equal to about 7⁄8 of a mile (1.4 km), defined as the closest distance at which sheep remain picturesque.”

Hey, the compiler’s done, and no errors! Gotta run. Back in a few millifriedmans.

There Must Be Some Mistake

We’ve heard a lot for quite a while now about America’s stubborn Achievement Gaps. The stubbornest and most notorious of these is the gap between the races in primary-school education (as mentioned again in yesterday’s Times, where it is fully explained), but another lingering blot on our escutcheon has been the scandalous underrepresentation of women in the sciences.

It is thoughtcrime to imagine that the Science Gap could have anything to do with actual differences between men and women, and therefore it must be the result of sexual discrimination. We know, after all, that except for the various and admirable ways in which females are superior to males, women and men are otherwise exactly alike in all respects. (That’s why it’s so difficult to tell men and women apart, why they enjoy all the same things, etc.)

Lawrence Summers learned a lesson some years ago about the wages of crimethink when to a mixed audience he suggested, with concentric and obsequious disclaimers, that it might be interesting just to ask whether it mightn’t be the case that human intelligence is distributed such that females are on average more clustered around the middle of the scale, with more males way out at the high and low extremes — meaning that at the far right end, where elite scientists come from, there’d be a larger pool of males to draw on. (He hated even to mention it, of course, but it was just that, well, as it happens there had been these studies, you see…)

For his trouble, Summers was hounded out of the presidency of Harvard, and was lucky to get away with his hide intact. And rightly so: as all goodthinkful people know, the persistence of the Science Gap shows that even in 21st-century America, an oppressive andrarchy still holds women in chains. Fortunately, we know also that things can be put right with adjustments to the power structure and forcible re-education of the misguided, if we will but brace ourselves to the task. Onward to a brighter future!

Well, not so fast. A new paper, published by Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams of Cornell in the eminent journal Nature, makes the astonishing claim that the Science Gap may in fact largely be due — are you sitting down? — to differences between the sexes.

Christina Hoff Sommers has a recap here, and you can read the original paper here.

Extra Dark

Well, I realize that I’m probably the only person outside of Pyongyang who didn’t already know about this website, but my son just introduced me to the Perry Bible Fellowship. My first click of the ‘Random’ link brought me to this, and I was stuck for the next hour or so.

Oh, They Mean Her

I wonder how many of you this happens to: I see a headline like “Clinton To Announce New Special Envoy To Afghanistan And Pakistan“, and the Clinton that comes to mind is that taller one, the one who doesn’t really even have a job any more.

I have a feeling that doesn’t just happen to me. I’ll bet Madame Secretary knows it too. It must bug the hell out of her.

Poot!

The website spaceweather.com has been offering some amazing solar images lately. Here’s a good one: a video clip of a gigantic plasma ejection.

Pretty Good Joke

From Stephen Fry, by way of David Duff:

A girl goes into a bar and asks for an example of double entendre, so the barman gives her one.

What Next?

The latest from STRATFOR:

Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman delivered the following statement Feb. 11: “In the name of God the merciful, the compassionate, citizens, during these very difficult circumstances Egypt is going through, President Hosni Mubarak has decided to step down from the office of president of the republic and has charged the high council of the armed forces to administer the affairs of the country. May God help everybody.’

Suleiman’s statement is the clearest indication thus far that the military has carried out a coup led by Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi. It is not clear whether Suleiman will remain as the civilian head of the army-led government. Egypt is returning to the 1952 model of ruling the state via a council of army officers. The question now is to what extent the military elite will share power with its civilian counterparts.

At a certain point, the opposition’s euphoria will subside and demands for elections will be voiced. The United States, while supportive of the military containing the unrest, also has a strategic need to see Egypt move toward a more pluralistic system.

Whether the military stays true to its commitment to hold elections on schedule in September remains to be seen. If elections are held, however, the military must have a political vehicle in place to counter opposition forces, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. The fate of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) thus lies in question. Without the NDP, the regime will have effectively collapsed and the military could run into greater difficulty in running the country. While the military council will be serving as the provisional government, it will likely want to retain as much of the ruling NDP as possible and incorporate elements of the opposition to manage the transition. Sustaining its hold over power while crafting a democratic government will be the biggest challenge for the military as it tries to avoid regime change while also dealing with a potential constitutional crisis.

Barry Rubin weighs in here, with customary acuity.

Strong Horse

“Hosni, old boy, it’s time you made your farewell address to the Egyptian people.”

“Why? Where are they going?”

Two Heads Better Than One?

As you’ve probably heard by now, our second-term upstate Congressman, Republican Christopher Lee of New York’s western 6th District, has resigned after having been exposed, quite literally, by a woman to whom he had sent a half-naked picture of himself by way of Craigslist. (Mr. Lee is married, with a young child.)

Booth Tarkington said “There are two things that will be believed of any man whatsoever, and one of them is that he has taken to drink.’

Mind Detector

I’m swamped again at work, with no time to write. So for this evening, just a provocative little tid-bit.

I had coffee very briefly today with my friend Salim Ismail, a remarkable fellow who was most recently the director of the Singularity University. I don’t get to see Salim very often, because he is always either hard at work out in California, or jetting around the world explaining the future to international conferences and heads of state. But we always try to have lunch or dinner or coffee whenever he’s in town, and I always find that even a brief chat with him is enormously stimulating. He’s a human dynamo, and he’s always up to something interesting.

Today our conversation revolved around the fascinating topic of consciousness research. By way of introducing the subject, Salim produced a curious little gadget, about the size of a smartphone, that turned out to be a quantum-mechanical random-event generator, developed by Princeton University’s “Engineering Anomalies Research” laboratory, and manufactured by a company called Psyleron — upon which he has cast an interested eye.

Have a look here.

What Is A Moral Fact?

In the comment thread of our previous post, we’ve been looking at Sam Harris’s claim that there can be a prescriptive natural science of human morality, one that uncovers objective normative truths. This would rebut, it seems, the idea that there are no “oughts” in nature.

