Apologising for doing your job?

To some, this is America "standing up", nobody really knows to what. To me, this is idiocy and hypocrisy.

In Portland, ME, just like everywhere in the world, September 11th 2010 was the end of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. People of Islamic faith partied in the streets and celebrated their version of Christmas, almost. The Portland Press Herald covered the event. Due to the event's magnitude, the piece got the front page. Complaints flooded in, saying the piece was "unbalanced" because it didn't mention how a bunch of Islamic extremists committed an atrocious crime on the same day nine years prior.

That a local newspaper needs to apologise to its readership for covering a peaceful and joyful celebration because of its concomitance with an atrocity is quite silly.

Imagine the Armenian community kicked up a storm because papers decided to cover local Easter celebrations on April 24th 2011, rather than commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I would find it preposterous. Lack of prominent coverage bears no relation to denialism.

The editorial board of the Portland Press Herald made the right decision. A big event happened in Portland, Maine, on September 11th. A local paper covers the local event. If one wants raging 9/11 coverage and the inevitable punditry, dial in to the national papers or turn on the TV.

Context, people, context! If Scientific American went to the presses on Sept. 11th, would we expect the cover to be dedicated to the events of 9/11/01?

Let local papers serve the local community. If you're craving different news, turn on your ubiquitous TV with a gazillion channels advertising crap, or do a google news search. It isn't that hard, seeing that most of the vitriol came to the paper via web.

Let them build if they want to gamble!

The Cordoba initiative (a.k.a. the Ground Zero Mosque) has attracted controversy and caused at least one new entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, courtesy of Sarah Palin. My Blogging Tories colleagues have been weighing in extensively.

Dr Roy remarked "These builders may have the right to build this , but they really shouldn't. It is a deliberate provocation and will further poison the atmosphere between Muslims and other North Americans." At Searching for Liberty, the author leaves it to Rahel Raza and Tarek Fatah to express his disapproval by quoting their Calgary Herald column on the issue. The Blog Quebecois brings us a case from across the pond in Germany, where extremism was spread under the guise of "culture". The greatest amount of coverage can be found at Moose and Squirrel, firmly in the disagreement camp.

I will beg to differ, and "refudiate" Sarah Palin while at it. The difference between her and Margaret Thatcher, for want of a less prominent comparison, is that Maggie's balls of steel did not have a cerebral opportunity cost.

So, developers are looking to make some bucks from two loss-making buildings in downtown New York and come up with the idea of a cultural centre. Being Muslim themselves, they can definitely know better how to build a Muslim centre than, say, a Hassidic one. So far so good, pity the neighbourhood isn't exactly your run-of-the-mill big downtown business district.

Because radical nuts caused the death of 3000 people nearby, the site and its surroundings expose a very sensitive nerve that hates being touched. The developers, displaying crass lack of PR, proceed then to patronise all within earshot about how their centre will promote "understanding", "tolerance" and other intangible, unmeasurable and generally empty concepts. Because on the face of it, they've been used so extensively that they're now devoid of value. Inflation works for words too, apparently.

Those who protest, legitimately, the building of the islamic cultural centre seem to screen out the fact the proposed development does no harm. It's provocative allright, and possibly ill thought out, but it is legal and does no-one an ounce of harm. On that merit alone it passes the test of a libertarian. 

The Western press regularly reprints the cartoons of the prophet in order to assert its freedom. The Cordoba Initiative is giving us a taste of our own medicine in that regard. Our most correct and noble course of action would be to let them build the damn thing.

Firstly, its location would be a poignant reminder to its attendees about what happened close by. With a good and scholarly imam it could indeed turn into a centre preaching tolerance and peace.

Secondly, and no less importantly, the interest surrounding it could be a stimulus for both religions to study each other without resorting to rhetoric. Right now the dialectic resembles an exchange between Mullah Omar and Fred Phelps. Understanding and tolerance can come solely through a deep mutual study, in order to see  each other's moral and philosophical bedrock. Islam is not radical by nature, but it does lend itself to misinterpretation. If the Cordoba centre helps correct the mistakes of many, it won't be a waste of space and money.

