More globalization

Better than the original, I think.

If you thought the UN couldn't lose any more credibility...

...you were wrong. Wielding the power of a 57-country voting bloc, Muslim countries led by Pakistan introduced and passed a non-binding resolution through the UN Human Rights Council (note the irony) aimed at protecting religion, in particular, Islam, from criticism. It's fairly obvious why totalitarian Islamic theocracies would want to proscribe freedom of speech within their borders. Attempting to extend such repressive measures toward secular, pluralist democracies, however, should sound an alarm. The resolution states that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism." Meanwhile, a suicide bomber killed 50 people praying in mosque in Pakistan today. Fun.

Mexico's Drug War (and Ours)

Mexico's drug war - The Big Picture - Boston.com

Marijuana-smuggling shoes? Now that's innovation.

Harry Potter and the Ziono-Hollywoodists

From Andrew Sullivan's blog at The Atlantic:



JK Rowling is soon scheduled to announce the title of the secret 8th book: Harry Potter and the Elders of Zion.

Keeping things in perspective

Since words have by now lost the capacity to describe the amount of money the government is going to inject into the economy, here's a little visual.

The lighter side of totalitarianism!

We all know that Kim Jong-Il looks like a troll, but here are some more reasons to chuckle whenever North Korea is in the headlines.

Is the IDF ignorant or stupid?

Hard to tell. This Ha'aretz article exposes the seamy underbelly of IDF camaraderie, which (and this is painful to say) is more reminiscent of something in a Hamas training camp. A preview from "IDF Fashion 2009":

Dead babies, mothers weeping on their children's graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques - these are a few examples of the images Israel Defense Forces soldiers design these days to print on shirts they order to mark the end of training, or of field duty. The slogans accompanying the drawings are not exactly anemic either: A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex," next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him. A sharpshooter's T-shirt from the Givati Brigade's Shaked battalion shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills." A "graduation" shirt for those who have completed another snipers course depicts a Palestinian baby, who grows into a combative boy and then an armed adult, with the inscription, "No matter how it begins, we'll put an end to it.

Netanyahu will pave the way toward peace?

From Ha'aretz; I'm going to have to chew this one over.

McArdle says "Fix the banks!"

The Atlantic's Megan McArdle weighs in on the stimulus package:

Having defended Obama's candidacy largely on his economic team, I'm having serious buyer's remorse. Geithner, who is rapidly starting to look like the weakest link, is rattling around by himself in Treasury. Meanwhile, the administration has clearly prioritized a stimulus package that will not work without fixing the banks over, um, fixing the banking system. Unlike most fiscal conservatives, I'm not mad at him for trying to increase the size of the government; that's, after all, what he got elected promising to do. But he also promised to be non-partisan and accountable, and the size and composition stimulus package looks like just one more attempt to ram through his ideological agenda without much scrutiny, with the heaviest focus on programs that will be especially hard to cut.

Much of the justification for the $800 billion TARP was that our national economy hinges on the ability and willingness of banks to lend. Paralyzed banks = paralyzed economy. Fair enough. So why do we still have no idea how this money is being spent and which toxic assets from which banks are being (or will be) internalized? Shouldn't this project override the spending bill in terms of importance? More from McArdle:

Given that the standard model of the Great Depression has the FDIC and the fixes to the banking system playing a vastly more important role than any FDR spending program, I'd say that the liberal econobloggers bear the burden of proof that fixing the banks is NOT vastly more important than whizzing through green energy spending at the lowest possible level of scrutiny.

The road to hell...

is "Paved with Magnificent Intentions." At least that's the Willster's view of the Obama administration's efforts to stimulate the economy. The crux of his argument in this column is that Obama has carried over the confidence-laden rhetoric which helped propel him to the presidency into the field of actual policy-making. Confidence is important, but it is hazardous when gone unchecked by realism. Here are two paragraphs that best illustrate the point:

Improvisation is understandable when confronting the unprecedented, but protracted improvisation precludes a prerequisite for recovery -- investors' certainty about the relationship between the government and the economy. One year ago this weekend, that relationship began changing when the Bush administration decided that Bear Stearns, the nation's fifth-largest investment bank, was too big, or too connected -- too something -- to be allowed to fail. Seven months later, with the financial system frozen, Congress passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program, fresh proof that the titles of legislation, like the titles of Marx Brothers movies ("Duck Soup," "Horse Feathers"), are uninformative about the contents.

If we are really going to sipphone off $800 billion for TARP, shouldn't we expect some transparency? Where is this money going? Timothy Geithner has been relatively silent on this issue.

Quicker than you can say "toxic assets," which TARP was supposedly designed to quarantine, TARP was subsidizing the manufacture of automobiles partially designed by Washington. Which recent government adventure in enterprise justifies such government confidence? Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? Amtrak? Ethanol? (my italics) The government has subsidized ethanol, protected it with tariffs, mandated levels of production and authorized 10 percent ethanol in gasoline blends, and now the shrinking ethanol industry wants government to authorize 15 percent.

