Lies, damned lies and statistics

Undoubtedly the war in Iraq killed many civilians and this is a tragedy. Even one single death is terrible, but it has to be recognized that there inevitably must be trade-offs, and alternative results should be considered. This is not a moral choice - it is intrinsically part of the reality we live in. Deciding to do nothing to avoid casualties, means that one has decided (consciously or not) that the potential results of inaction are less dire than intervention - in other words there is a trade-off.

Anyway, as Mark Twain said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." It is amazing that everyone bandies around the figure of 100,000 civilian victims, from a debunked Lancet study, while the UN itself, that neocon bastion, estimates that the number is a quarter of that (via Instapundit). It is nonetheless a terrible number, but honesty and good-faith would give the war critics some credibility (which I find they often lack).

The Royal Park

Today I went to visit the Royal Park in Laeken, and had a great time. This is where the Belgian Royal Family resides, in the north of Brussels, and it opens only for a few weeks in the Spring - today being the last day. On top of that the weather was breathtaking - fresh breeze and clear skies. The park is very beautiful, with a lake and views of Brussels, and the main attraction - the Royal Greenhouses - are very impressive and colorful. I would have loved to take pictures, but organized guy that I am I left my digital camera in Milan. However the website I link to above has a lot of pictures.

PETA kills animals

I am a vegetarian, but I find PETA profoundly offensive. There are many rational arguments for being a vegetarian (and even so I would never try to impose my lifestyle on others), but there is no need to be rabid extremists about it. Additionally, I find the humanization of animals annoying - animals are not equivalent to human beings and it does not take a genius to see why.

At any rate, this is deliciously ironic. (via Gay and Right)

Well done

In a rare show of courage an Italian state-TV channel (Rai 2) yesterday aired part of the movie Submission (follow link to see a clip; go here for a download and background) by murdered Dutch film director Theo van Gogh (via lgf). This is a victory for free speech, considering the intimidation that was involved. Rai is the first foreign national TV channel to air clips from the film and I hope that it is further distributed and seen by as many people as possible.

It is high time that the treatment of women in Islamist regimes and enclaves be condemned and that there be an increased focus on this problem. The overly dramatic reaction of some Muslims would be absurd even if the accusations were totally unwarranted (which clearly they aren't). If Christianity and Judaism, for instance, can be freely and forcefully criticised (as it should be everyone's right to do), then I don't see why Islam should be any different.

Metro

Today I had an epiphany (nothing ground-breaking, I'm afraid). I have come to the realization that the Brussels edition of Metro (the free newspaper distributed in subway stations around the world) is truly a piece of garbage.

Since I think it's important to be somewhat aware of your surroundings, for me Metro is a handy way to keep up with the local news, which can become rather mystifying to an expat. For example there has been speculation recently that the government will fall over the Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde wrangle, but it took me forever to understand (with the help of a colleague) what it was actually about.

However every now and then I notice things that I find disturbing. Today, for instance there was an article (in the French edition) supposedly about the spread of blogs, which degenerated into a disguised ad for Skyblog. Since to get a blog there you have to be subscribed, the article gives the impression that to run a blog costs something (but, it adds, reading blogs is free...), without mentioning the various ways to create a blog for free.

As I was reading this, I remembered that a few months ago Metro ran a piece about a lottery the US State Department runs, whose winners are offered green-cards. Ironically they ran the piece about a week after this year's lottery applications were closed, and stated that it cost €50 to apply. This is total bollocks, as anyone remotely familiar with it will know this lottery is free. There are people who charge, but what they offer is unclear and they have no connection to the State Department (and this is stated clearly on the Department web site). Maybe Metro should not rely on spam for news...

I don't think the reason for these blunders is that Metro is free (I know, I know - nothing is really free...) because there are high quality products and services that are offered (at least partially) for free, like Blogspot and Skype (try it out - it's fantastic!). And anyway the largest income source for newspapers is advertising and Metro has plenty of that, and with 487,000 readers just in Belgium it should earn quite a bit of money off it. Maybe it's just carelessness...

Anyway, it's too bad that so many Belgians get their news from people who mix journalism and advertising and who are not media-savvy enough to avoid making colossal blunders.

Post scriptum:

By the way Metro also reported this news item, without bothering to mention that the methods used to gather the statistics are questionable, at best. Just another small piece in the puzzle that explains anti-Americanism.

None of your business

The European Union is a great idea with a lot of (potential) benefits, but sometimes I wish it would just butt out! How absurd to tell people that they can't work more than 48 hours a week in order (I imagine) to protect their quality of life. Don't individuals have any say anymore on what to do with their time and life? Ironically this move not only takes away some of our liberties but it damages what's left of our economies! So much for protecting our quality of life...

Climate catastrophe cancelled

I have no scientific expertise, but when a veritable army of highly qualified scientists calls into question the science which underpins conventional wisdom on global warming (and on which the Kyoto Protocol is based) wouldn't it be a good idea to take notice of what they say?

Watch this jaw-dropping documentary - trust me, it is worthwhile to see this (all via lgf). I would go as far as to say that this is (or rather, should be) front-page news that everyone needs to hear about. Funnily enough, no one in the MSM seems to have noticed it. I wonder why?

Wake up call

A propos crime (see the previous post), this is a must read. I often find it grating when Andrew Sullivan manages to tie in the gay marriage debate to just about any subject under the sun but in this case I find he is spot on: nothing less than vigorous protest and outrage will do. Not directed at the crimes and criminals themselves (who are beyond contempt), but at the people in the three branches of government, who are vested with the power - and responsibility - to protect the citizenry and uphold the principles stated in the Constitution.

And it is not just a question of technical powers, but also of image and morale. I have the impression that if the facts were reported in the media without the usual sugarcoating the people here in Europe wouldn't be so accomodating. Recently I was telling a well-informed Dutch friend of mine about this (scroll down for the whole article) fantastic episode and he was impressed, but surprised, because he had never heard of it.

Crossing the street in Brussels

Today I had an annoying experience. While walking down Boulevard Anspach, near my house, I came up to a pedestrian crossing (of a side street), where the light was red for pedestrians. I looked on both sides, and since there was no car in sight, I started crossing. On the other side there were a pair of policemen, one of whom rudely told me to turn back and wait for the green light before crossing, and I complied (feeling like I was back in Kindergarten).

This got me thinking about what the police force is actually for: fighting crime or teaching people good manners? I mean, the policeman had not justified his command by saying that what I was doing was illegal etc., but that since other people were politely waiting I could too. And anyway, even if it was illegal, is there any reason why it should be a problem for pedestrians to cross even when there is a red light (and no car is approaching)?

Crime rates in European capitals have been rising for years. This is a worrying phenomenon, not least because the level of dicussion is not very high: on the one hand there is scare-mongering by the anti-immigration crowd, on the other Europeans are lulled into a false sense of security by the smug (and apparently incorrect) notion, propagated by subtle anti-Americanism, that crime rates are much higher in the US (see this and this).

