Paul's Blog of Wisdom

It's the blogosphere's Stand Up For Denmark day, during which those who support the right of freedom of speech blog about Christopher Hitchins' call for a demonstration at the Embassy of Denmark in Washington, D.C. So, here's my little part to stand up for freedom of speech.

I want to expand on the post directly below this one by telling a little story about my trip to Moldova. While I was in Moldova, every single meal we had, I was given wine, whether I wanted it or not, and I was expected to drink it, whether I wanted it or not. I would usually act like I was drinking it and either leave it there, hoping no one would notice that I hadn't drunk it, or slide it over to my wife for her to drink it. Then, if the hosts noticed that my cup was not empty, they would generally ask me about it, pressure me to drink it and watch as I drank it. If they noticed that my cup was empty, they would refill it, then pressure me to drink even more. You see, in their culture, if someone makes a toast and you don't drink, that means that you wish bad things upon their whole family. Well, they were toasting a good 20 times per meal, every meal! So, they were expecting me to take 20 drinks of a drink that I hate and that would get me drunk against my will every single meal! This might be nice to some people who like to drink a lot, but this was absolutely awful to me. It was pure hell. I only drink maybe once per week when I'm home. Plus, I don't like wine. Since I don't speak their language, my wife would tell them over and over that I didn't want wine, but it didn't matter. I was generally able to hide it by dumping it out into the sink when they weren't looking or by sliding it to my wife, but what bothered me the most was that they were practically forcing it down my throat completely against my will.

Now, what does this have to do with our PC culture, you ask? Here's what. When I got back home, I told people about this and a common response from Americans was, "Well, that's their culture and you have to respect it." What?! Our PC culture has gotten so screwed up that Westerners don't even demand of others what we demand of ourselves. Why don't they demand that Moldovans respect me and my culture? Of course it's my fault that there was a problem here. Of course it's the American's fault. That's how we think. Okay, so these Americans who were preaching respect of other people's cultures were disagreeing with me, not with them? That makes no sense at all. The Moldovans were the ones who weren't respecting other people's cultures, not me. If they want to drink wine at every meal, I personally think that's disgusting, but I don't care. I never told them what to drink. I wasn't the one forcing them to do anything against their will. They were the ones forcing me. Why don't the PC Americans get mad at the Moldovans for not respecting my culture? The Moldovans were the ones who were expecting everyone to be exactly the same and to eat and drink the exact same thing, whether they wanted to or not. Yet, it was my fault and we're always the ones who need to submit to the other's way of doing things and accept the way the other does things because "Who are we to judge?" This culture that has pervaded the West for the last 35-40 years has actually become dangerous from a national security perspective. As the Weekly Standard and I stated in the post below, this submission to the other's way of doing things has led just about every single media outlet in the Western world to censor itself voluntarily! If they will just voluntarily give up one of our most cherished rights in order to satisfy their PC desire to be sensitive to the "other," what other rights will we voluntarily give up?

As another side note, when I would try to explain this to the PC people, they would just shrug their shoulders and say, "That's their culture and you should respect it" again, because thought and logic don't matter. Only sustaining this intellectually and morally bankrupt mindset that has been pounded into our collective brains over the last few decades matters. Well, you know what? No, I don't have to respect Moldovan culture and no I don't respect Moldovan culture. Their culture is everything we hate. Their culture is racist, corrupt, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and xenophobic in pretty much every way. If an American acted the way that Moldovan culture as a whole is, these PC people would denounce that person into the ground, and rightly so. Yet, "that's their culture and I should respect it." Ugh. The American is always wrong. I fear for our culture.

Right after I wrote this post about liberals getting so incredibly mad about the Bush administration's policies on security vs. civil liberties, then voluntarily censoring themselves over the Mohammed cartoons, the Weekly Standard has written a somewhat similar article about people in the media who have fought so hard in the past to uphold free speech rights and who are now voluntarily imperiling free speech by censoring themselves.

"IN THE PAST, our most powerful news outlets spent millions on legal fees and saw reporters imprisoned on contempt charges in order to defend the publication of news that the government argued would compromise national security--the Pentagon Papers, for example. In the recent past they have printed stories that inarguably do compromise national security, such as the recent revelations about electronic eavesdropping and CIA-run rendition programs for suspected Al Qaeda terrorists."