People do want there to be absolute moral truths, and many people feel that there can’t be any such truths in the absence of God. Without an absolute authority to appeal to, moral disagreements cannot be resolved, the center will not hold, and society will disintegrate in relativism and nihilism. Plenty of folks will tell you that this is already happening.

But grounding moral truth in divine command — the whim of God — has its problems too. What if God commanded us tomorrow to fry our children in hot oil? We would mutiny in moral revulsion. It seems, then that there is some deeper moral truth to which we expect God to adhere, and with which we would still comply even if He didn’t. So why not cut out the middleman?

What, though, can moral “truth” be under a Godless, naturalistic worldview? Answering this question has has been one of the most pressing challenges for our current crop of atheist intellectuals, many of whom are scientists and philosophers working in the relevant fields of biology, evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience. It’s pressing because before they can wean our civilization away from religion, as they would like to do, they need to come up with a new story about the foundations of morality. People still want their moral truth.

There are at least a couple of ways it can go. One way is to say that yes, there are moral facts, and they are simply “there”, existing alongside other Platonic abstracta like mathematical truths. It is a mathematical fact that any angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle; in the same way, it is simply a moral fact that torturing children is evil.

The problem with this (even if we accept the actual existence of Platonic abstracta, which I’m reluctant to do) is that we have objective ways of verifying mathematical facts: if you deny that any angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle, I can offer a simple proof. (I can also suggest that you just go out and start inscribing; you’ll soon see that you always get a right angle.)

But we have nothing like that for moral truths. If you and I disagree, say, about whether bestiality is morally wrong, it seems there’s no authority to which we can appeal the matter, other than social convention, religious dogma, and the subjective moral intuitions of our own consciences.

The angle that folks like Sam Harris and Steven Pinker are working these days is to claim that there actually is a naturalistic foundation upon which moral truths can rest. It is nothing more or less than the “fact of the matter” about which codes of behavior best enable intelligent social primates like us to live together successfully in thriving and happy groups. In other words, there are accessible natural facts about which moral systems maximize our fitness.

But wait — is that it? We want bedrock moral truth here, not just what happens to optimize our Darwinian outcomes.

Well, how deep do we really need to drill? Let’s say that reciprocal altruism is such a powerful fitness-maximizer that any intelligent, social life-form will either hit on it and thrive, or miss it and dwindle into misery and extinction. In other words, it is a basic fact of the Universe that a moral system based on reciprocal altruism is the optimal, most fruitful strategy for generating successful and well-functioning social groups.

“That’s all well and good,” the absolutist might say, “but all this is awfully contingent. What if it maximized our fitness to pick a child at random once a week, roast him over a slow fire, and eat him? Then we’d see that as an obvious moral ‘truth’.”

“But you see,” comes the reply, “it seems that the world is so constituted that doing what you suggest doesn’t maximize our fitness. Instead, it turns out that there are other things that clearly do — things like the Golden Rule — and with careful study we can learn what they are, with enough certainty that we can say with confidence that any society that does roast and eat its children is making a factual moral error.”

“Well”, says the absolutist, “that may be, but even so you still haven’t got me an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Why should some brute fact about the superior Darwinian fitness of altruistic groups mean that we ‘ought’ to be altruistic? Even if we do develop a metrical science of human well-being, and learn very clearly what types of behavior increase and diminish it, all we’ve done is establish some facts about social animals. But there is still nothing in Nature that makes it a moral fact that we ought to encourage behavior that will maximize human well-being; that is still just a subjective valuation on our part.”

To which our Sam Harris might answer:

“So what? If you can know with certainty that one direction leads to a maximally miserable world, and the other to a maximally happy one, what deeper moral ‘truth’ do you need? Your insistence on supernatural bedrock is nothing more than an intellectual fetish, of no practical value. Why should anyone care about that?”

So there it is, if I understand it all correctly: there are natural moral facts, because there are optimal strategies for maximizing well-being — strategies that are optimal for any intelligent social creature. And this is different from simply positing moral facts as Platonic objects, because we can actually use the tools of natural science to discover what these optimal moral systems are.

Are you convinced? I’m not — but I will say it is certainly an interesting argument, and not without its merits. And again, to be fair, I haven’t even read Sam Harris’s book yet, so I should be careful about putting words in his mouth. I do think I get the gist of it, though; these ideas have been in the air for a while now (I even had a chance to discuss them briefly with Steven Pinker up in Wellfleet a couple of summers ago, after a talk he gave for our local library, and what he said then was pretty much what Sam Harris appears to be saying here).

There are a lot more questions to ask, and soft spots to poke at, but it’s late now; they can wait for another post.

Sam Harris On The Ramparts

A while back I noted that Sam Harris has a new book out (The Moral Landscape), in which he argues that it is possible to develop an objective, entirely naturalistic science of human morality that would be not just descriptive, but prescriptive as well. From a philosophical perspective this is a hugely audacious assertion, because it says, contra just about everyone, that you can in fact derive an “ought” from an “is”: that even in a Godless world there are objective moral facts.

I still haven’t read his book, but I’ve been awfully skeptical that Harris can pull this thousand-pound rabbit out of the hat. Many have tried, and all have failed, and I have no doubt that most philosophers will greet this latest attempt as just another perpetual-motion machine. Reason tells us the thing can’t be done; any stack of “oughts” must ultimately bottom out on some subjective valuation, or on the whim of God — take your choice.

Nevertheless, it looks as if Dr. Harris is really serious about this, and in a long response to the book’s many harsh critics, he has mounted a spirited defense. His point is that there are various “facts of the matter” about human well-being, and that it is within our grasp to develop a moral code that tends to increase, rather than decrease, that well-being. (Utilitarianism, in other words, harnessed to a forthcoming metrical science of human happiness.) He argues that the vicious philosophical regress of “oughts” can be foreclosed by simple common sense; it’s just obvious that we “ought” to favor a moral framework that moves the world in the direction of decreasing human misery.