Maybe there is something wrong with the approach the police is taking? Isn't it strange that in one of the smaller capitals in Europe, whose "crime rate is in the high range of industrialized countries," that instead of dealing with crime the police should feel it necessary, and have the presumption to teach people to mind their manners?

Howard, Bush ... and now Blair

I am quite happy with the results of the British election. It's great that Blair actually got re-elected, and I think it is good that the Conservatives are back on the horizon (provided they become more Thatcherite, and less nombrilistes about immigration and hunting...) so they can be an effective and healthy opposition. I am sorry about the gains the Liberal Democrats have made, but as they are lower than polls predicted, I can only be relieved. I do not think their political star will continue to rise - as long as they remain unelectable.

Reactions are amusing as usual: let the spin begin! For instance, the reader comment that is highlighted on the election front page at the Beeb:

“The public has spoken. Iraq was a mistake” Martin Phillips, Oxford, UK

At the moment it is reported that about 88% of the electorate voted for parties that supported the Iraq war (for whatever reason). That doesn't sound like a very strong signal to me... (see Instapundit).

Miracles do happen

Here is an example for why euthanasia might not be such a great idea. What an incredible time this must be for the family! Naturally, in the final paragraph, BBC News fails to mention that Terri Schiavo's medical condition was subject to significant debate among medical professionals.

Whatever happened to Afghanistan?

I haven't heard much from Afghanistan recently. That's because there is a lot of good news coming from there and that certainly doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream media (via lgf). Chrenkoff is the place to go to for round-ups of under-reported good news both in Afghanistan and in Iraq (see bottom of right-hand sidebar for links to previous editions).

Recently a friend was saying that she is disgusted by what the Americans are doing in Iraq. This would be salutary reading.

"I owe nothing to Women's Lib"

Today is the anniversary of a momentous event that deeply influenced the post-war era and forcefully re-shaped the world we live in, practically and intellectually: the election of Margaret Thatcher. I have enormous respect both for her opinions and for her courage in pursuing these unpopular ideas and policies in face of enormous resistance. As Prime Minister she was a visionary who understood the problems Great Britain and the West were facing better than any of her contemporaries and she remains my ideal for what a leader should be.

This single-mindedness is evidenced to spectacular effect by one of her most famous speeches. Amidst rampant speculation that her government was about to change course on tough economic policies, in the tradition of Edward Heath's 1972 U-turn, during a speech at the 1980 Conservative Party conference she countered: "To those who are waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catch-phrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: You turn, if you want to. The lady's not for turning." And she kept her word.

I am currently reading a fantastic book about the post-war development of economic policy around the world and the changing balance between States and Markets in economic activity. The book is "The Commanding Heights" by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw. For a person my age (22) the authors really put into perspective what determination it took to impose the policies that eventually managed to beat stagflation. For instance, privatisation, which nowadays is supported by all mainstream political parties (or should be) and is taken almost for granted as the best policy, was unheard of in the early 1980's. It had never been done before and there were no precedents to turn to, to assess potential risks and problems. The operations both to prepare State-owned companies for the market and to actually sell them were colossal and quite literally involved the building of the massive machinery which enables markets to run smoothly. At the time, rejecting pure Keynesian Economics for Hayek and Friedman, was an incredibly courageous thing to do.

Therefore, it behooves all of us, who are fortunate enough to have had her as a world leader and to have benefited from her policies and (more importantly) from the intellectual revolution she spawned, to reflect on her achievements and to avoid taking for granted her contributions to the progress of humanity.

Bigotry in Britain

Alan Dershowitz has a mordant editorial in the National Post about the decision of the British Association of University Teachers to boycott Israeli academics (via AS). Also see this telling Jerusalem Post piece which recounts the virtual canonization of Rachel Corrie (via AS, fourth post down).

Recently I had a discussion with a friend who lives in Great Britain, who claimed that the Guardian is one of the better, mainstream British papers. I think that's ridiculous (and I hope Britons agree), particularly in light of their biased news coverage and of the offensive editorials they regularly run. See Norm Geras' take on their latest disusting diatribe against Tony Blair (via AS, third post down). As Josef Joffe argued recently in the Financial Times, Tony Blair is the last best hope for the rational European left.

Speeding

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Italian authorities bungled Giuliana Sgrena's rescue operation, and that the driver of the car was speeding (not surprising: we Italians love to speed and always do), and therefore unable to stop at the US checkpoint at short notice. CBS News even reports (via Captain's Quarters; Instapundit) that there is satellite evidence that they were travelling at more than 60 miles (96 km) per hour - on a muddy road, which is well known for being the most dangerous in the world, and on which there are many checkpoints. What were they thinking? At any rate, it is nice to see that BBC News is reporting all sides of the story (just joking).

It is understandable that the Italian authorities will contest the US report, because it makes them look bad. However, accusing the US of suppressing evidence really is the outside of enough. Just looking at the pictures of the car after the incident must prove that Ms. Sgrena at best has a patchy memory of the incident. I also find it amusing that everyone who was criticizing the US before, continues to do so unfazed, but has suddenly stopped talking about the speed the car was travelling at.

Italian narrowmindedness

In recent months two large European banks (BBVA and ABN Amro) started attempts to complete acquisitions in the Italian market (BNL and Banca Antonveneta, respectively). This would be an unprecedented move, as in the past the Governor of the Bank of Italy (Antonio Fazio) has always blocked such mergers and acquisitions. Now, however, he is under pressure from the EU Commission not to intervene. Instead he has done his best to interfere indirectly, with considerable success, by encouraging other Italian banks to rival the bids, because he doesn't want Italian banks to fall into foreign hands.

Most recently he has managed to get a good friend of his, the Chairman of Banca Popolare di Lodi, Giampiero Fiorani, to buy up shares in Banca Antonveneta, and yesterday BPL managed to replace the Board of Directors of Banca Antonveneta, which had accepted the ABN Amro bid, with one of its choice.
The reason why some people want to keep the banks in Italian hands is because, often at the behest of the government, they finance Italian industry, even when there is little chance they will get their money back. Deals are made in which debt is transformed into equity, so that if (or when) a company cannot honor its debts, the creditor banks become shareholders. It goes without saying that under these deals, which are explicitly intended to sponsor, or bail-out, struggling companies, there is no market justification to actually lend the money. At any rate, this practice has enabled the Italian government to continue to indirectly subsidize industry without incurring the wrath of the EU.

The flip side of the coin is that the money to support such operations must come from somewhere, and in this case it comes from the Italian bank customers: according to Capgemini Italian lenders charge the highest fees in the world.