"But when Muslims around the world rioted, torched embassies, killed dozens, and threatened others with fatwas in response to a Danish newspaper's cartoons of Mohammed, nearly all of our major press outlets refused to run the offending cartoons under the guise of 'respect' for the 'Prophet Mohammed'--whose honorific is now suddenly capitalized sans scare quotes. (Christians will have to burn down a few buildings if they want Jesus Christ referred to as the Son of God.) The New York Times, for one, was less bothered by the violence than by the cartoonists' exercise in free speech which provoked it, and to prove it the paper bravely re-ran a photo of the painting of the Virgin Mary slathered in elephant dung."

"Any parent knows that giving your child everything he wants is a guarantee that he'll never stop demanding more--and reacting more angrily when he doesn't get it. Now that blowing up and beheading innocents in the name of Islam is considered less offensive than some pen-and-ink drawings, militant Islamists can pretty much take their pick of insults to be offended by--and our press will have to again respect their "sensibilities" in order to keep them from burning down the presses. So what will offend them next time? Pornography? Caricatures of bin Laden? Reports on female circumcision in Islamic Africa? Will & Grace?"

This appears to be a battle in the West between 2 of our society's strongest values. The first is free speech and the second is the value of not offending the "other." Since the civil rights movement, one of the strongest compulsions in the West has been to make sure that we don't offend the "other," the "downtrodden" or the "minority." We have such a strong collective sense of guilt that we have pounded it into ourselves that we have to be "sensitive" and "understanding of their culture" and things of that nature. We can't ever offend anyone. This is the ultimate PC value. That's why many schools got rid of Christmas break and replaced it with Winter break. We don't want to offend the 5% (I got this number from a poll) of Americans who don't celebrate Christmas. That's why some people pushed to make children's sports not have a winner and a loser. We don't want the losers to be offended. Remember that? We have to build up their self esteem by telling them over and over and over that we value them and that everyone is valued equally. We certainly can't ever "judge" them. "Judging" someone is a big no-no in this PC world. There's certainly no right or wrong. If we disagree with someone we're obviously the ones who need to change and accept their way of life. We, the evil Westerners, especially the white Christian ones, are always the ones who are wrong. Who are we to judge when we're so obviously such a horrible, racist, sexist society that had slavery 150 years ago and that did horrible things to the Native Americans hundreds of years ago? If the "other" attacks us, clearly it's our fault because we simply weren't "sensitive" enough. After all, we supported some dictator they didn't like 50 years ago. It's enough to make me retch. Being "offensive" has become one of the worst things a Westerner could possibly be. So, which value will win out, free speech or sensitivity to the other? Unfortunately, I'm not all that confident about the outcome.

"Far from creating an individualistic and self-centered generation that shuns social interaction or community involvement, as many parents and teachers fear, chat rooms and message boards are fostering a new public spirit among young people and helping them to develop their personalities and make friends, scientists say.

"Regular users of teen chat rooms tend to be more engaged with their communities than the rest of their age group, and their online identities play an important role in the self-discovery of adolescence, researchers said."

Maybe all that net surfing is good, after all.

The next time you hear a global-warming alarmist talking about the coming catastrophe from global warming, just remember previous "coming catastrophes" like the population explosion, which turned out to be a dud, scarcity of natural resources from oil to nickel to iron and global cooling, which was a big worry in the 1970s. Now, also remember that the fact that these alarmists have been wrong time and time again doesn't in and of itself mean that they're wrong about global warming. It just means to be a little skeptical of their claims.

With everyone and their mother lining up to denounce the deal handing over management duties for for handling a few of our ports to a United Arab Emirates (UAE) company, I found this Wall Street Journal editorial interesting and informative, if only to hear the other side.

"So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security."

"Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port 'security' to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials."

"Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair."

"So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for 'hearts and minds' now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera."