I probably shouldn’t say much more about it until I’ve read the book.

Among the linked items in Harris’s response is a televised “debate” on the question “Does God Have a Future?” Brandishing the pikestaffs of rational naturalism are doughty Sam Harris and Michael Shermer; arrayed against them are the grotesque New Age flim-flam man Deepak Chopra (who reminds me more and more, as time goes by, of Liberace) and a spectacular hot-air balloon by the name of Jean Houston, awareness of whose existence I had been spared till now. (Serious intellectual theism, sad to say, went entirely unrepresented.)

Have a look here, and watch words lose all meaning.

Froccoli

While I was in our local upscale grocery-market today, an amazing little vegetable caught my eye. It was something called “Romanesco” broccoli (Brassica romanesco, as it turns out), and it is one of the most beautiful natural fractals I’ve ever seen. Smitten, I bought one, and when I got it home I snapped a couple of pictures of it with my cell-phone. Here it is:

There are lots of better photos online, for example here and here — and here’s a computer-generated version.

I’d never seen this before. Have you?

Synesthesia

What’s your favorite color? Mine are the darker blues and greens; best of all are the deep and aqueous tones in between.

The blues and greens are horizontal, and patient, and extended in time, like the sea and the sky and forest; the reds and yellows and oranges are vertical, and call us to the present moment — like fire, and blood, and flowers, and ripe fruits.

Climate Of Hate

I’m chastened; things are worse than I thought. It seems Paul Krugman, Sherrif Dupnik, et al. were right after all: there really is a lot of racist, violent, over-the-top, “eliminationist” rhetoric out there. At a political rally deep in the Southwest, a cameraman has captured on video chilling footage of this vitriolic, inflammatory hate-speech: people so enraged by a black man wielding enormous power that they want not only to impeach him, but also — in a frightening echo of our nation’s darkest era — to “string him up”.

I’m sure this will be all over the papers, and that the editorial board of the Times will be outraged. Frankly, this time I can’t blame them. Have a look here.

The Truth Prevails, A Bit

Amongst all the turmoil in the Mideast, some good news: Lars Hedegaard has been acquitted — on a technicality, but we’ll take it. He published this statement at the website of the International Free Press Society:

As my ancient forefathers, the Vikings, would have said: It is always good to fight. It is better to win.

My detractors ”“ the foes of free speech and the enablers of an Islamic ascendancy in the West ”“ will claim that I was acquitted on a technicality, namely that the judge in the Court of Frederiksberg resolved that my supposedly offensive comments on the violations against little Muslim girls were not intended for public dissemination.

That is absolutely true. The judge chose the way out provided by my capable counsel. However, the public prosecutor has been privy to the circumstances surrounding my case for a year ”“ and yet he chose to prosecute me. Obviously in the hope that he could secure a conviction given the Islamophile sentiment among our ruling classes.

My acquittal is therefore a major victory for free speech.

have no doubt that the massive support I have received from freedom fighters around the world has been instrumental in securing my acquittal.

This outcome will encourage people all over the West and beyond to speak up.

The battle for freedom is far from lost.

Courage!

Everlasting shame to the Western media who ignored this story.

Prominently featured at the IFPS page is this fine rant by Pat Condell, in which he reminds us that:

…without the right to speak your mind, all other rights are worthless. Free speech is … as intrinsic and essential a part of our identity as the Koran is for Muslims — and nobody has the right to restrict it or to modify it, regardless of who claims to be offended.

I Know It When I See It

Oh my. Here’s the Tera Patrick of fiscal conservatism, steaming up the lens again. Republicans concerned about the Presidential field will want to watch this in private.

Comic Relief

Allan Sherman, Dean Martin, and Vic Damone. A previous age of the world.

Light Fuse, Stand Well Back

A hat tip to Lawrence Auster for bringing to our attention an excellent article by Caroline Glick on the strange-bedfellow convergence of rose-bespectacled, democracy-exporting conservatives and West-loathing, Howard-Zinn-style leftists in cheering on the uprising in Egypt.

Both viewpoints, argues Ms. Glick, are animated by narcissism about the West, though of very different kinds: the democracy-evangelists imagine that the abstract values of Western liberal societies (and in particular, this one) are so universal that in any nation given sufficient exposure to them, the light of sweet Jeffersonian liberty will begin to glow as soon as the fetters of tyranny are struck off. The anti-imperialist left, on the other hand, believes that Western civilization, though utterly vile, is nevertheless the engine of all human destiny: that the oppressed peoples of the world, in their helpless and dusky multitudes, are not accountable agents, bearing any measure of responsibility for their fate, but mere objects, upon which the Western devil exerts his will, for good or ill (almost exclusively, of course, for ill).

Meanwhile, the realistic prospects for a West-friendly, secular democracy in the region fall, as an English record producer I used to work with might have put it, “somewhere between nil and fuck-all”. Ms. Glick, reminding us that “the character of the protesters is not liberal”, refers us to a recent poll:

According to a Pew opinion survey of Egyptians from June 2010, 59 percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics. When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion.

Read the whole thing here.

Next…

Now King Abdullah of Jordan, stalling for time while he makes his arrangements, has dismissed his cabinet.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, Mubarak no longer has the support of the Egyptian Army, and is presumably wrapping up the last of his official duties: emptying the vaults of the national treasury into a waiting aircraft.

Shall We Never Overcome?

Things are just so terribly unfair, so pitilessly unequal in this awful society that some days it’s all I can do not to retire to the attic with a notepad and a length of stout rope. Today’s Times brings to our attention yet another clamant injustice: egregious gender inequality at Wikipedia, where it turns out that 85% of the contributors are male.