Confidence in the government's ability to solve problems, again, needs to be met with a great deal of honest, sober thinking. Rhetorical treats like "We are the one's we've been waiting for!" and "Yes, we can!" sound nice on the campaign trail, but are substantively hollow when injected into the debate about the government's role in addressing the current economic crisis.

Overkill...

...brought to you by the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

How much "intolerance" are we willing to tolerate?

It has been common practice for some time to treat the topic of religion with kid gloves. Whenever a discussion of that particular flavor arises, it brings with it a certain air of unease and overwhelming cautiousness. Since grade school, the key words have been "respect," "tolerance," and "conscientiousness." Intellectuals like biologist Richard Dawkins and author Christopher Hitchens have long been at the forefront of the campaign against faith and their respective books have sent shock waves throughout America in recent years. Not surprisingly, the books were lauded in Europe. Yet with the exception of a few university campuses (such as Berkeley, where I had the opportunity to hear Dawkins speak), Americans, by and large, have taken offense to such unapologetic repudiation of their religious beliefs.

When it comes to defending religion, there are several different strains of thinking. Conservative Americans, particularly of the FoxNews inclination, believe not that religion is inherently problematic. Rather, they see all current global conflict as a clash between Islamic society and Western, Judeo-Christian values - a conflict in which the West will eventually triumph because of its moral superiority and devotion to democracy. This neoconversative worldview was a major driving force behind the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those from the Left who defend religion do so on different grounds. Again, there is a hesitation to indict religion as inherently problematic. Instead, the Left often clings to the idea that when religious extremism, (particularly in the Muslim world) manifests itself, it is generally a lasting effect of European imperialism or a current response to economic, cultural, or military "neo-imperialism." This view, that past colonialism and current Western aggression galvanizes religious violence in the rest of the world is somewhat helpful in understanding the 9/11 attacks, for example (which mosts experts attribute mainly to the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil), but it leaves unexplained troubling elements of Islamic society such as honor killings, which occur in Muslim communities around the world.

Intellectuals like Hitchens and Dawkins go much further in their condemnation of religion. They believe that faith is not only irrational and delusory, but that is has been detrimental to humanity. Dawkins summarizes his assessment of religion in a 2001 Guardian interview:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

Dawkins makes an insightful point - why do we generally consider religion to be a sphere immune from normal criticism? We don't give a second thought about challenging our friends' political views, fashion choices, or even sports team affiliations. Yet when it comes to discussing religion, we suddenly hesitate. It seems that principles of respect, tolerance, and conscientiousness apply only to this particular topic. And yet there is a gray area.

Religious "moderates" seem to concede that instances of fundamentalism and extremism are acceptable for criticism and condemnation. Almost everyone agrees that Baruch Goldstein's shooting spree in Hebron, Hamas' suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, and al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11 are inexcusable because the perpetrators of these actions killed in the name of god. This seems like a reasonable compromise. But why is this the only instance in which we free ourselves from the restraint that we are taught to practice? Why can't we bring ourselves to sit down with another religious person - be he/she Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Wiccan - and engage in an objective, frank discussion of his/her beliefs? Certainly, there is no shortage of criticism to draw from. Encapsulated in our right to freedom of speech is the right to openly object to the following:

- Muslim sheiks in countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia who condone honor killings, sentence female rape victims to flogging, and condemn homosexuals to death by stoning, citing the Koran as basis.
- Messianic nationalist Jewish settlers in the West Bank who believe that God promised every last inch of the Holy Land to the Jewish people, regardless of how inconvenient such a belief is to the almost 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who happen not to believe in the Jewish God or any God, for that matter.
- Evangelical Christians such as the late Jerry Falwell who proclaim that AIDS and Hurricane Katrina are part of God's retribution for homosexuality.
- Ultra-religious families in Israel in which the parents do not work, which raise families with 8 - 10 children, and which expect their fellow citizens to completely subsidize their livelihood through the Israeli government's redistribution of tax dollars.
- Members of Hezbollah and Hamas who use Israeli occupation as an excuse to launch rockets into Israeli kindergardens and blow up discotheques and cafes.
- Religious parents who are willing to watch their children die, while praying for divine intervention, rather than call for medical attention.
- The Catholic Church's willingness to tolerate millions of African victims of pediatric AIDS and its simultaneous devotion to banning contraceptives and outlawing abortion ("pro-life"?)
- The Catholic Church's exoneration of sex-offender priests and its refusal to admit that, perhaps, the life-long vow of celibacy may be problematically connected to the molestation of choir boys