I want to elaborate on the part about the UAE being our ally in the war on terror. I suspect that the UAE might even be more diligent about scrutinizing things than a British company would be because the UAE would be under the strictest of public scrutiny. The UAE is already definitely on al Qaeda's hit list. If a terrorist attack came through one of these ports, then they would be on al Qaeda's and America's hit list. To say the least, I'm sure they want to avoid that. Though, like it says, this company *would not* be providing security. As of now, I see no reason that this deal should not go through. If people would just simmer down and look at this calmly and rationally, I think they would see that it's probably not that big of a deal. Now, I'm glad that there are going to be public hearings on it. By all means, go through every layer of accountability we have. If something bad comes up during these hearings, stop the deal. That's all well and good, but this really doesn't seem like the huge deal that it's being made out to be.

I will wait for more information on the deal turning over port management to that company from the United Arab Emirates before I make my final judgement about it, but here are some early thoughts I have. The United Arab Emirates is arguably our closest Muslim ally in the war on terror. They have allowed us to base planes there for use in Iraq. They have also apparently been very helpful in terms of intelligence. The company would take over management of the ports, not security, which is totally separate. For these reasons, the deal doesn't bother me that much at this point. However, considering that even the President didn't know about it until a few days ago, that certainly seems to show that this decision was not taken as seriously as it should have been. If nothing else, I'm wary of it because of that.

I certainly find the hyperventilating about the deal interesting, though, especially from the left. Democrats have been fuming for years now that the way to win the war on terror was to "win hearts and minds" and to "build bridges" to Muslims and things of that nature. Now, all of a sudden, they want to stick their thumb in the eye of what is arguably our strongest Arab ally in the war on terror? That would be a major coup for the terrorists. If we don't allow this deal to go through, I can all but guarantee you that bin Laden's or Zawahiri's next tape will say "Look, the United Arab Emirates has bowed down to the imperialist crusader America's demands and what do they get? America still won't allow one of the UAE's companies to work at their ports because of America's Islamophobia." I've never been a big fan of the argument that we should base our policies on what makes people like us in the short term, so I think this argument is far less important than the national security implications of the deal, but I do find it very interesting that Democrats all seem to be totally in favor of the "racial profiling" that they've been denouncing for years. I think the deal should go through unless there is a very real risk to our national security that will come about because of it.

I'm sure there are people who would think I'm crazy for making such a big deal about the threat from Islamic terrorism. To counter this, I'll give you some food for thought. The Mohammed cartoons were made after a children's book about Islam was being written in Denmark and not a single illustrator in the country would illustrate it out of fear of extremists attacking them for depicting Mohammed. This book wasn't even intended to be negative. It was just a book about Islam from what I understand, yet illustrators were still too scared to do it. Seeing this, an editor of the paper was worried about the West self-censoring, so it asked if there was anyone left who would stand up for free speech by sending in cartoons about Islam. Now, with the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh no doubt firmly in mind, the author of the most famous Mohammed cartoon is in hiding for his life because of all of the threats he got to his life. So, here's the food for thought. I didn't live through most of the Cold War, but I don't recall ever hearing about the West voluntarily censoring itself over criticism of the Soviet Union out of fear. I don't remember ever hearing about cartoonists living in hiding out of fear of the commies.

Look at this:

"On Monday Swedish Internet provider Spray shutdown the website of feminist publisher Alida for publishing those sinister Mohammad pictures. As a private company, this is, of course, their right (they claim that Säpo was in no way involved), but one cannot help thinking that such actions bode ill for the already stifled debate climate in Sweden."

That's right. Let's just keep voluntarily giving away our rights to a few psychos. This is downright scary to me.

This is good news:

"Sweden is sending some 400 troops to Afghanistan, to form the core of a PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team)."

This, in addition to other troop increases for Afghanistan, seems to signal an increasing realization by countries around the world, especially in Europe, that the war on terror is something that they have a stake in, too. As I wrote recently, Europe seems to be increasingly joining the war on terror and I welcome them aboard with open arms.

Europeans and liberals for years have screamed at the Bush administration to be more "multilateral" and to stop being so "imperialistic." Well, the administration seems to have been doing exactly that lately. After a Dutch filmmaker was killed for filming the plight of many Islamic women, Britain was bombed, France had major riots and Europe has been the major target of violent protests throughout several Muslim countries, we have been letting the Europeans take the lead in trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and we've largely stayed quiet about the Mohammed cartoon controversy, allowing Europe to get most of the ire. What did this get us? We now have a major threat of the State Department's #1 sponsor of terrorism, whose President has pledged to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them throughout the Middle East and possibly into Europe, thus producing a major threat to Europe and a major embarrassment to them politically. We also have an awful lot of violence from the Islamic crazies now being directed at European countries, particularly Denmark, instead of just at the U.S. Well, this is what the Europeans asked for. All I can say to them now is "Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it."