The victims? Why, women, of course, first and foremost (and minorities too, just on principle; they have season tickets). But we all know that until the day that the genders — however many there are of them lately — are represented in every conceivable human endeavor in mathematically congruent proportion, we are all victims, and we all should burn with a righteous and retributory zeal to set things right, and to punish, or re-educate, the wicked.

There’s just one problem, though: in this case, so far at least, there doesn’t seem to be anyone to blame. Not to worry: the safe money will be on white males, or the Tea Party, as usual; it’s just a question of getting the details worked out. It’ll make a nice doctoral dissertation for someone.

Steve Sailer has the story here.

Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional

Federal judge Roger Vinson, of the Northern District of Florida. has ruled that the entire “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, a.k.a. Obamacare, is unconstitutional. I’ve only just had a quick look at the ruling, but it appears that the reasoning goes like this:

The individual mandate — the part of the law that compels individuals to purchase health insurance whether they want to or not — is, everyone agrees, absolutely necessary for Obamacare not to be a fiscal catastrophe right out of the box. Therefore, its inclusion has been justified by the bill’s supporters on the basis of the “Necessary and Proper Clause”. That’s the clause in Article I, Section 8, in which the Constitution, after enumerating the limited powers granted to Congress, grants it also the power:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In Judge Vinson’s ruling, he notes the concern that the Framers had about this clause. He quotes Hamilton, writing in Federalist 33:

These two clauses [the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause] have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution. They have been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane; and yet, strange as it may appear, after all this clamor, to those who may not have happened to contemplate them in the same light, it may be affirmed with perfect confidence, that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth, which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specific powers.

The concern here is that an unrestrained Congress can use the Necessary and Proper Clause to concatenate legislative acts so as to far exceed its enumerated powers. Vinson cites Jefferson, who wrote:

Congress are authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense; copper is necessary for ships; mines necessary for copper; a company necessary to work mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who hasever played at “This is the House that Jack Built?”

Judge Vinson also quotes Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has said from the bench that the Necessary and Proper Clause “must be controlled by some limitations lest, as Thomas Jefferson warned, congressional powers become completely unbounded by linking one power to another ad infinitum’.

Vinson suggests that to understand the proper limits we turn to Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland that:

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, whichare plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

[However,] should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the constitution; or should congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say, that such an act was not the law of the land.

In Judge Vinson’s opinion, the individual mandate oversteps this threshold. He writes:

The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be utilized to “pass laws for the accomplishment of objects’ that are not within Congress’ enumerated powers. As the previous analysis of the defendants’ Commerce Clause argument reveals, the individual mandate is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. To uphold that provision via application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would authorize Congress to reach and regulate far beyond the currently established “outer limits’ of the Commerce Clause and effectively remove all limits on federal power.

In some cases the Court would look for “severability” — meaning that in a spirit of restraint, it would attempt to declare only certain provisions of a legislative Act unconstitutional, and spare the rest. But in Judge Vinson’s opinion this is not applicable here:

The question of severability ultimately turns on the nature of the statute at issue. For example, if Congress intended a given statute to be viewed as a bundle of separate legislative enactment or a series of short laws, which for purposes of convenience and efficiency were arranged together in a single legislative scheme, it is presumed that any provision declared unconstitutional can be struck and severed without affecting the remainder of the statute. If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully-balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate. As will be seen, the facts of this case lean heavily toward a finding that the Act is properly viewed as the latter, and not the former.

So, out goes the whole lot. Sounds about right.

I’ve only just skimmed this ruling, so won’t comment further; I’m sure we’ll be hearing a great deal more about it shortly.

You can read the whole thing here.

Update: More analysis, from Daniel Foster at NRO, here — including another section I skimmed right over, about regulating inactivity under the Commerce Clause.

Next…

I’ve just been told that Pakistan has suddenly shut off electronic communications. That would not be a good sign, especially in light of this.

For confirmation, so far all I’ve found is this item, which suggests that the issue is more specific — though I’d be inclined to think that’s just smoke.

Oh, and there’s this.

Update: It does seem that the blackout is restricted to BlackBerry services for foreign diplomats and staff.

Start Worrying: Details To Follow

Over the transom comes a link to an analysis of the Egyptian situation by foreign-policy analyst Barry Rubin. Some salient excerpts:

There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt.

…There is no organized moderate group in Egypt. Even the most important past such organization, the Kifaya movement, has already been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Since 2007 its leader has been Abdel Wahhab al-Messiri, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a virulent anti-Semite.

Muhammad el-Baradei, leader of the reformist movement, says that if he were to be president he would recognize Hamas as ruler of the Gaza Strip and end all sanctions against it.

…That is not to say that there aren’t good, moderate, pro-democratic people in Egypt but they have little power, money, or organization. Indeed, Egypt is the only Arab country where many of the reformers went over to the Islamists believing””I think quite wrongly””that they could control the Islamists and dominate them once the alliance got into power.

Nothing would make me happier than to say that the United States should give full support for reform, to cheer on the insurgents without reservation. But unfortunately that is neither the most honest analysis nor the one required by U.S. interests.

In my book, The Long War for Freedom, I expressed my strong sympathy for the liberal reformers but also the many reasons why they are unlikely to win and cannot compete very well with the Islamists.

The Brotherhood’s new leader sounds quite like al-Qaeda and has called for war on both Israel and America.

…it is also being said that the Brotherhood is not so popular in Egypt. Then why did they get 20 percent of the vote in an election when they were repressed and cheated? This was not just some protest vote because voters had the option of voting for secular reformers and very few of them did.

Having said all of this, U.S. influence on these events, already rejected by Egypt’s government, is minimal. It is morally good to speak about freedom and seem to support the protestors but also quite dangerous and will not reap the gratitude of the Egyptian masses in the future. After all, aside from the likely radicalism of their leaders, a revolutionary regime would be hostile toward the United States since America would be blamed for supporting the Egyptian dictatorship for decades. President Obama will not charm them into moderation.