Obviously, foreign banks will not go along with this disgusting sham of sponsoring companies that have no reason to exist in an efficient market (such as Fiat and Alitalia), and will charge lower fees forcing their Italian competitors to lower their fees too. According to the logic of Mr. Fazio (part of whose job, ironically, is to protect the Italian banking customer), this needs to be stopped at all costs, because it would force Italian banks to tighten their belts, and because it would force coddled Italian industrial companies to actually face the market (of all shocking things).

The most absurd aspect in all this is that those whose interests would be best served by foreign involvement in the Italian banking market are the small investors and bank customers who have provided the support to change Banca Antonveneta's Board, and imperil the ABN Amro bid. I cannot help but pity those who applaud the cheap nationalism and provincialism of Mr. Fiorani (the BPL Chairman) who said at the Antonveneta AGM that "we have to stop the Dutch," and (at the recent BPL meeting) that "to the supposed opening of the European market we respond with the force of localism and territorial pride," because it is not Italy "that is entering Europe, but in this case it is Europe that is forcing its way to us."

London

For the past few days I was in London, first for work and then for leisure. I was hoping to have regular internet access, but, alas, I did not, so I didn't get around to posting anything.
I left after work on Wednesday and arrived in the evening. I stayed at a friend's house in Kensington (very nice area - and house, near Earl's Court).

Thursday
I went to Westminster where I had to attend the Annual General Meeting of Barclays (a large British bank). As they say, it was "bloody good fun" and I met a few corporate bigwigs. It was over at around lunchtime and I strolled around the area. I walked up Whitehall, looked in at Downing Street and then went past the Cabinet War Rooms, through St. James' Park up to Buckingham Palace. I walked to Hyde Park Corner and made my way up Piccadilly. There I took my time, especially towards the end, where I popped into Fortnum & Mason (the world-famous gourmet food store) and I spent a long time in Hatchards (a large, beautiful bookstore). Then I looked into the Economist Shop in Regent street and strolled to Trafalgar Square. In the late afternoon I had an appointment with Megan McArdle (I'll post about that separately) at a bar near the Imperial War Museum, on the other side of the Thames.

Friday
I had to attend the Annual General Meeting of Pearson, which owns Penguin, the Financial Times, half of the Economist and Pearson Education. This meeting was rather smaller than the Barclays one. However, given my interest in journalism, I found it much more exciting. After the meeting there were refreshments and I got a chance to chat with Marjorie Scardino, the CEO of the company. It was great and since I am a great fan I'll dedicate a separate post to her too. In the evening I met up with another friend from college who is now at the London School of Economics.

Saturday
I met up with my LSE friend again (my host was very busy with an essay all weekend) and we visited the Tower of London, which was a wonderful experience. I had already seen it, but that was almost a decade ago. We went through the whole thing, including the classic Beefeater tour, but for me the treat was the Crown Jewels: truly dazzling!

Sunday
I walked from my house to Harrods in Knightsbridge where I met my LSE friend again. We took a long walk in Hyde Park, whose luxuriant lawns and towering trees brought to mind the sorry condition of the "parks" in Milan, where we both went to college. Then I caught my Eurostar train at Waterloo.

Now I am back home in Brussels. I am happy to be home even though I had a wonderful time. So many of my intellectual interests are tied to the Anglosphere, including Great Britain, and it was fascinating to see it live again, after all this time. I assiduously read the Economist and look at the Financial Times daily, when I was youger I read all of Agatha Christie's novels and more recently I have been reading Jane Austen and Dorothy Sayers. Actually visiting Great Britain has refreshed so many images which had become faded and stale in my mind.
London lived up to all my expectations and I had a lot of fun, which I also owe to my good friends who did a lot to make my stay pleasant. The only aspect which leads me to prefer Brussels (at this time in my life) is that London is so large that it is difficult to get around. Brussels is much easier to navigate, while maintaining the flavor of an important European capital, with its institutions (Belgian, EU and NATO), its cosmopolitan populace and first-rate cultural events.

The market saves the environment

The Economist's cover story this week is outstanding. If the significant energy expended in defense of the environment was channelled in a more rational and market-oriented (i.e. efficient and effective) manner we would all be better off - especially the environment itself.
I have never been able to abide people who wrinkle their nose at cost-benefit analysis: it denotes a refusal to deal with the realities that face us. Resources are finite and decisions must be taken as to what is the best way to employ them. Cost-benefit analysis, as a tool of a (lightly regulated) market mechanism, has been shown time and again to be the ideal way of reaching these decisions. It may be inelegant to assign a value to something priceless, but refusing to do so reduces us to a childish insistence for something that we ourselves are aware cannot be.

America the beautiful

Private donations by Americans for tsunami relief have passed the one billion dollar mark! (via Instapundit). Congratulations, and thanks for being an inspiration to us all.
The current quoted amount is 1,030,714,108.34 dollars. Given that the US population is estimated at 295,971,560 people, this means 3.48 dollars for every woman, man and child in the US. Just for the tsunami! I am very impressed. If any European (or any other) country's contribution was even comparable I would be very surprised.
In your face, Jimmy!

As long as you think you're rich...

Very fascinating take on Nordic (and general) prosperity in Europe from an American in Oslo (via Instapundit). Maybe this book would be salutary.

Too lazy to oppose murder

Once again there has been an "honour" killing (via lgf) in the heart of liberal, Western Europe. I cannot understand why such events don't cause more outrage and protest. Maybe the Queen of Denmark, Margarethe II, has it right: we are too lazy (via Instapundit and Punditguy).

Have you no shame?

The height of chutzpah: after being shamefully implicated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, Kofi Annan is making out as if the US and the UK had been responsible for its mismanagement. He should be aware that

• the program was run by the UN itself (under the supervision of Annan's trusted colleague Benon Sevan) and not the Security Council
• and the US and UK had been opposed for years to attempts (supported by Annan) making it even easier to game the system.

At the same time the BBC has the impertinence to give the misleading (and absurd) impression that Bush is somehow implicated in the scandal by gleefully reporting that a Texan oil tycoon, David Chalmers, has been indicted. Did they not think it might be a good idea to mention that Chalmers was a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and did his best to impede it? When are we going to hear praise for Bush for the fact that he did not allow economic concerns to influence his judgement?
By the way the big news here, that the BBC obviously won't mention, is that while the Americans and Britons involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal have been indicted, the French and Italian individuals who were involved, haven't been - and probably never will be.

Have kids and go nuclear!

See this absolutely outstanding article in MIT's Technology Review (via Gay and Right).

Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbanization, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power.