The typical liberal reaction to the Bush administration's policies regarding civil liberties vs. security is one of vitriolic denunciation. Ask a liberal about the Patriot Act or the wiretapping controversy and they'll start foaming at the mouth as if the world is going to end. Remember that these are policies enacted by an elected President who is Constitutionally barred from seeking more than 2 terms and who is subject to democratic checks and balances. The Patriot Act, for instance, is about to come up for a renewal vote in the Senate, while top leaders of Congress knew about the wiretapping. On the other hand, one common liberal reaction to the Mohammed cartoon controversy is to denounce the cartoon writers and to self-censor by refusing to print the cartoons. They say that we shouldn't "provoke" Muslims by showing the cartoons and that these cartoons "didn't do any good." I find it rather shocking that so many liberals get so stark-raving crazy in response to what are very small restrictions on our civil liberties enacted during a time of war by a democratically elected government and that can thus be changed by a future democratically elected government, yet they seem perfectly fine just voluntarily giving away one of our most cherished rights, that of freedom of speech, in response to a few psychos. This is not all liberals, of course, but it seems to me that these have been the "typical" liberal reactions.

Check out this post at Little Green Footballs about a top woman tennis player who won't play on a doubles team with an Israeli player and the Danish soccer team not going to Israel to play soccer out of fear of extremist Muslims.

It should be obvious to everyone in the world by now that extremist Islam is a cancer that can't be lived with and that must be destroyed. There is no appeasing it. We can't apologize for a few cartoons and have the threat suddenly disappear. We can't avoid "provoking" it and hope it'll leave us alone. We have to stand up to it. Extremist Islam is attempting nothing short of taking over the entire world and by doing things like not playing soccer in Israel, we're taking small steps towards that end.

Since the hippie generation ruined the West virtually beyond repair in the 1960s, Westerners have had an idea that any problem in the world can be solved simply by being nicer. If someone dislikes us, we just need to be nicer. Unfortunately, that only works when the people you're dealing with want to live peacefully side by side with you singing koombayah in perfect harmony like you do with them. Muslim fanatics, however, don't want to live peacefully side by side with us. They want to convert us to Wahhabi Islam and dominate us or kill us. In this war against extremist Islam, it's quite literally either destroy or be destroyed. This is an all out world war on every front. This war involves military means in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It involves political elements in places like the U.N. and the E.U. where Islamic countries and organizations are trying to change international and European law to make it illegal to "demean religion," thus trying to override all of our free speech rights in one fell swoop when it comes to Islam. This war also involves cultural elements in their attempts to test our resolve to fight for our values. Extremist Muslims say that the West is morally weak and that we simply won't stand up and fight for our values. These extremists are testing that theory right now over these cartoons and anywhere else they find a chance, from free speech to sports. They think that all they have to do is make a few threats and maybe go out and kill a few people and the entire West will just capitulate because we are simply too weak to stand up for our values. I would like to dismiss this characterization of the West out of hand, but I'm not so sure that these extremist Muslims are wrong on this point. Hopefully, the civilized world will prove my pessimism wrong.

This is a moment of truth for the civilized world. We must stand up to extremist Islam anywhere and everywhere it rears its disgusting, evil head, whether it's in Iraq killing people signing up to be police officers, in Afghanistan killing aid workers, in Denmark threatening soccer players, in Pakistan burning KFCs because of a freaking cartoon or anywhere else it exists. We must fight and we must win.

This is obviously from a biased source, but it's worth looking at anyway, just to get the other side:

"As tallied up at JunkScience.com courtesy of the global warmers’ own data, Kyoto is estimated to have cost about $150 billion so far, while only hypothetically reducing the average global temperature by 0.0015 degrees Centigrade.

At that rate, it would take 667 years and cost $100 trillion to hypothetically avert just 1 degree Centigrade of global warming."