The Egyptian elite wants to save itself and if they have to dump Mubarak to do so””as we saw in Tunisia””the armed forces and the rest will do so. But if the regime itself falls creating a vacuum, that is going to be a very bad outcome. If I believed that something better could emerge that would be stable and greatly benefit Egyptians, I’d be for that. Yet is that really the case?

Consider this point. Egypt’s resources and capital are limited. There aren’t enough jobs or land or wealth. How would a new regime deal with these problems and mobilize popular support? One route would be to embark on a decades-long development program to make the desert green, etc. Yet with so much competition where would the money come from? How could Egypt try to gain markets already held by China, for example?

More likely is that a government would win support through demagoguery: blame America, blame the West, blame Israel, and proclaim that Islam is the answer. That’s how it has been in the Middle East in too many places. In two cases””Lebanon and the Gaza Strip””democracy (though other factors were also involved) has produced anti-democratic Islamist regimes that endorse terrorism and are allied to Iran and Syria.

Is America ready to bet that Egypt will be different? And on what evidentiary basis would that be done?

The emphasis, then, should be put on supporting the Egyptian regime generally, whatever rhetoric is made about reforms.

Read the whole thing here.

See also here.

Black Gold

Here’s something I wonder about: what is this mayhem in the Middle East going to do to the world’s economic markets? In particular, if trouble breaks out between Israel and Iran over Israel’s tightening encirclement, and the Strait of Hormuz — through which a very significant portion of the world’s seaborne oil must pass — should happen to be choked off, what will that do to oil prices?

If this does happen, it will be a bonanza for oil producers in safer places, in particular the Western Hemisphere. Of particular interest, I think, is the south American firm Petrobras, which controls one of the world’s largest deepwater oil reserves: the Tupi field off the coast of Brazil.

Just saying.

Oops

For some reason I had comments disabled on today’s Egypt post. They’re on again now, if anyone has anything to add.

Fire And Ice

Good stuff at Spaceweather.com today: video of gigantic eruptions on opposite sides of the Sun, and a startling photo of a rare atmospheric phenomenon. Go have a look.

Egypt: Going, Going…

The pot is aboil all over the Mideast and the Maghreb; today the world’s attention is focused on Egypt, where the long reign of Hosni Mubarak seems to be coming to an end. (Mubarak’s son, his heir apparent, has apparently already fled.)

The indispensable NightWatch offers a crisp analysis of why events like these can move very quickly:

Comment: In Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria long time leaders are trying to reinvent themselves or, perhaps just stall for time so they can safeguard their wealth and families.

In Critical Decisions [actually, the book is “Crucial Decisions” – MP], Irving Janis made the point that catastrophic failure means the whole leadership group must be replaced in business and in politics. There are no second chances; no do-overs. The irony is that by the time failure is recognized, it is too late for the incumbent regime to fix it, even if it has the insight and capabilities. People always want new blood.

That creates a dilemma for incumbent leaders. They all have a set of resources for handling the normal range of challenges. They also have reserves they can draw on in the event of a crisis. However, the only way a regime’s leaders can be certain a crisis is occurring is when the normal resources prove incapable of continuing the challenges, as occurred in Tunisia. This is as true for police forces in urban America as it is for security personnel in Cairo.

Recognition that a crisis is emerging, in practice, always occurs after damage has already taken place and forces have faltered. That means that leaders are almost always in a reactive mode. The police have to be overrun before the Army can be called in.

To be proactive would be to act with what appears to be unjustified and unnecessary force because the police have not failed yet. It is a dangerous time because the damage can be so great that the reserve forces of order cannot or might choose not to restore order. In Tunisia, for example, the reserves, in the form of the Army, balked and the head of government fled. Internal uprisings can get out of control with little warning, as a result.

The final point is that the usual diplomatic mantra is that the US has relations with governments and its policies are not tied to people. And yet in every Middle Eastern state, the widespread perception is that US policy is identified with individual rulers, from the Kings of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco to the strong men in Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria and Egypt. The practice works and policy support flourishes until the leaders are overthrown.

Strongman rulers cannot all of a sudden be generous democrats.

The implosion of the senescent Mubarak dictatorship will create a power vacuum in the region’s most populous (and overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim) nation. The US, seeing that Mubarak is no longer the “strong horse”, has now conspicuously withdrawn its support for him, and has made public statements asserting the “universal human rights” of the protestors now rioting in the streets, and expressing its optimism about democracy in general — despite what democracy can be expected to lead to in situations like this.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and although the newspapers have so far reported that religious groups appear not to have played much part in the uprising, anyone who has paid any attention to Egypt’s modern history will know that the principal opponent of the secular Egyptian dictatorship is, and has always been, the Muslim Brotherhood — the patient, hydra-headed global Islamist organization (its front groups include Hamas in Gaza, and CAIR in the US) that has been awaiting its chance in Egypt for decades (and which of course has never forgotten the execution of its chief political theorist, Sayyid Qutb, by Nasser in 1966).

The Muslim Brotherhood (or “Ikhwan”) differs from militant Islamist factions like al-Qaeda not in its goals, which are more or less the same, but only in its strategy: it has no moral or philosophical aversion to violent jihad, but considers it unnecessarily provocative, and therefore counterproductive. As such, it can make an ostentatious public display of distancing itself from terrorism, and so it is embraced by gullible Westerners — for whom the only imaginable threat from Islam is terrorist violence — as a “moderate” Muslim organization to be supported and embraced. This suits the Ikwhan, whose avowed strategy is to sabotage secular democratic societies from within, just fine.

The Obama administration, however, which has made “outreach” to the Muslim world a priority (even going so far as to make NASA’s “foremost” mission helping Muslims “feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering”) clearly feels the the Muslim Brotherhood is an outfit it can do business with. We should not be surprised to see — in fact we should be astonished not to see — the Ikwhan seizing the opportunity now taking shape in Cairo, for which it has worked and waited so long. We should also not be surprised to learn that they will do so with the overt or covert support of the United States: so broad is the Brotherhood’s influence in Egypt that it is almost unimaginable that they will not take the reins, and you can be sure that Foggy Bottom and the Oval Office have already made the appropriate calculations.