Thirdly, it might at last serve as a stepping stone for many budding American Islamic scholars and imams. What should be encouraged (and maybe given a little money by Bloomberg the appeaser) is a closer tie to Egypt's Al Azhar University rather than wahhabi Saudi madrassas. I am sure there are tons of American muslim youngsters who would love to study their religion and preach it. Their dreams are hijacked by those who groom them into radicalism. Maybe, just maybe, Cordoba could be persuaded to reverse this trend and begin breeding a generation of well-versed American imams. That would go a long way to nipping the mosque radicalisation in the bud.

Many Westerners buy into the garbage that this centre is equivalent to a declaration of victory by the Muslim community, citing some symbolism. Do we really wish to lower ourselves to considering the rantings of deluded schizophrenics as actually debatable?

I call it a wedge. It is the make-or-break for the Muslim community in America and in Manhattan especially. Will they let their most public face be sullied by extremist material and preachers? If they do, it will be an indelible stain on the entire community and break all the remaining trust between America and its Muslim citizens. The stakes are high and the gamble can pay off handsomely.

For its part, America should do what it does best and keep watch. Should radicalism seep into Cordoba's operations, it should dispense stick.

Every stone left unturned, doctor!

It was to be expected. With a House majority and the ability to ram through a reform bill, the Democrats would have done so without batting an eyelid.

While we wait for November to come and, hopefully, a new majority, let's hope some of this jumble of a healthcare bill works. And that the Republicans get their message right. Judging by some of the gratuitous and pathetic outbursts in the House yesterday such hopes are misplaced.

There are tons of arguments against this reform. It does almost nothing to change tort law, it compels citizens by virtue of their existence and violates the key tenet of a solid economy: "I am free not to want your business". Compelling businesses to extend services to customers they do not want is a dangerous enterprise.

All they've done is taken a problem and spread it over the rest of the population.

Call me thick, my concept of an insurer is similar to the one of a bookmaker. The insurer bets that you will pay in money and not require the healthcare service. Therefore some people will be susceptible to certain conditions and will need to give the insurer better odds if they are to get coverage.

Pelosi did what liberals do best and milked the feel-good factor. "Being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition". From the depths of my ignorance I know that women are 100 times more likely than men to have breast cancer and are the only half of the human population that can develop cervical and ovarian cancers, require a hysterectomy or maternity services. Men are the only ones to require prostate surgery or to develop testicular cancer, but that's another story.

I would much rather have had a full NHS-style reform than this concoction of dirigism. We can all agree not being covered for a preexisting condition is shocking, many poor people can't afford the premium and the cost of care is soaring in no small part due to over-zealous attorneys.

What was wrong with a public option for pre-existing conditions? Why can't we spend money on no-fault public malpractice insurance? Why couldn't they open up the market to inter-state coverage?

And why, in the name of all that's holy, are the Republicans putting up such a childish show about a deeply controversial and polarizing moral issue when there's so many faults in the law to pick on?

The fillet is before them, and they lunge for the offal.

The US are still the ones doing something about terrorism

Four Canadian Tamil Tiger supporters tried to bite off more than they could chew, and got what they deserved. Two have already pleaded guilty, the remaining two were slammed up for 25 years today. They tried to buy missiles in the US to send over to Sri Lanka, yet their contact in the US turned out to be an FBI agent. Schadenfreude chuckles are in order: owned!

Never mind their passports, these scum should rot in a US jail for the entirety of their term, and Canada will do better not to plead on their behalf. We've got enough of their ilk already.

Complain as one may, the USA is still immune from the bleeding-heart ideologies that have spread in places such as Britain and, to a lesser extent, Canada. Terrorist supporters are still jailed and the sentences are stiff. They should be grateful they weren't senteced to death.

This is why, despite all, I am pro choice

George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who provided abortion services that included potentially illegal late-term abortions, has been gunned down in a drive-by shooting this morning. The police issued a description of the suspect:

a white male in his 50's, balding with gray hair last seen traveling west bound on 13th in a 1993 powder blue Ford Taurus, with tag 2-2-5-B-A-B and possibly a K-State vanity plate.

If what Tiller did was illegal, justice should have caught up with him and shoved him in jail. Shooting from a car is typical of gangsters and terrorists, not civilized human beings. I understand the motivations and reasoning of both camps, and I see both extremes which I equally despise.