I have to state that I have not examined their estimates nor would it probably do much good since I'm not much of a scientist, so I don't know the accuracy of these charges. With that said, however, if these numbers are all true, I don't know of too many people who would agree to pay those enormously high costs for that tiny benefit.

It's pretty common to hear about glaciers receding in the latest global warming alarmism report, but why do we almost never hear about other glaciers that are growing?

"Some glaciers are receding, but others...are advancing. No one knows what causes glaciers to advance and retreat – the physics are complex and much more is involved than simply air temperature."

This type of thing just makes me angry. It's like scientists and journalists are either incapable of telling or unwilling to tell us the whole story and allow us to make up our own minds. It does appear that the Earth is warming up and that it is at least partially because of human activity, but when I see things like this, I just don't know what to believe anymore.

Apparently, Congress hasn't officially declared war since World War II. Here's why:

"Seems that after World War II, Congress wrote into law a lot of the wartime measures used during World War II. These included price controls, censorship and greater police powers. This was done with the possibility of nuclear war in mind, where there would be massive damage done to the U.S. in a short period of time. To deal with this, a lot of these regulations would kick in the minute Congress votes to declare war. No one wants to be the first to suggest repealing these laws and regulations, and no one wants to see them go into action. So whenever anyone in Congress starts talking about declaring war, they are pulled aside by some senior staffers and filled in on the consequences.

"Of course, the war on terror is more complicated because there is no country to declare war on. That, of course, could be easily gotten around, by crafting a declaration that names an institution (al Qaeda, et al). But it's so much easier just to pass a resolution of support for the president, and let the chief take a beating if it all goes to hell. Congress can always say, 'we didn't declare war,' without getting into the real reason why not."

"France's foreign minister said Thursday that Iran's nuclear program was a cover for clandestine military activity, in an unusually direct attack on Tehran for a European diplomat."

"'No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program,' Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television."

Wow, that's some tough talk from a French diplomat. Let's just hope that they follow this tough talk with some tough action.

You'll often hear radical lefties say things like "The CIA trained bin Laden in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is a CIA creation and 9/11 is, therefore, somewhat our own fault." First of all, we had 3 choices in Afghanistan in the 1980s: do nothing and allow the Soviet Union to take over Afghanistan, go to war with the Soviet Union or give money and help to the "mujahideen." The first 2 options weren't realistic. Helping the "mujahideen" was probably the only realistic option. Secondly, are these people implying that the CIA trained bin Laden and others how to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into buildings? Thirdly, "The real story is that the CIA did not know about Bin Laden until 1995. Often people say that Bin Laden was a CIA creation, but there's never been any evidence." That's from terrorism expert Peter Bergen.

I kind of wish I were in Europe now so that I could see how they like suddenly being the center of the war on terror. It's obvious that Europeans' attitudes to the war on terror have changed dramatically in the last 6 months to a year. With the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh being killed by an Islamic extremist for making a movie about the conditions of Islamic women, the bombings in London, the recalcitrance of Iran over its nuclear program in the face of European negotiation attempts and now the cartoon controversy, Europeans suddenly feel like they're every bit as much under attack as we are. Do you know what? They are every bit as much under attack as we are. In fact, they have been for a long time. They just haven't realized it until recently. To this, I say "Welcome aboard the war on terror, Europe. It's good to have you finally."

The whole controversy over the Mohammed cartoons appears to be yet another effort by radical Muslims to take over their religion. It certainly seems to me as if they've won. The radicals have absolutely become the public face of Islam, with so-called moderate Muslims virtually nowhere to be seen. Do the moderates not care? Do they not realize what's going on? Maybe they actually agree with the radicals. If the moderates continue to sit there silently, it won't be too long before they realize that they have no power left. This cartoon controversy is, therefore, perhaps an even bigger threat to moderate Islam than it is to the West. I ask again, do they not care? Can anyone say that it's not a threat to us if radical Islam totally takes over Islam, with Islam's roughly 1.5 billion adherents?

This is ridiculous:

"The state pharmacy board ordered Wal-Mart on Tuesday to stock emergency contraception pills at its stores in Massachusetts, becoming the second state to require the world's largest retailer to carry the morning-after pill."