“Democracy” there may be, briefly, in the wake of Mubarak’s fall; but anything resembling a secular, West-friendly democracy will be short-lived indeed, if it comes to pass at all.

Sure, What The Hell, Here Ya Go

Multiple sources (here’s one) report that the government in Iraq is moving forward with a deal to buy 18 F-16 fighter jets from the US.

What’s not being mentioned (except, as far as I can tell, by the anonymous author of Nightwatch), is that given the extent of Iran’s influence on the al-Maliki government, we can be confident that any sophisticated military technology we send their way will end up being being closely examined by Iranian engineers.

Suddenly, It All Adds Up

Here’s another item from today’s Science Daily, for you math weenies out there (Derb, are you reading this?): a historic breakthrough in the theory of partitions.

Living In Grass Houses, Throwing Stones

There’s an interesting item in today’s Science Daily: a paper by University of Wyoming researcher Qin Zhu et al., suggests that the human size-weight illusion — which makes us think, if holding two objects of equal weight, that the larger one actually weighs less — is an evolved adaptation that helped us find objects of optimal size for throwing long distances. (Being able to throw well was vital to our success as hunters, so anything that helped would have been strongly selected for.)

What the article doesn’t explain is why this illusion would have helped us find objects good for throwing far. I assume it has something to do with the fact that air resistance is proportional to surface area — so of two differently sized objects with the same weight, the smaller one will have less surface area, and therefore will be less subject to drag as it flies through the air.

The article is here.

GÁ¶tterdÁ¤mmerung

In our previous post we republished the statement before his inquisitors of Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, who stands trial, in a supposedly free nation of northern Europe, for the crime of uttering a forbidden opinion in his own home.

You would think that the leading newspapers of the capital and principal cities of the world’s most influential democracy — a nation that enshrines in its founding document the freedom of the press, and the right to speak one’s mind, as its cardinal individual liberty — would have a keen interest in this startling attack, in an ancient center of European culture, on the central principle of the civilization whose blessings we share, the fundamental right that guarantees all the others.

But this morning I made a search on the websites of both the Washington Post and the New York Times for the name “Lars Hedegaard”, and found nothing.

Think about that: the president of an international organization whose purpose is to protect the freedom of the press is being muzzled in a Kafkaesque show trial in a major European city, and the Times and the Post look the other way. The reason? The nature of Hedegaard’s unforgivable crime, which was to speak out in defense of his own people against an ancient and mortal foe, and for the survival of his moribund native culture in its tiny homeland.

The blogger “Fjordman” calls these dark days by a name taken from ancient Nordic myth: RagnarÁ¶k.

Retard And Catch

By now you probably know that the high-flying New York Jets, en route to Dallas, were brought down Sunday night by a severe patch of turbulence over Pittsburgh — the result, perhaps, of an expanding pocket of hot air that had lingered in the team’s vicinity for several weeks.

In case you missed the game, I have stumbled across what is, I am sure, the most detailed and informative account you are likely to find anywhere on the Internet. It comes from something called the Temple Daily Telegram.

Some excerpts:

For the third time in six seasons, terrible Towels will whisk during the Super Bowl, where the Steelers will confront Green Bay after silencing Rex Ryan’s mad wreath in a 24-19 attainment for the AFC championship Sunday.

Look out big D, here comes another big D ”“ in black and gold, and with an unmatched story of carrying off the Lombardi Trophy.

The Steelers (14-4) in addition will defence the Packers, who have been 2?-point favorites, with a versatile dispute led by their quarterback and regulating at a behind of Rashard Mendenhall.

The defense, led by James Harrison, had a destroy relapse for a touchdown and a goal-line mountain that tighten down the Jets’ remark in the fourth quarter. it will definitely examination Aaron Rodgers in the due diversion in Arlington on Feb. 6.

Got that, Rodgers? You’d better hit the books.

The Steelers just did what they had to do:

“It’s not continually graceful with us,’ Roethlisberger said, “but we do the job.’

The Steelers accomplished the Jets’ mellow with a drawn out primary half for a 24-3 lead. Mendenhall had 95 of his 121 yards and a touchdown.

…“God is good and this one was for Steelers fans,’ Roethlisberger said. “I’m unquestionably haughty of the way we came out and inspected us tonight.’

The Steelers have been regulars, together with Super Bowl titles for the 2005 and 2008 teams, both led by Roethlisberger and a impassioned salvation sparked by playmaking haven Troy Polamalu.

Polamalu, his enlarged hair arising from under his helmet, didn’t have to do a sum lot this time. Not with the way his teammates topsy-turvy the Jets during the line of onslaught before to a enterprising new York bloat in the second half.

“We overcame a lot some-more obstacles this year than we have in the past,’ Polamalu said. “But we still got one some-more to go. ’

And too often, new York’s salvation was like a suspended dike that Roethlisberger and Mendenhall ran by with ease.

As for the hapless Jets:

The Jets struggled to retard and catch, with the usually sure-handed Cotchery origination a pass third-down drop. Or tackle. Mendenhall found seams to the left, right or up the middle. His 35-yard scuttle in the second perform led to Shaun Suisham’s 20-yard domain thought and a 10-0 lead that was unassailable the way the Jets were whiffing.

Read the whole thing (with glamorous photo of Roethlisberger) here.

Lights Going Out In Europe

The show trial of Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, took place today in Copenhagen. He stands accused, for remarks he made in a privately taped interview, of violating a Danish law that allows a prosecutor to bring criminal charges against anyone deemed to have spoken words that insult or degrade others on the basis of race, sexual identity, or religion. In this case, Hedegaard made frank remarks about the permissiveness in Islamic culture toward sexual predation, oppression, and punishment of girls and women.