I like the reasonable tone and the idealistic but practical approach. I hope these reversals take place sooner rather than later. In particular, while population shrinking is not a problem yet on a global basis, I have gotten a taste of where we are heading and I am not looking forward to it: Italy has one of the lowest birth-rates in the world. Apart from a host of purely cultural and social issues this raises it should be noted that the Italians pay a payroll tax rate of 32.7% just for retirement and disability programs!
Another issue I hope will get more attention soon is nuclear energy. I hate how everybody talks about

• Kyoto (if all Western countries adhered and lived up to their commitments, the effect on global warming would be negligible and the World economy would be in recession)
• Wind energy (apart from the fact that it is way not commercially viable, am I the only one who has noticed how ugly and noisy those massive fans are?)
• Other assorted energy sources (all pies in the sky for the moment)

as if they were realistic solutions and spits on nuclear energy. We need to go nuclear as soon as possible: Now!

He was a great man, but...

No doubt, the late Pope has in many respects been a positive influence in the world. However, when Corriere della Sera (Italy's largest daily) dedicates fully the first 25 pages of the Saturday (April 2nd) edition (before he even passed away!) and the first 15 pages of the Sunday (April 3rd) edition exclusively to fawning and hyperbolic commentary on his life and accomplishments, this Christopher Hitchens article comes as a breath of fresh air.
It is not that I consider myself a critic of the late Pope, although I often disagreed with his positions. I just find it remarkable that (no doubt by popular consent, and possibly only in Italy) absolutely no criticism is anywhere to be heard, when criticism is certainly due. I point out a few of them off the top of my head, only in an attempt to counterbalance the excessive (I think) sugar-coating of the coverage I have seen.

• I am reluctant to comment on the internal theological questions of a religion that is not my own, but it can hardly be argued that this Pope was even marginally progressive (in his positions; in method he was actually very progressive).
• Furthermore there is the issue, mentioned by Chritopher Hitchens, of the sexual abuse scandals.
• In the 80's the Vatican was involved in an obscure banking scandal (the "Calvi case," in which a former Chairman of the Banco Ambrosiano, was apparently murdered). This has yet to be resolved.
• The Vatican, a sovereign and foreign State, has had an inordinate influence on the internal affairs of Italy, which was governed for over 40 years of the post-War period by literal minded Christian Democrats basically at the Vatican's behest (not that the other two parties, the Communists and Socialists, were any better, mind). For instance, in Italy it was impossible to divorce, even from a civil marriage, until the mid-seventies because of opposition from the Vatican, and even then it was not approved by Parliament, but through a process similar to a California ballot initiative.

After hearing ad nauseam that Bush and the Americans are religious fanatics I can only chuckle when the President of Italy, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, says that in difficult times he would rely on the late Pope's advice.
Tomorrow I am going back to Brussels: maybe the discussion there will be less monolithic.

Lies, damned lies or statistics?

I don't know what to make of this article on the BBC News website, as the report apparently has not been released yet and I haven't seen much discussion of it in the MSM. At any rate it seems safe to take it with a grain of salt. Don't miss the comments... (via Instapundit)
I am incredibly sorry for those children who are suffering, and I find it sad that they should be used for political purposes.

Confusing ideas

I have not written about Terri Schiavo because I don't feel I can add anything to the debate. However this post from the generally stimulating Andrew Sullivan is so outrageous that I feel compelled to say something.
Andrew has managed to conflate a slew of issues which have absolutely no bearing on the case at hand to make a few raving accusations, for example:

It's been clear now for a while that the religious right controls the base of the Republican party, and that fiscal left-liberals control its spending policy.

and

When conservatism means breaking up the civil bond between a man and his wife, you know it has ceased to be conservative. But we have known that for a long time now. Conservatism is a philosophy without a party in America any more. It has been hijacked by zealots and statists.

I am Jewish, I believe that gays should be allowed to marry like anyone else (by the way, it's unbelievable how gay issues wiggled into this debate from left field...) and I am conflicted about euthanasia. At the same time I have great respect for the people who have expended enormous amounts of energy to ensure that Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube not be removed. This depends on the fact that there seem to be fundamental differences in this case that make the removal profoundly objectionable:

• The removal causes Mrs. Schiavo to starve to death over about two weeks. I suspect this fate is more painful than the state she is in right now.
• She did not leave a living-will, therefore noone knows what she would have wanted to do in this case.
• Her husband, who wants the tube removed and whom I sincerely feel for, clearly has ulterior motives (wants to close this chapter of his life, wants to remarry etc.) which, any fair minded person would recognize, cloud his judgement on whether this was his wife's real will.

In this particular case, running the gamut of legislative and judicial options to extend this woman's life, even contrary to her husband's will, seems to me the right option. See this and this. I suspect that nonetheless Congress should not have gotten involved. However I believe Andrew's hate for the religious right (whose policies I often disagree with) has blinded him to the fact that this is not a case of gay marriage, or euthanasia of a person who is able to express her will. The zeal with which the removal of this helpless woman's feeding tube is advocated in some circles is, to put it mildly, in extremely bad taste.

Chilling wind from abroad

This article (via Instapundit) brings to mind a discussion I had a few weeks ago with my (British and Spanish) flatmates, during which they claimed that in the US there is no real freedom of the press. Oh, the irony! How is it possible that an advanced democracy like the UK should have such draconian defamation laws? Is this what you call freedom of expression: having to be able to prove in a court of law the truth and basis for any statement that may offend anyone - or else risk punishment for defamation and libel?
And while freedom lovers wait for the UK to wise up, such scurrillous attempts to restrict freedom of speech, by plaintiffs who do not want to have to prove they were wronged (by suing in the UK, on "speech" that did not even occur in the UK!) have to be stamped out without mercy.
That does not mean that any and all speech must be acceptable. See this article for a cogent and stimulating argument on why speech that directly incites to and encourages violence should be restricted (through courts - with proof!).

Gender feminist exposed

I am a big fan of Christina Hoff Sommers and her book Who Stole Feminism?, so I was fascinated by the recent Estrich/Kinsley spat that everyone is talking about. For the story see this, this and this (via City Journal).
See Anne Applebaum's latest witty offering in the Washington Post (via Instapundit). And here is a great post (via Asymmetrical Information) with all the latest and links to interesting articles. What stood out particularly for me was this wonderful piece by Heather Mac Donald which closes with this interesting point:

Depressingly, Estrich’s crusade, no matter how bogus, will undoubtedly bear fruit. Anyone in a position of power today, facing accusations of bias and the knowledge that people are using crude numerical measures to prove his bias, will inevitably start counting beans himself, whether consciously or not. Michael Kinsley could reassure every female writer out there that Estrich has not cowed him by publishing only men for the next six months. It would be an impressive rebuff to Estrich’s blackmail. I’ll happily forgo the opportunity to appear in the Times for a while in order to get my pride back. (emphasis mine)

A noble sentiment indeed, which underlines the absurdity of Estrich's claims that she is out to help other women.

Political astuteness or Egg on his face?

The Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, whose outrageous statements and actions have long entertained supporters and opponents alike has apparently made another one of his blunders. Yesterday he claimed on national TV that Italy had set September 2005 as the date to begin withdrawing the Italian troops in Iraq, in agreement with Great Britain. Says the BBC:

Mr Berlusconi told Rai state television: "In September we will begin a progressive reduction of the number of our soldiers in Iraq." He said the exact numbers would depend on the Iraqi government's ability to deal with security. "I've spoken about it with Tony Blair and it's the public opinion of our countries that expects this decision."

Tony Blair has denied these assertions in the House of Commons, and has forcefully reiterated Great Britain's commitment to seeing the Iraqi operation to its natural conclusion, when the Iraqi security forces will be able to take over.
On first sight it seems Berlusconi has gotten himself in trouble again. However, I suspect that is not the case, and the Times (of London) has gotten the wrong end of the stick. Berlusconi knows exactly which side his bread is buttered on and when it counts he needs to give these people satisfaction. There are upcoming regional elections, and following the Sgrena/Calipari snafu and another recent military casualty he needs to distance himself somewhat from Iraq. Therefore he gave the mass audience of the popular Porta a Porta program the impression that Italy is withdrawing from Iraq, period, in September 2005 (mentioning briefly that Iraqi security forces will be ready to take over by then) and this is really all that counts. Blair will have to extricate himself from the false impression these statements give of his government's policy, the newspapers will cry foul because Berlusconi made explicitly false statements on TV (the withdrawal was not agreed with the UK), but the mass of Italian voters will only remember that he said the troops are coming home (he actually said they will start coming home), and that is all Berlusconi really cares about. In this regard it is a stroke of political genius. He has often made outrageous and often demonstrably false claims, but countering a statement made on prime-time TV is never as effective as the statement itself. What he is actually planning on doing he certainly won't tell us on national television. Years of Berlusconi rule should have taught all of us a lesson: never underestimate his marketing abilities.
It should also be noted how the anti-war Anglo-Saxon mainstream media is downplaying Blair's statements. The BBC says "Blair plays down Italy troop move"; at the moment My Way, the New York Times and the Washington Post don't even mention it. Blair isn't downplaying anything: he is explicitly contradicting what Berlusconi explicitly said. See the Italian papers: Corriere della Sera says "London corrects the prime minister," and La Repubblica says "Blair denies Berlusconi statement." It is funny how the lefty Anglo-Saxon media will do anything to put the American effort in a bad light, even play into the hands of one of their sworn enemies: Berlusconi, while the Italian lefty media hate him so much that they will focus more on making him look bad.

Who's better: Summers or Babangida?

There has been a public outcry in the blogosphere, as well there should be, following the symbolic vote of no-confidence that Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences passed against Lawrence Summers, Harvard's president. See this interesting and thorough post by an associate professor* who voted against the measure (via a comment to this post [read all the comments: they're great! My favourite: "Leftist academics never progressed beyond the social dynamics of a kindergarten class"]; via Instapundit).
As I love pithy quotes I can't help but mention this paragraph from Powerline:

Let us now recall the words of the great Willliam F. Buckley Jr.: "I would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book, than by the Harvard faculty." The wisdom of Buckley's statement is proving timeless.

What I find worrying is not so much the patently absurd and unhinged-from-reality positions commonly held by many faculty members of prestigious universities in the US. Rather, what is most dangerous is their zeal in suppressing any opinion or idea they don't agree with in the most childish way. Surely, they honestly believe their opponents to be wrong, but it is breathtaking to see the limited horizons of their imaginations: that they cannot seem to conceive that there are opinions other than their own, that deserve to be aired and that there is a remote possibility that some of these opinions may be valid. I wonder how high they have set the bar for evidence that would force them to change their mind on anything. Let's hope that the increased public scrutiny of the faculty's positions and behaviour will be salutary for Harvard and the system as a whole.

*CORRECTION: as he notes himself in the comments he is actually an assistant professor. Which by the way underscores the courage of speaking out - as I understand it is easy to make enemies in academia and they can make life difficult at promotion time...

At last, some honesty!

Eurochambres, the Association of European Chambers of Commerce, has announced an incredibly blunt report which claims that in economic terms Europe is 20 years behind the US (via Tim Blair).
The incredible thing is that in a whole number of critical indicators it will take Europe decades to catch up even if there is serious reform. However it is glaringly obvious to any observer of current attempts at economic reform that they are going nowhere. In Germany, France and Italy, just to name a few, in the past months timid legislative efforts were consistently watered down, and whole areas in urgent need of serious discussion (such as pension reform, and the flexibility of labor markets) aren't even brought up.
Reform will only be possible when the European population recognizes the shortcomings and inefficiencies in their economic systems. As many of these problems have been addressed in the US, it would be a good example to follow. However, until the media in Europe (with the tacit and active consent of the educated elites, who should know better) give the masses the patently false impression of the US system as inhuman and cruel, these self-same elites will be hard-pressed to find political support to save the European ship from sinking evermore behind.
The question is, how far must Europe sink before it can muster the strength and will-power to do something?

Are the roots of the meritocracy being poisoned?

This week's Lexington column in the Economist makes an interesting argument about the US education system and the SATs. The argument is twofold:

1. The SATs engendered the most radical revolution in US higher education by laying the foundations for meritocracy: students were exclusively judged on their grades. However nowadays

   Universities discount test results when it comes to admitting star athletes. Or else they give a “slight advantage” to the children of alumni or professors. Or else they admit minority students with lower SAT scores, only to see a disproportionate number of them drop out because they can't cope.

   In order to return to the meritocratic ideal US universities should stop these practices and consider only grades and test scores in the application process.
2. The actual content of the SATs has changed this year to include an essay, more algebra and reading comprehension and less analogy questions. This is bad because it actually puts minority or poorer candidates at a disadvantage, by requiring more notions (which are harder to glean from underprivileged schools) and testing less for innate talent.

While both arguments have their merits, I think the first point is absolutely fundamental, and it is for that reason that I think the time has come to abolish affirmative action. I cannot think of a rational reason to practice something as radical as discrimination, according to the above mentioned criteria, in this day and age. However I am not as convinced by the second argument. I have not seen the new tests, but I took the old version, and I feel that math, writing and reading comprehension were not stressed enough. I have the feeling that at the moment US colleges are forced to invest significant resources in teaching subjects and skills, such as written communication and math, that more appropriately should be dealt with in high schools and that the admittedly patchy US high school system is failing to provide. This new version of the SAT may channel the focus towards these subjects within high school curricula and, while I recognize the risks of fiddling with such a successful system, I think that it will probably turn out to have been a step in the right direction.

Bizarre

Not only are they deadly enemies of ours, they are also weirdos! What on earth could Al Qaeda possibly want with Russell Crowe? Don't they know he is one of the most spoilt stars around? He'd probably give them a run for their money!
Anyway, the only logical step to take now is to make a Hollywood movie about a star who is targeted by a terrorist network. How's that for nombrilisme?