I don't anticipate much reasonable objection to criticism of religious doctrine. Often, the ludicrousness of religious doctrine is so apparent that only a superficial examination of it is necessary to raise eyebrows. It seems that most people draw the line when it comes to criticism of religious people. This is a curious line to draw for several reasons. First, religous people are religious people because of doctrine. Second, religious people, themselves, generally criticize other religious people, whether or not they are aware. A devout Catholic would probably chastise a Native American for performing a rain dance in the hopes of ending a drought (secretly, of course) and then proceed to a confessional in order to save his soul, without thinking twice. From an atheist's perspective, both actions are mere superstition. Just as the rain dance cannot be, in any way, causally connected to the next week's storm, there is no way to verify whether or not revealing one's sins in a booth to a man with a white collar earns the benevolence of an alleged deity. And yet, the rain dancer and confessor, alike, will view his respective superstition as legitimate while discrediting that of the other without a moment's hesitation. So, why can't we discredit or, at the very least, challenge both?

Why do we hold religious credence to a different standard than any other type of ideology, belief, or opinion? If we have seen, first-hand, the frightening consequences of action driven by unfettered religious self-righteousness, why can we not bring ourselves to probe, examine, and challenge it? Why are we so damned respectful?

"With our blood and soul, we defend you, al-Bashir."

Iran and Hamas express solidarity with Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir over war crimes charges from the International Criminal Court. I'm guessing that Darfur wasn't on the agenda at Durban II.

Are cigarettes preventing an economic depression?

1. Cigarettes are highly addictive.
2. Drug addicts continue to consume their drug of choice despite higher prices, lower income, or loss of job (i.e., cigarettes are an inelastic good).
3. Continuous consumption = uninterrupted profits for tobacco companies.
4. Profit-laden tobacco companies have no need to cut costs of labor.
5. Unlike the auto industry and, seemingly, every other major industry in America, big tobacco isn't contributing to the ever-growing unemployment rate.

A tangential note: Continuous consumption of cigarettes also = uninterrupted tax revenue for the government.

So...keep on puffing?

"Smokey, this isn't 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules."

I always knew that The Big Lebowski was a movie far ahead of its time in many aspects, but I never thought that Walter Sobchak's overzealous, self-righteous tirades would be applicable to America's current economic turbulence. In this scenario, Smokey is a fused Bush/Obama administration and the rules are those unwritten definitions of good and bad business decision-making - definitions that apparently don't seem to apply anymore. I guess I would be Sobchak, but instead of wildly wielding a pistol I've chosen to blog through my discontent.

Smokey has decided that by loaning millions of dollars to our domestic auto industries, the government will somehow be able to "unbankrupt" the already bankrupt Chrysler and GM, whose market-share has been steadily declining since the 1970's. Back when the rules mattered, the understanding had always been such: businesses that make bad management decisions should and will fail. From the graveyards of these failed enterprises will arise new and, hopefully, wiser ones. For some reason, Smokey is sure of the government's ability to loan the auto industry's way to economic solvency. In addition to the $17.4 billion that GM and Chrysler received as the Bush administration left the building, they are asking for a combined $22 billion from Obama and the Democratic Congress. This loan is meant to hold the companies over for a while - that is, until they ask for the next loan. Politicians on the hill are already aware of the alternative to the government as a life-line (remember the rules?). Those in opposition to the alternative stress the importance of "social responsibility;" after all, national unemployment at a 30-year high of 7.5% (the figures flirt with 10% on the coasts) and Detroit is already a ghost-town.

This is a curious argument. No one recalls GM and Chrysler, now wards of Washington, considering their "social responsibility" when they signed lucrative labor contracts at the behest of the all-powerful labor unions. Nevermind the ludicrousness of subsidizing the lives of employees who decide to retire at age 48. When the auto industries decided to sign these contracts, what crystal ball told them that they could not only sustain, but increase, their sales indefinitely? How could the crystal ball be sure that they would be able to honor the labor contracts they signed decades down the line?

There are only two imaginable possibilities: either the companies lacked the foresight to avoid this pitfall or they were aware of their imprudence and chose to keep their heads in the sand, confident that the government wouldn't abandon its track record of corporate welfare and come to their aid. Recall, the government came to Chrysler's rescue in 1979 with $1.5 million worth of loans (can you say PRECEDENT?) In either case, and the latter seems more likely, it is clear that the talk of "social responsibility" is a recent, ad-hoc phenomenon. Nobody - not GM, not Chrysler, and not the labor unions - thought of anybody but themselves when they reached their agreements. So the only question that remains is Sobchak's:

"Am I the only one who gives a f*** about the rules?"

Is Sasha Baron Cohen the most brilliant satirist of our generation?

Though I could see Stephen Colbert coming in at a very, very, very close second, no one can match Cohen's combination of unprecedented creativity and sheer audacity. Out of his three central characters, Bruno is easily the most underrated.