As in the Geert Wilders trial, truth is no defense under the law. The prosecution need only establish that the defendant uttered words that a “victim” would find offensive.

Diana West summarizes the case here. Today Lars Hedegaard — the outcome of whose trial has already been decided, and will be revealed on Monday, January 31st — made a statement that I, and I hope every other blogger who cares about the extinction-by-assisted-suicide of European civilization, will reproduce in full.

My counsel has instructed me that in cases brought under Article 266b, the only thing that determines whether one is convicted or not is a matter of the perceived insult whereas one is barred from proving the truth of the statement.

The article deals with public statements whereby a group of people are “threatened, insulted or degraded”. But as my lawyer has already noted, I have made no public statement.

When it comes to Article 266b, there is no equality before the law. I am daily insulted and degraded by something I read or hear and I am sure that most people have the same experience.

For example, I am not only insulted and degraded and threatened, but shaken to the core of my being when I hear a well known Danish imam state that, of course, sharia law – Muslim law – will be instituted as Denmark’s official legal regime when there are a sufficient number of Muslims. I strongly urge our country’s jurists to get acquainted with the implications of the sharia, not only for Muslims but equally for non-Muslims, who – if they are lucky – will be reduced to a life as subhuman outlaws. And if one cannot be bothered with tedious dissertations, one may take a look at the legal order pertaining in areas where the sharia holds sway either de jure or de facto. One will then encounter a legal order the like of which we have not known since the passing of the Law of Jutland in 1241 and probably not before.

But the imam wants this disorder introduced in the country where I was born. And I must admit that I am troubled. I am also troubled when said imam defends the killing of Muslims who have left Islam and when he confirms that women and men guilty of fornication must be pelt with stones until they are dead. He thinks that is God’s commandment, which he cannot ignore.

Should I go to the police and tell them how threatened, insulted and degraded I feel? I wouldn’t dream of it for I support free speech. And if free speech has any real meaning, it must also – and in particular – protect statements people do not want to hear. Regardless of how revolting such statements may be.

Besides it would be futile to report the imam and those similarly disposed to the police for the public prosecutor would never indict them. Otherwise it would have happened long ago.

As jurisprudence shows, not only in Denmark but in all European countries with similar insult articles in their penal code, these insult articles open the gates to inequality before the law. There are the insulted who enjoy the tender graces of the public prosecutor, and there are the less favoured who must endure insults directed at them.

But perhaps this is to do with the notion that one must not insult minorities whereas minorities are free to insult majorities? If that is the explanation of why I am in court today, it is a peculiar one. In 2002, the imam I have already mentioned explained to his flock that all Muslims in the world – 1,6 billion or whatever the number is – constitute one people, one umma. The same thing is emphasised by the Islamic Conference Organisation, OIC, encompassing 57 member countries. In other words, the five million non-Muslim Danes are a microscopic minority but nevertheless a minority whose members stand to be punished if they make statements on cultural norms in the umma.

What does the public prosecutor hope to accomplish by my conviction? He may drag me in front of a court. He may portray me as a racist, a right-wing extremist and a non-human. He may do the same to hundreds and thousands of others who insist on their right of free speech to describe Islam and Muslim culture just like we would deal with any other phenomenon in a free society.

But what will he have gained? Does the public prosecutor believe that people will start talking about Islam and Muslim culture with greater respect and reverence? Perhaps in public because people fear fines and jail. But what will people say to each other when they think that the thought police are not listening?

And what does the public prosecutor imagine people will think of a religion, a political ideology and a culture that need the protection of legislators, police, the public prosecutor and the courts because they cannot defend themselves in a free and open debate?

In 1644, when the English parliament considered the institution of religious censorship, that Christian defender of free speech John Milton wrote: “There is yet behind of what I purpos’d to lay open, the incredible losse, and detriment that this plot of licencing puts us to, more then if som enemy at sea should stop up all our hav’ns and ports, and creeks, it hinders and retards the importation of our richest Marchandize, Truth.”

And further:

“There be who perpetually complain of schisms and sects, and make it such a calamity that any man dissents from their maxims. ‘Tis their own pride and ignorance which causes the disturbing, who neither will hear with meeknes, nor can convince, yet all must be suppresst which is not found in their Syntagma.”

Milton concluded with this exhortation:

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”

In conclusion permit me to mention the true victims in this case. The public prosecutor has not considered the 20,000 women in the Muslim world who every year fall victim to so-called honour killings, or the 50,000 Muslim girls in Germany who the federal police consider threatened with genital mutilation, nor the hundreds of thousands of little girls in Muslim majority societies who have been sold into marriage with much older men and who must therefore live a life of constant rape, while Islamic scholars preach that this is in complete accordance with religious orthodoxy.

I hope that the judge as opposed to the public prosecutor will consider the fate of these unfortunate human beings. Likewise I hope that the judge will realise the absurdity of prosecuting me for statements made within the confines of my own four walls. For ten months the prosecutor has been aware of the conditions under which I spoke. That has not affected him in the slightest. I hope it will affect the judge.

Update: further remarks and comments here.

Like A Hell-Broth Boil And Bubble

In the wake of events in Tunisia, things are heating up all over the Mideast and the Maghreb. In particular, events are coming to a head in Lebanon and Yemen.

From the indispensable Nightwatch:

Yemen: Ripple Effects from Tunisia. On Saturday, thousands of Yemenis demonstrated to demand an end to President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s 32-year tenure as President. The demonstration was confined to the University of Sanaa grounds, but nearly 2,500 students, activists and opposition groups gathered and chanted slogans against the president, comparing him to Tunisia’s ousted President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Protests were also held in Aden. Police fired on demonstrators, injuring four, and detained 22 others in heavy clashes.

An Islamist lawmaker and head of the teachers’ union stated, “there will be an escalation.”