Exciting new technology

The United States is developing a non lethal weapon, designed to inflict pain and incapacitate without causing permanent damage (see here and here; I first saw this mentioned here). This would be an incredible breakthrough, enabling the US Army to intervene in crises, possibly even in combat, without causing casualties. The sooner it is available for use the better.
One would think that such a development would be hailed by all those pacifists who supposedly care so much for the preservation of human life. Instead we have eminent scientists coming up with these nuggets of wisdom:

Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, said: "Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown."

Isn't this guy incredible? Maybe he should analyze "the long-term physical and psychological effects" of death, amputation, paralyzation or bullet wounds!
We also get this extremely useful comment:

According to John Wood of University College London, an expert in how the brain perceives pain, both Richardson and Cooper and all those working on the PEP research project should face censure because any weapon resulting from the programme "could be used for torture."

You must be kidding me! Almost any sharp object can be used to kill someone, let alone torture them! If you are worried about torture you should focus on what actions are permitted by law not on limiting scientific and technological advances that have the potential of saving millions of human lives.
I would also note that this seems to me (though I have no technical knowledge in the matter) to be the ideal weapon against insurgents and terrorists in guerrilla warfare situations, as one of their strategic advantages with respect to armies is that they are difficult to identify and try to dissimulate themselves among (usually) innocent civilians.

Before and after: no change

Zacht Ei has translated part of an article that appeared in a Dutch daily paper by a journalist who met Giuliana Sgrena while travelling to Iraq (via lgf).
What I find most striking is how Sgrena's attitude doesn't seem to have changed by one iota after the traumatic events she went through. I wonder if she is even aware that it is her naïveté that caused this tragic episode.

Translation

I have translated the interview of Giuliana Sgrena I mentioned in the previous post.

“My kidnappers? Never did I consider them enemies”
Marco Imarisio
Corriere della Sera. March 7, 2005.

While she speaks her gaze is turned towards the television, where the lasting images flow. She, who in the morning unsteadily got off the ladder of the airplane, President Ciampi who in the middle of the night caresses the coffin of Nicola Calipari (tr. note: the Italian secret service agent who was killed while accompanying Sgrena to Baghdad airport). Giuliana Sgrena has not understood yet. She has not comprehended that each of her words, now, will be analyzed under a microscope and read in all their possible interpretations.
Seeing her on the hospital bed, listening to the speed with which she expresses her thoughts, one notices that she herself needs to speak. To exorcise, to attempt a personal accounting.

Q: You have said that you were treated well by the kidnappers.
A: That is correct. Why?

Q: In your first video you seemed desperate.
A: I was. I had not managed to spill a single tear up to that moment and I cry often. When I spoke of Pier (tr. note: her boyfriend), I started crying.

Q: What had the kidnappers told you?
A: They had asked me to dramatize. It was a difficult moment, because I was in an phase in which I was angry. I was upset and litigious. I did not understand their motives.

Q: What were your feelings towards them?
A: I never felt I was an enemy of theirs. It was not easy; I was in a submissive position. But I tried to understand them through the sentences we exchanged.

Q: And what did you understand?
A: They said they were fighting for the liberation of Iraq, they claimed they were at war and therefore forced to use all means available. They defined themselves Iraqi resistance. But they were not throat-cutters like Al Zarqawi or those of the car bombs.

Q: Is there a difference?
A: Sure. They would indicate throat cutting with their fingers and say: “We are not like them.”

Q: Not that kidnapping someone is a praiseworthy enterprise.
A: I have always supported the Iraqi civilian resistance. But in war, I can understand that one can reach certain excesses.

Q: Are you referring to kidnappings?
A: Sure. To clarify: Al Zarqawi is not resistance. It is terrorism. The car bombs are terrorism. There is an armed resistance that uses unacceptable methods.

Q: You consider this kidnapping a sort of defeat.
A: I lost and it is the reason for which I will not be going back to Iraq. Not now, at least. I wanted to tell of the devastating effects of this occupation. But to them now there is no distinction between soldiers and civilians, Italians or French.

Q: According to Pier, your boyfriend, you had information that could have annoyed the Americans.
A: I think he was misunderstood. I have no reserved information, though I wish I did. But it infuriates me to hear talk of a “tragic accident.”

Q: You have spoken of a “rain of bullets.” But Calipari was killed by a single bullet.
A: I remember that on the seat next to me there was a pile (tr. note: literally, “mountain”) of bullets. I couldn’t say how many. But I can say that in one moment all the car windows were shattered.

Q: What is your opinion?
A: I don’t know the whole truth. I think, but this is only a hypothesis, that the success of the deal could have annoyed someone. The Americans are against this type of operation. For them war is war and human life counts for little.

Q: There are those that accuse you of being anti-American.
A: It’s not a crime. The debate on these themes is conducted by people who have never set foot in Baghdad. I challenge anyone to actually go and see what happens in Iraq and not to be anti-American.

Q: Has this incident changed you?
A: It has not changed my personal beliefs on (the) war and on what is happening in Iraq.

Q: Are you not worried of being seen as ungrateful, as happened to the two Simonas (tr. note: two Italian hostages who were freed a few months ago and who subsequently praised their captors)?
A: It would hurt but I cannot rule out that it will happen. It would be a little hypocritical. It’s true, I do have my opinions. But even before I was freed they were well known.

Pathetic

Unfortunately, as an Italian, the occasions to be ashamed of one's fellow countrymen are far too common. The latest instance of this is Giuliana Sgrena, an Italian journalist for the communist daily Il Manifesto, who was kidnapped by insurgents in Iraq and wounded by American soldiers while being brought to Baghdad Airport after she was freed by the Italian secret service. An Italian officer was killed in this incident. See this for an overview.
On the one hand we have Sgrena, who after reaching Italy said:

"The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free the hostages is known," the 56-year-old journalist told Sky TG24 television by telephone, her voice hoarse and shaky. "The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostage, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been the target."