As I haven't heard of pro-choicers firebombing churches or murdering ardent pro-lifers, count me in the choice camp until further notice. No further correspondence will be entered into. Suck it up.

Update 1: despicable stumentalization of this tragedy for cheap political points by the Daily Kos.

Update 2: Too little, too late, too obvious. Condemn and discipline those who mislead women, lie, intimidate and cry "holocaust", then I'll believe you have the backbone to face the issue as mature and respectful beings. The ultra-liberals lie and mislead too, that's why I don't buy their rhetoric either.

What game is Iran playing?

After Roxana Saberi was found guilty of espionage by an Iranian court, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself calls for a fair appeal hearing, allowing Saberi to mount a full defence. Something is fishy.

If the Iranian President wanted a truly fair trial of the reporter, he would have invoked fairness right from the beginning of proceedings. An Obama administration would be incapable of reacting strongly to her sentencing, and Iran could have continued on its path of oppression and international disgrace. Why this politically unwarranted sudden turn?

Bloomberg suggests Iran may wish to reverse Saberi's conviction on appeal "to show magnanimity". Call it what you may, it isn't justice. True justice and fairness are independent of political expediency, and if Saberi is innocent she should be free now, not later on a whim of politically motivated magnanimity and a smoke screen of false and una tantum fairness.

This call for fairness smells of machination. Her appeal will probably be fair, she may well be freed and have the charged against her overturned. The outcome will be disastrous for the US either way though. A seemingly fair trial orchestrated to return a guilty verdict will discredit Obama's allegation of the original charges being baseless. An aquittal will instead lend Ahmadinejad credibility in the eyes of many Ayatollah apologists in the West.

I do hope the appeal is successful, but the price to pay will be steep. Ahmadinejad will expect quid pro quo, and the upcoming nuclear negotiations will provide the excellent opportunity for the godfather to clain the return of a favor. I can bet five bucks the appeal hearings will be scheduled during or right after the nuclear negotiations, and Saberi will be used to put pressure on the US envoys.

The only way for the US not to be indebted is to reject this opening as vehemently as they can, and I don't have the guts to advocate such a course of action.

Purpose - who truly lost it

CBC's Don Pittis argues politicians miss out the "human factor" in all their stimulus planning, that the general populace in the States is as good as in a motivation coma. Though I agree with his analysis (you can give man the money but you can't make him spend it right) I disagree with his conclusion that a new "sense of purpose" is needed.

People tend to strive to improve their situation, earn a better livelihood and seek their own maximum happiness. Without digressing into Objectivist arguments, US consumers forgot that a loan is not as earned as a honest income. It was money, to spend at their heart's volition. We all saw the ads for car loans, vacation loans, plasma TV loans, as if the whole economy was supposed, like in a defaulting third-world country, to run on credit and a shopkeeper's "black book". I was brought up in cultures where debt is considered an infamy to be hidden, and I'm sure glad for this moral code I acquired. If I and my family can live within our modest means, why can't everyone else?

Pittis wants to rest from the shock and let society find a new sense of purpose. The United States has been made great by the purpose of generations of Americans: to do something better than anyone around them could. This purpose is still alive in those who hold true to it, and they're the ones who are getting screwed by the stimuli. The true purpose of "Live by your means and seek to increase them" is in no way served by showering the cause of the crisis with freshly-minted cash.

Because if the growth by IOU was a delusion of the masses, patching it up with new fabric is a well thought-out plan by the Administration to close their eyes and keep the broken roller-coaster running without replacing a single rail. It's the government who've lost the sense of purpose, and this is why these purposeless bailouts will not work as they were intended to, if at all.

An ill-thought symbolic initiative

Two US Congresspeople are proposing a very bipartisan resolution to urge the IOC to strip Russia of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. One word comes to mind immediately: China. Hardly anyone rose with such passion to take the truly undeserved Beijing Olympics somewhere more worthy of the prestige of an Olympic competition.