I'm not going to get into the politics of abortion because abortion simply is not a big issue for me either way. The reason I think this is ridiculous is because it's not the government's job to be telling companies what they put on their shelves. Do we really want the government micromanaging stores' operations like this? Do we really want the government telling Target that it must dedicate 2% of its floorspace to Schwinn bicycles or telling Albertson's that it has to put Crest toothpaste on a shelf above Colgate? Why don't we just have the government start telling stores what they can charge for all their products? Boy, that worked great in the Soviet Union, didn't it? If there is a market for the morning-after pill and Wal-Mart thinks that it can increase its profit by selling it, then they will sell it. It's that simple. It's called a market economy. If the government of Massachusetts really thinks that the morning-after pill is a public good that must be made available to anyone and everyone, then the government should provide it to people publicly, not order Wal-Mart to stock it. I personally think that would be a ridiculous thing to say, but if that's what the government of Massachusetts thinks, then that is what they should do. No matter what you think of the morals of the morning-after pill, this type of government micromanaging of private enterprise is extremely misguided.

I am making a call to anyone who has seen cartoons in Islamic media that impugn Christianity and/or Judaism to send those cartoons to me so that I can print them here to show the hypocrisy of so many Muslim societies.

"The great wealth and leisure created by modern technology have confused some in the modern age into thinking that history is linear. We expect that each generation will inevitably improve upon the last."

Victor Hanson always seems to think the same way I do. I have marveled at people's apparent total lack of concern over the danger posed by Islamic extremism to Western society. So many people lackadaisically say that we should just pull out of Iraq and let Iraqis take care of it themselves or just brush aside news from Iraq or from the War on Terror as if it doesn't matter or as if it doesn't affect them at all. You'll hear people ask why we're spending this much money and effort trying to fight a bunch of lunatics in a cave halfway around the world, as if we can just forget about them and go about our happy lives unaffected by them at all. I couldn't disagree more. I think that Islamic extremism is a major threat to our society's very existence. It's more than fathomable that we would pull out of Iraq prematurely and that al Qaeda would, through sheer brutality, take over control of Iraq, or at least part of the country. If they did that, they would instantly round up all the weapons scientists remaining in that country and start making WMDs full-bore. With these weapons, they would surely attack Israel, the U.S. and whoever the hell else they felt like. Can you really say that living in a world in which al Qaeda controlled a country with WMDs is no threat to us?

"...once one starts down the road of self-censorship, there is never an end to it."

"Insidiously, the censorship only accelerates. It is dressed up in multicultural gobbledygook about hurtfulness and insensitivity, when the real issue is whether we in the West are going to be blown up or beheaded if we dare come out and support the right of an artist or newspaper to be occasionally crass."

There are millions of people in the West condemning a few silly cartoons about Islam and the prophet Mohammed. There are millions of people in the West saying things like "I support free speech, but..." There are millions of people in the West who would simply stop printing or saying anything that "provokes" or "offends" "Muslim sensibilities," all in the hope that they would no longer have to see angry, violent Muslims on their TV screens. Virtually every single mainstream media outlet in the West has simply censored itself by refusing to show the Mohammed cartoons. All these actions are undertaken by Westerners who seem to think that they can do this one thing to make those angry Muslims stop being angry and then continue on with their happy, ever-improving lives. They are wrong. Once you start censoring yourself in response to crazed loons, you'll never stop. If we show the rioters and the people making the death threats that we'll give them whatever they want in response to violence, that will simply encourage them to carry out their violence again in the future.

"Like the appeasement of the 1930s, we are in the great age now of ethical retrenchment. So much has been lost even since 1960; then the very idea that a Dutch cartoonist whose work had offended radical Muslims would be in hiding for fear of his life would have been dismissed as fanciful."

"If we give in to these 8th-century clerics, shortly we will be living in an 8th century ourselves, where we may say, hear, and do nothing that might offend a fundamentalist Muslim — and, to assuage our treachery to freedom and liberalism, we'll always be equipped with the new rationale of multiculturalism and cultural equivalence which so poorly cloaks our abject fear."

People thought Hitler wasn't much of a threat back then just like many people think that Islamic extremists aren't much of a threat now. I am of the opinion that this cartoon issue is the single most important issue in the world right now. In this case, it is quite simply us vs. them. Will our ideal of freedom of speech and freedom of the press win out or will the Islamic extremists' ideal of getting your way through any means possible win out? Will anyone in the American media stand up for their ideals and publish these cartoons to show that they're not sacrificing their ideals out of fear? I feel that I've done my small part by linking to the cartoons. Go here to see my post which links to the cartoons.