The situation is simply surreal. Sgrena and the driver of the car have claimed that all levels of the US command were informed of their movements. However it is now emerging that the US forces were not informed at all, for fear that they would block the payment of the ransom (see here and here).
At the same time Sgrena claims this same opposition of the US to freeing hostages as the proof that they targeted her.
Can you please make up your mind? Was the US opposed to the ransom or not and was it informed or not? You can't have it both ways! According to this thinking, if it was informed (which now seems unlikely) the US would have blocked the transaction, and would have had no need to target Sgrena. If it was not informed (as seems to be the case) they could not have targeted Sgrena, because targeting by definition implies intention - and US forces weren't even aware that she had been freed!
On the other hand we have the Italian government which allegedly payed millions of euros to free Sgrena from her hostages. There are even rumors that the money actually came from the personal fortune of the prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi (the richest man in Italy).
All this while Sgrena is declaring to all who will listen (see this absolutely incredible interview, in Italian, with Corriere della Sera, Italy's largest daily paper) that her kidnappers were not her enemies and that she was treated very well (apparently she even had access to cable news). I wonder how good a continental breakfast was served? Maybe a tour operator could take up the concept: "See Iraq the real way: be a hostage for two weeks!"
At any rate, what I don't understand is, if she was having so much fun with her insurgent buddies in Iraq, why did the Italian government go to such lengths to free her? (That's a rhetorical question: the answer obviously is that if the government had seemed less than keen to free her it would have suffered at the polls).
So in the end I guess this is a rant against Italian public opinion that encourages the government to act in an irrational and counterproductive way. I believe it goes without saying, and all rational people ought to recognize it: if you deal with the terrorists who kidnap people and demand something in return you are validating kidnapping as a means to an end. Kidnappers need to be hunted down and punished, not payed. If the insurgents knew that no government would ever even consider ceding to any demand in order to save a hostage there would be much less hostage-taking.
By the way, isn't it peculiar how these insurgents, with lofty ideas of freeing their suppressed nation from foreign occupation by kidnapping people, will forget about all that as soon as they are offered money? I suspect these may be just a few smart guys who have discovered an easy way to make a buck.

This should make your blood boil.

In recent times, thankfully, public attention has increasingly focused on so-called "honor killings," a despicable and hair-raising practice in which Muslim girls are murdered by their own family members if they "stain the family honor." Apparently the practice is condoned in many countries in the Muslim world and is very difficult to catch, let alone root out, in the West because many members of close-knit Islamic communities have great respect for the perpetrators.
A great article to start with (via Instapundit) appeared in Tech Central Station. Also see this in Der Spiegel on a by-now famous case that took place recently in Berlin. Another chilling account can be found here in the Daily Telegraph.
In a related vein there was an outstanding article in February's issue of Commentary about what happens when Muslims try to convert to another religion. (See here for an exerpt.) Some of the statements by respected, visible and apparently Westernized Muslims quoted in that article simply boggle the mind - this is a must read!
I am all for multiculturalism and tolerance but this is a nauseating practice that must be stamped out and eradicated with the full force of the tools at our disposal: the perpetrators must be hunted down and punished, and the accomplices and silent bystanders must be prosecuted and given maximum sentences. Western states must step in and provide a safe haven for the potential victims and most of all the public must be made aware of the sickening acts that have been allowed to take place in our midst. I cannot imagine anybody, from any shade of the respectable political spectrum, countenancing such barbarity and it is for this reason that I really hope that the increased interest of the public will snowball into real and actual solutions.

Move over Madeleine (and Hillary too)!

On Wednesday Condoleezza Rice joined President Bush in a visit to Wiesbaden Army Airfield in Germany. Her clothing was quite striking, projecting an image of self-assurance and determination. I don't seem to be the only one who noticed...

Should I Giggle or Cry?

While I am not quite as cynical as Mark Steyn, many things he says here and here are undeniable (as well as very well put): I just hope, against all evidence, that the Europeans will pull their acts together at some point.
By the way, make sure you take a good look at Steynonline.com: it is a treasure trove...

Where is our sense of proportion?

Among other things, first page news in Europe today include the resignation of Ruud Lubbers. I certainly do not know if the allegations are true, but even if they were, wouldn't it make sense to focus more on this (via Instapundit)? An unknown number of UN peace-keepers may have raped and abused girls in their care and we worry about whether a UN bureaucrat sexually harassed an employee with a cushy job in Geneva? Not that this is not an important issue to pursue and Lubbers should certainly be held accountable if proven guilty, but how come this:

The controversy began when a 51-year-old female administrator filed charges against Lubbers in May 2004 for grabbing her by the waist at a December 2003 meeting at the UNHCR's Geneva headquarters. She said he pressed his groin against her. (Washington Post)

is focused on more than this:

The UN has since admitted that some of its peacekeepers regularly raped, abused and prostituted children in their care. (…) The UN has known about these abuses for some time but is only now scrambling to respond to the charges. (The Age) ?

And anyway why isn't the UN peace-keepers scandal being discussed as much as Abu Ghraib scandal? Is it just because American troops are not involved?

Where is the outrage now?

If all those people who said that

• given enough time, UN weapons inspections would have worked
• that the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq should be transformed into "smart sanctions," because the conditions were too harsh
• that only the UN can lend legitimacy to international actions all over the world

really believed what they were saying; they should be outraged by this (via lgf) and this (via Michelle Malkin). And they should be vocally and insistently calling for a major overhaul of the UN. In other words, now that they have egg all over their faces (because the "UN-solutions" they championed have been discredited) they should be making realistic and effective proposals on how to change the way the world's problems are to be addressed in the future.

For some reason, however, there has not been, and I highly doubt there ever will be the same kind of outrage, outcry and flurry of reform as there was in the US intelligence community when it became clear that there had been significant miscalculations about Saddam's military capabilities.

Where is the outrage now? Where are the headlines and why aren't the photographs of the UN rape scandal splashed all over the front pages of the world's newspapers? Are most of Bush's critics really so uninterested in the truth and in dealing with the world's problems that all their criticisms are insincere: that they only make a furore if they have some hope of damaging Bush? Isn't that sad?

Hurray for Global Warming?

I don't know what to make of this, but it sounds fascinating (via Instapundit). I am generally skeptical of the gravity of global warming, and I think the Kyoto Protocol is a naive, useless and costly mistake. At the same time I firmly believe it is a good idea to fight actual pollution, which is unequivocally obnoxious (and often confused with Global Warming).

Scary...

Here is a disturbing article from The Times of London (via Lgf). What I found most offensive actually appears in the very last paragraph:

The poll also highlights anti-Israeli feeling in Germany. More than two-thirds said they believed that Israel was waging "a war of extermination" against the Palestinians.

However the main finding of the poll is also unbelievable:

Some 62% of the 3,000 people questioned by researchers from the University of Bielefeld agreed they were "sick of all the harping on about German crimes against the Jews."

The article itself expresses my cause for concern best:

The poll horrified Lord Janner, a spokesman for British survivors of Auschwitz. "It's appalling," he said. "It raises fears that the current generation are not ready to pass on the history and lessons learnt from those events to their children."

As we all know, what happened during the Holocaust was appalling and mind-boggling. Remembering it and expecting the Germans to make more of an effort at this than, say, the British or the Americans is simply common sense. While I am not claiming that one is personally responsible for one's grandfather's sins, it would seem appropriate to me to feel a special responsibility to make sure the past (and what a past it is) is vividly remembered - and to be gracious about it. Additionally, it would certainly help if the German public opinion were more in touch with reality: finding even the most passing resemblance between the Holocaust and the Israeli - Arab conflict underscores a profound ignorance of either or both, if not a malicious intent to spread falsehood.

Smart move guys!