If human rights and behavior on the international stage were ignored we'd still be before a case of extraordinary stupidity. Choosing partners and bedmates pragmatically would involve, in my opinion, knowing their aims and their potential to threaten you. Russia, despite all the bullying, is weak but growing steadily. Antagonizing Russia would bring the country closer and closer to China, no shining example of liberty herself. With China's stranglehold on the world's manufacturing and Russia's resources, the potential geopolitical Hercules is enough to scare the wits out of me.

Divide and Rule may be fine, but don't divide from yourself!

Bush gets it right, sort of

Whatever we may think of President G.W. Bush, at times his straightforwardness and stubborness are a virtue. Speaking to Israel's Knesset, he linked the desire of many politicians to see dialogue with terrorists and hostile nutjob leaders to the delusion of appeasement that plagued the 20th century. CNN reports this, focusing on his major slip that involved mentioning the Nazi buildup and invasion of Europe. The notion of argument losers mentioning Nazism should have come to the President's attention during his eight years in office. It apparently didn't.

Talking to terrorists is appeasement, whatever Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter might think. Talking to Hezbollah, Hamas and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not make them come to their senses for they lack such an attribute in the first place. Negotiating involves two parties in full possession of common sense and willing to come to an agreement. As the aforementioned organizations and leaders lack both, no agreement can be reached. They can be controlled and kept in check at the table only until their firepower is overwhelmingly outnumbered and they haven't got a place to hide. To paraphrase a notorious expression, they will only accept offers they can't refuse.

I once saw hope in Hamas' electoral success, a hope for change. With the responsibility of government, the armed group would need to learn statecraft and open up civilized talks with Israel. Those hopes were shattered as rockets kept pouring into Israeli land. Ahmadinejad was hopeless from day one. America's true vowed enemies seem to lack the ability to learn and reason beyond the language of fire and blood. You'd need armed bodyguards at the negotiation table itself!

Failure of US abstinence programmes exposed

When it comes to sex and education about it, a veil of stupidity and hypocrisy seems to descend upon those in charge, especially in some parts of the US. Although it is no different from most political people around the globe, in this case we are talking about influencable minds that may be driven to wrong conclusions and wrong lines of thought.

The BBC in this report shows some of the shortcomings of US abstinence programmes in schools, and how enthusiasm for them is waning.

At least 17 states have opted out of the system and others have suspended funding while Congress investigates whether such programmes work.

Congress would better spend their time fixing the economy and removing some draconian legislation (eg laws forbidding inter-state health insurance purchases). Put young healthy people of both genders together for over a decade in the restricted space of the school and sooner or later some of them will have sex, some will decide not to and some will want to but won't find the right person. If I were to be crude no piece of legislation can make a state of arousal go away, so what should be done about it?

Certainly something MUST be done, if this statistic is true:

[...]a report earlier this year from America's leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease.

So how does the federal government spend its money? Funding programmes that just hammer in the "don't have sex" message. Thankfully, as the report states, only a quarter of schools teach abstinence, while the rest do some sort of sex education. Still, 25% is twenty-five percent too many.

"This national programme which has wasted $1.5bn (£750m) of tax money is a failure and our teens are paying the price," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood."

So is this a rant against teaching abstinence? Not at all. I decry the means, not the ends. I for one believe that teenaged kids shagging themselves silly 24/7 isn't exactly the definition of a free and civilized country. However I am outraged at the deception that is inherent in the kind of abstinence teaching those unfortunate kids are getting. Educators choose to close their eyes and look the other way.

"They don't touch on subjects like sexuality, STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), birth control - it's not allowed because of abstinence-only education. It leaves you on a cliff-hanger - and a lot of teenagers become sexually active in their middle school years."

And if they don't stay quiet and deny you information, they take things in their own hands and lie:

He [Roger Norman] runs an organization called Wonderful Days which does not receive government funding but teaches abstinence as part of the health curriculum in some local schools.

[...] "Self control leads to a happy, joyful life. If we can learn to control the most basic of drives - the sex drive - for good, then we can control drugs, gangs, alcohol and abusive anger."

His lessons promote marriage and virginity - for both partners - as an ideal. They emphasise disease as a consequence of sex before marriage.