Also on Saturday, President Saleh replaced Trade and Industrial Minister Yahya al-Mutawakil with Deputy Minister of Planning and International Ministry Hisham Sharaf Abdullah after protesters demanded the government curb increasing commodity and fuel prices. Demonstrations continued for seven days prior to the cabinet shift, which will not satisfy the demonstrators.

On 23 January, President Saleh announced that Yemeni security forces will receive a pay raise of 5,000 rials ($25) per month and will receive health insurance. During a speech at an annual armed forces conference, Saleh said that the qualitative construction process has been on an advanced level during the past few years and that security forces are targeted by terrorist elements, especially al Qaida. Saleh told the security forces that they should be protected and that personnel should be provided with modern equipment. The military institution is not aspiring for illegal ambitions through chaos, Saleh said, adding that Yemen should deliberate power peacefully and not by chaos like Tunisia.

Comment: Unlike Tunisia, Yemen has a vicious, active Islamic opposition force that has the capability to take power from Saleh and his security forces in the form of al Qaida. A pro-Islamist government in largely illiterate and backward Yemen would be a major setback for US policy. The US might have to fight in Yemen to protect Afghanistan and friendly entities in eastern Africa.

As in Tunisia, the main threat to the government is a fracture in the ruling elite that leads to another palace coup by a faction that is pro-al Qaida. That threat explains the pay raise for the security forces, to prevent their defection as occurred in Tunisia.

Lebanon: Lebanese Army commander General Jean Kahwaji said on 23 January that the armed forces will deal severely with anyone working to agitate the internal political situation. The army would not hesitate to strike at anyone being aggressive towards citizens, he stated during an inspection tour of the special forces training facility in Roumieh. Transgressing people’s security and property shall not be tolerated, he said.

Comment: Last week the army began to deploy to key points in the country to deter and prepare for internal political violence after the prosecutor delivered indictments to the investigating magistrate of the Special Tribunal.

The Lebanese army is supposed to be politically neutral but its leadership is pro-western, pro-Hariri primarily and most of the officer corps is pro-Christian. As the national military force it has the duty to deploy so as to maintain internal order, but deployment also is a political act on behalf of the government and its backers and a necessity to keep up with the dispersal of fighting groups from Hezbollah and other factions that began weeks ago.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah made his second key speech in less than a week today, 23 January. Nasrallah said Hezbollah would lead a national unity government. President Michel Suleiman has called parliamentarians for consultations Monday. Hezbollah announced it will be ready.

Comment: Nasrallah’s statement indicates Hezbollah expects to dominate the next government. This is based on a switch in allegiance by the Druze, last week. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, whose faction formerly backed prime minister Sa’ad Hariri, said Friday he will back Hezbollah. News sources reported Jumblatt made the switch reluctantly and under significant pressure.

The Druze switch in allegiance should give Hezbollah and its allies a majority in parliament and the ability to more or less dictate the next prime minister. In Lebanon’s power-sharing political arrangement, the prime minister must be a Sunni, the president a Christian Maronite and the speaker of parliament a Shi’ite.

A strong Hezbollah-led coalition pretty much negates the attempt to legislate factional balance in the leadership position. There are many Sunni politicians who are hostile to the US and Hariri and whom Hezbollah will find acceptable.

Warning: Hezbollah will likely control the next government in Lebanon. The durability of its coalition is questionable, but it will receive strong backing from Iran and from Syria. It also is not clear whether Hezbollah will be more Lebanese nationalist than pan-Shiite in its policies.

What is clear is that a Hezbollah-controlled government will repudiate the Special Tribunal and halt Lebanese funding and hospitality. It also will be much more hostile to Israel because it will legitimate Hezbollah fighters are defenders of Lebanon. It will be able to restrain the Lebanese Army probably by increasing the proportion of Shiites at all ranks. It might even try to divert US-supplied equipment to Hezbollah.

A Hezbollah government will represent a significant setback to US foreign policy which has steadfastly backed the Special Tribunal, a six year policy that has now backfired, it appears. US access will decline. Western investment is likely to decline until the new government proves itself credit-worthy.

Hezbollah might move slowly in taking control in Beirut to try to reduce the immediately polarizing effects of a new government. Nevertheless, it is likely to look to Syria and Iran for guidance and support. A Hezbollah-controlled government must be treated as an Iranian breakout.

Israel must prepare defenses for a potential condition of encirclement, not just as in a generalized strategic sense, but in the sense of a much more immediate operational and tactical threat.

Political alliances are temporary in Lebanon, so the alignments might change. Barring that change, the environment around Israel will be much tenser and probably more violent.

Lebanon-US: For the record. The US announced it will consider suspending US aid to Lebanon in the event Hezbollah controls the government.

Readers wishing to follow events in Yemen should check in frequently at Waq al-Waq (a preferred source, for obvious reasons).

To track the Israeli mood from a strategic and tactical perspective as tensions increase and the encirclement progresses, we recommend DEBKA.

And as always: if you want focused, daily briefings on the global security situation, you should be reading Nightwatch.

He Found His Thrill On Triangle Hill

At last week’s state dinner for Hu Jintao, the pianist Lang Lang, who has a regular gig at the White House these days, provided some entertainment for the guest of honor.

What did he play? Learn more here.

…And Rest.

We note with sadness the passing of TV fitness coach Jack LaLanne, who has died at his California home at the age of 96. It’s a bit of a jolt to realize the man was mortal.

Mr. LaLanne taught generations of Americans the value of exercise; my mother and I used to follow along with his TV workouts when I was a little boy, long long ago. He also performed fantastic feats of strength and endurance, including doing 1,033 pushups in 23 minutes on live TV, and swimming from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman’s Wharf, towing a 1000-pound boat, handcuffed and shackled, at age 62.

Take a moment to visit his website, here.

Trouble Ahead, Trouble Behind

From Foreign Policy, by way of the indefatigable JK.