Well this seems like a smart thing to do! (via Instapundit) No wonder the Lisbon agenda is off track: instead of concentrating on serious and urgent reforms, European governments are focused on building totally useless aircraft and then foisting them on those countries in the world that, while more productive, are for whatever reason in a position of weakness. Way to go Europe!

Reality-based community?

This is an excellent post on Edward Kennedy's annoying habit of saying things and making proposals that are completely unhinged from reality. I wonder what advantage he thinks he'll get from it.
Anyway, I found the above-mentioned post via Asymmetrical Information, one of my favorite blogs. I took a moment to read some of the other material posted on Different River and it really looks like a great blog. I have added it to my favourites (which I rarely do because I'm worried about information overload...).

Arrogance and ignorance

While I have long been convinced of the New York Times' bias, I was taken aback by the sheer sloppiness that this article underscores. Power Line has the goods (via Instapundit).

Brilliant!

This post really puts things into perspective, doesn't it? (via the Diplomad)

Get a load of this...

I had to cringe in frustration when I saw this post on Davids Medienkritik. Apart from the incredibly racist overtones of the article and picture (which appeared in the German weekly magazine Stern) - I simply find it hard to believe a well-intentioned and honest journalist could come up with such despicable material - I also consider it very irritating that millions of Germans regularly read this stuff and actually think it reflects reality. Ironically they believe "ignorant Americans" uncritically accept whatever Bush tells them is the truth and don't realize that it is actually they who are being brain-washed. As I live in Brussels, from time to time I come in contact with such people and what I find most frustrating is that often it seems we live in parallel universes: the sources we respectively use to shape our Weltanschauung are so radically different that with the best of intentions there simply cannot be any significant exchange of ideas.

Europe is a dead horse

I couldn't have said it any better. Mark Steyn in this week's Spectator (via AS):

Americans remain mystified about one of the landmark events of this year: the terrorist bloodbath in Madrid that changed the result of the country’s election. Why, they wonder on this side of the Atlantic, wouldn’t the Spaniards stand firm? But what’s to stand firm for? To fight for king and country is to fight for the future, and a nation with Spain’s fertility rate — 1.1 children per couple or about half ‘replacement rate’ — has no future.

The same could be said of most other European countries, particularly Italy and Germany. As Vittorio Dan Segre once said to me, referring to Europe: "It is an intellectually dishonest exercise to try to resuscitate a dead horse."

Woody Allen call your office

Actually, life imitates art.

From Manhattan Murder Mystery:
Arthur Bannister: [on the movie screen, The Lady from Shanghai is playing] I'm aiming at you, lover.
Mrs. Dalton: I'm aiming at you, lover.
Arthur Bannister: Of course, killing you is killing myself.
Mrs. Dalton: Of course, killing you is killing myself.
Arthur Bannister: But you know, I'm pretty tired of both of us.
Mrs. Dalton: But you know, I'm pretty tired of both of us.
[On the screen, Arthur and Elsa shoot at each other, breaking mirrors; in the theatre, Mrs. Dalton and Mr. House shoot at each other, breaking mirrors and finally killing Mr. House]
Larry Lipton (Woody Allen): I'll never say that art doesn't imitate life again.

Dangerous and insulting

I have great respect for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and many of his policies. I once met him, about a decade ago, and he seemed to me to be a caring and passionate individual. Generally I believe the Gaza pullout plan will be a positive step in the Middle-East peace process, even though I recognize there are legitimate reservations. It will certainly only go so far as long as this is the Palestinians' thinking (via lgf). It will take a long time and much effort to change that, and I don't see anyone in the Palestinian leadership who has the popularity, courage and desire to see that happen. I guess we have to be happy with small steps.
However it is clear that the situation in the territories is untenable in the long term, both for the integrity of Israel and for the Palestinians. While I feel for the settlers who will have to abandon their homes, this kind of protest is dangerous and insulting. The Holocaust is invoked far to often nowadays, frequently by Anti-Semites. These comparisons are completely out of any proportion and gratuitous and so is the one made by the settlers. It is offensive to the Israelis who want to live in peace alongside the Palestinians, without compromising Israeli security, but even more so to the actual victims of the Nazis. As an observant, Sharon-supporting Jew I am offended.

My sentiments exactly

Finally someone says it: stop stripping Christmas of its Christian content! I'm an observant Jew (and so is Krauthammer) and I just found the "Holiday Tree" in California beat them all. Finally Arnold Shwarzennegger straightened things out. I hope all those who celebrate it have a very Happy Christmas!

Why I don't feel at home

This post at Davids Medienkritik, an absolutely fabulous blog, really underlines why I, as a European Jew, feel uncomfortable here.
It boggles the mind that so many Germans don't think that equating the IDF with the Nazis is beyond the pale, let alone subscribe to such a view. From personal experience I can say that I think the situation is not as extreme in Italy, where I live. However, I will soon be moving to Brussels (Belgium) and quite frankly I am somewhat scared. I think I will avoid letting people know that I am Jewish, and I resent being forced to do so to feel secure.

What chutzpah!

The following comment was quoted today by Andrew Sullivan:

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "Your recent piece on the high rate of divorce in supposedly "family values" red states missed an important point, of which I was reminded by today's blog item on teen marriages. I've lived in the South for 30 years. Given the heavy religiosity in this part of the country, there's a cultural emphasis on "no sex without marriage." If you teach your kids to believe in Hell, and then teach them that they're headed there if they engage in sex without being married, you reduce marriage to not a well-considered bond between two adults, but a license for two scared kids to screw. Of course, any marriage entered into out of fear of the devil or of social condemnation typically lasts until the participants find out there's a lot more to life than fucking. Add to that the societal attitude that two kids getting married is a cause for celebration, rather than a life-ruining tragedy, and Christian fundamentalism pretty well foreordains the red states' high divorce rates. It's amazing they're not higher." - more feedback on the Letters Page.

I was taken aback by the tone (and content) of this comment. I can't speak for the Christian "fundamentalist" world, with which I have had little contact, but Orthodox Jews certainly believe that it is wrong to have sex before marriage and that you will go to "purgatory" if you do (there is no such final and permanent punishment like "hell" in the Jewish tradition). Nonetheless, among my numerous Orthodox friends I would be hard pressed to find someone who thought of marriage as a "license for two scared kids to screw." Actually it seems to be humanly possible for even teenagers to occupy their minds with activities other than sex, reach adulthood intact without engaging in it (or marrying to be able to) and find a life-partner at a young age (18-22, not 12 obviously) with whom they are happy and fulfilled. I can tell you that the most intense, stable and loving marriages I have ever observed invariably are between people who waited until after marriage to have sex precisely because "there's a lot more to life than fucking" and they were mature enough to understand that. If in many cases teenagers aren't that mature, I can't imagine that having indiscriminate sex is a better idea than what the commenter calls "no sex without marriage."