His argument seems to be that you can blame all the problems of this world, from abusive behaviour to street gangs to alcoholism on sex. Not stupidity, not lack of education, not deprivation, not poverty, not even lack of social mobility but SEX. As per the last point, last time I checked a ring on your finger didn't protect you from genital warts. Go figure.

Furthermore, his "alumni" display a remarkably skewed view of the whole of humanity, in particular their peers employing their energy in other, dare I say more entertaining ways:

Eighteen-year-old Ashley says she believes teenagers who experiment with sex are laying the foundations for troubled relationships later in life.

"At some point everybody ends up getting married. Everybody wants commitment at some point and nobody likes to be cheated on.

"But a lot of the young people I know who go around have experiences with lots of different people are just preparing themselves for not knowing how to be committed to somebody.

"Once you get into the practice of doing whatever you want, it's hard to change when you're older."

I guess "try before you buy" rarely crosses these kids' minds. Surely enough these programmes do end up persuading SOME people not to have sex:

Sixteen-year-old Josh says he relies on friends to help him stay abstinent.

"I have a lot of close friends and we pretty much agree on the same thing so we keep each other in line most of the time. Yes, it's difficult, but my friends are there and I'm there for them, and it gets easier if you have friends who agree with you."

I do not want to judge those who are guilty of nothing but being led into deception by people they trust (including their parents). What angers me is adults who indoctrinate teenagers into lies and falsehood under the pretence of care, religion or school policy. They further encourage those indoctrinated teenagers to go find new converts, with the added pressure of the advice coming from a peer.

You want to teach abstinence and responsible sexual behavior? Fine, I'll help. Instead of making people loathe themselves for their completely natural and healthy desires teach them the purpose of those same wants. Instead of shutting your eyes teach people about STDs and pregnancy so they know there's always an amount of risk associated with sex.

Teach them also what a great measure of trust is implicitly involved in intimate contact, and how that trust should be earned by both partners. While you're at it, tell 'em sex may be good, but if you have it with a person you really love it's GREAT. Ultimately, considered it can be great, you'd want to find the person you know would make it great, and you'd also want to have your fun unspoilt by an STD. Can't a promise of greater fun work better than scare tactics?

The bottom line is that the scaremongering and false approach adopted so far (by many, not all) isn't working. All it does is impose frustration and promote masturbation.

Image courtesy of ipostr.com.

Score one for amateur interrogators

Mukasey got the go-ahead to become the US Attorney-General. I understand that sometimes realpolitik has to take over from idealism, but with the US's image tarnished by the many scandals and allegations, giving someone who didn't speak out prominently against torture techniques amounts to nothing else than the mercification of principles for the sake of political stability (avoiding more tension with the White House) and a vague notion of national security that curbs the freedoms of the individuals in ways never seen before.

Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with my library record and whatnot being available to the FBI or the RCMP for the purpose of weeding out potential terrorist recruits being extremized. I am also fine with aggressive interrogation techniques, when these involve well known tried-and-tested methods. Waterboarding and the like are nothing to be proud of, and the information one extorts in this way is in no way legitimate or reliable. Good God, I'd confess anything should I be subjected to something like that.

This man who will soon take one of the top seats in the Bush administration is no better than anyone who preceded him. Quizzed on a question of principle he gave a half answer that wasn't even an answer. This man will not ban any torture technique currently being employed by the US if he comes across it, and I bet a grand to your loonie he will gladly lobby for all laws regarding these practices to be stalled or vetoed, so he won't have to handle the hot potato.

It's about time we all showed some integrity and said no to torture, whatever the cost. My own gut reaction would be to take information out of a terrorist at all costs. Fortunately, my brain is located not in my gut but a tad higher. The rule of law and human rights were made for everyone, and as the bastion of integrity and freedom the West claims to be it must be first in line in their enforcement and maintenance.

Tough questioning and truthful confessions by hardened criminals are the work of professionals. Waterboarding and the like are for amateurs. Mukasey should value professionalism over cheapness, and he hasn't done that. OK-ing Mukasey is a slap in the face of anyone who values human life and dignity. It is also a missed opportunity to really address the lack of real interrogation skills. Come on, interrogation is an art, this was the chance to show that the US values artfully done jobs over cheap made-in-china-style stuff.

Once again, the cheap has it. Don't blame me if it goes awry.