I leave you with one last quote, this time by Thomas Jefferson:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Will we in the West be vigilant in our defense of freedom or will we cave in?

I think there's an angle to be discussed about the whole Mohammed cartoon controversy that I haven't heard anyone discuss. This controversy appears to be yet another blow to the mainstream media (MSM) in favor of "alternative" media like the blogs. The MSM's self-censorship against showing the Mohammed cartoons has certainly driven many, many people to go online in search of the cartoons. When these people go online, they'll find blog after blog showing the cartoons, including mine. Unless the mainstream media reverse course right away, they will look back at this whole episode as yet another embarrassing example of people's loss of confidence in the MSM. They're sending the message loud and clear that if people want the full story they should just ignore the newspapers and TV networks and head right on over to the Internet. Mainstream outlets censor themselves at their own peril.

"A Swedish Internet provider has shut down the website of an extreme right fringe party after authorities voiced concerns over a Prophet Mohammed drawing contest posted on the site."

There seems to be some dispute about whether the government told the Internet provider to shut down the site or not. Regardless, by shutting down the site, this is yet another victory for the extremists over our most deeply-held values. You see, the foreign minister:

"said the foreign ministry and the security police simply informed the company of possible ramifications for Swedes abroad."

In other words, we will compromise our society's deepest values because of what the terrorists might do. In yet other words, the terrorists control our policies and our country and we will do whatever they tell us to do because we're scared of them. Oh, and what was the horrible, disgusting cartoon that would have caused such harm to Swedes? Go see for yourself. The caption reportedly reads "Danish Mohammed self-censorship." I feel like I'm sitting and watching Islamic extremists slowly take over Western society right in front of my eyes. Let's just bow down to anything that they want in order to avoid "ramifications." Disgraceful.

"Low-fat diets didn’t reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer or invasive breast cancer, according to three large studies published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association."

"As the researchers put it, 'Over [an average] of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intake of vegetables, fruits and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke or cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on cardiovascular risk factors…'"

Now, I don't know if the results would have been different for people other than postmenopausal women for some reason, but this is certainly interesting. If this is really true, it would pretty much destroy one of the most deeply ingrained beliefs that we've been fed for decades.

The Democrats seem to have a new strategy on the wiretapping issue, and I think it's a good one, both from a national security standpoint and from a political standpoint. They seem to be saying that they will work with Republicans to write new legislation giving the President and the NSA more ability to wiretap international calls. I think that's good from a national security standpoint, as I think they should have more ability to do this than is explicitly mentioned in FISA. However, this is also good from a political standpoint, because the Democrats will subsequently say "Look, we're offering to write new legislation *strengthening* the President's power in the war on terror. We're strong on national security." If the Republicans resist this, then the Democrats will be able to portray themselves as being strong on national security while staying within the law, as opposed to those Republicans who are just shredding our laws to spy on people. That's how the Democrats hope to portray it, at least. I think it's smart.

Here is a link to the 12 cartoons that were printed in the Jyllands-Posten in Denmark that have caused so much controversy. It's rather remarkable how little the media have actually shown the cartoons. They've talked about the cartoons, but not shown them. How can they possibly cover the story without allowing their viewers/readers to see the cartoons in question? The media didn't shy away from showing pictures from Abu Ghraib, now did they? Aren't those pictures offensive? This appears to be explainable only as an act of total cowardice. It seems that the media are simply scared of the response that they will get from Islamic extremists. Through acts of violence and intimidation, the extremists are quite simply controlling what the media will show. This shows that terrorism works. Sorry to use a cliche, but by not showing these cartoons, the terrorists really are winning. It shows that all you have to do is be crazy and violent enough and the media will bow down to you and do your bidding. This is really disgraceful.

I'm trying to make my blog more than just a rehash of the news of the day that everyone knows about. Everyone knows about the crazy response to the Muhammed cartoons, so I've stayed away from merely retelling that story. The goal of my blog is to look at stories that you might not have heard or to look at well-known stories in a different way from what you might have heard. With that said, here is an interesting little tidbit:

"The Iranian newspaper Hamshahri invited foreign cartoonists to enter its Holocaust cartoon competition, which it said would be launched Monday. The newspaper is owned by the Tehran Municipality, which is dominated by allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Tehran mayor known for his opposition to Israel."

Okay, I'm going to open the floor for bets. How many people do you think will riot or threaten Iranian civilians or burn Iranian embassies over Iran's holocaust cartoons? This would be a perfect time for the moderate Muslims that I've heard so much about to stand up and loudly proclaim that this violence over some silly cartoons is wrong. No ifs, ands or buts. Just say that it's wrong. There have been a few who have said this, and I commend them, but Muslims should be overwhelmingly saying this and should be smacking down the violent offenders like the idiots they are.

Everything I've ever heard about Islamic countries talks about a bizarre, to us, emphasis being put on "shame" and "honor." Whether it was from psychologists or foreign policy experts or troops returning from Iraq, everyone seemed to say the same thing about those cultures. Here is a blog article that attempts to explain this cultural phenomenon. It certainly seems to fit with what I've heard about their cultures before and it explains all the furor over the silly cartoons that have gotten Muslims so upset. This is totally worth the read.

Here's my theory about why Muslims around the world seem to be so angry about those satirical cartoons. I think the difference in views here is because most Islamic societies have only recently opened up to the world. Let me explain that more clearly. Christianity and Christians are made fun of relentlessly in western societies. Just take what's been said and written about the Catholic church over the last few years in the U.S. It has been mocked and ridiculed relentlessly, but we're used to this. It's satire. We've been doing satire as long as we can remember. In most Islamic societies, however, governments had controlled the media for so long that they had never seen satire against their religion like these cartoons. They had never seen their religion satirized like Christianity is satirized in Western societies because their government-controlled media wouldn't allow it. Now that Islamic countries are starting to open up to the world a little bit, all of a sudden they see things like these cartoons that they hadn't really seen before and they're shocked and insulted. Westerners don't think anything of silly cartoons like these because we've seen it a million times, but most Muslims had never seen anything like this. That's why we think it's silly and so many Muslims are so mad. At least, that's my hypothesis.

Just a week ago we heard this:

"The Commerce Department said gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity within U.S. borders, expanded at a weak 1.1 percent annual rate in the October-December period -- little more than a quarter of the third quarter's 4.1 percent rate."

Now, we hear this:

"Employers stepped up hiring in January, boosting payrolls by 193,000 and lowering the nation's unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, the lowest since July 2001."

And this:

In another report, the Commerce Department said that factory orders rose by 1.1 in December, a good sign that manufacturing was off to a strong start in the new year.

What does this mean? Considering that this is confusing even Ph. D.s in economics, I sure don't know. One day, we get news that seems to show the economy's doing great. The next day, we get news that seems to show we could be facing trouble. I wouldn't want to be Ben Bernanke.

The western states that use the Colorado River have apparently come to an agreement about how to allocate that water in the future. This is an issue of great local importance, but it has interest to people from other parts of the world, too. Here's why:

"It essentially turns Lake Mead into a bank account for Nevada, Arizona and California, allowing the states to buy water from farmers and store it in the lake for future use."

For some reason, selling water for the market price is an idea that hasn't been used before here. It seems blatently obvious that this is the way it should be done. The biggest water problem in the West is farmers in California wasting overwhelming amounts of water growing water-intensive crops like rice and alfalfa in desert or near-desert areas. The reason they can go about wasting water like this is because they don't have to pay the market price for it. If they did have to pay the market price, they would be more water-conscious and many would grow crops that don't waste as much water.

Add another person to the list of loony tunes Democrats who are calling for President Bush's impeachment.

"On Tuesday, eight-term California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters said the president should be impeached for authorizing the warrantless surveillance of some Americans through the National Security Agency."

Keep it up, Democrats, and watch your chances of gaining back the House disappear into thin air. Calling for the President's impeachment over this issue is perhaps the only thing that Democrats could do to make them lose seats in Congress yet again this year. Since it would be absolutely disastrous for them, it almost goes without saying that the Democrats will support it. Every time a Democrat calls for the President to be impeached over this issue, Karl Rove must get a big grin on his face.