4:36 PM CST

Call placed. The automated system cannot understand me, and after several failed tries declares that it will connect me with an employee.

4:39 PM CST

Connected to the employee, where I ask about what constitutes an acceptable answer to race. She reads an official answer that does not address my question (included below), prompting me to repeat myself. She then says that she cannot answer my question, and to put whatever I want.

4:42 PM CST

I declare that my concern is being legally compliant, and I would thus like to speak with somebody who can indicate whether my intended answer is legal or not.

4:43 PM CST

The second employee indicates that there is no illegal answer to the question, my only obligation is to answer it. She goes on to claim that I can even make up a race if I like.

Now, why is it that I have a question about race? Should that not be exceedingly straightforward?

Put simply, the issue with categorizing oneself by race stems from race being a social construct. This is demonstrated aptly by the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of race, and that there is likewise no uniformity of opinion on what constitutes a racial group and how many exist. This is perhaps most notably demonstrated by the fluidity of our racial categories over the history of the Census.

As Jeff Jacoby notes, we’ve vastly expanded our racial category options:

In 1850, the Census Bureau divided Americans into “white,’’ “black,’’ and “mulatto’’; by 1890, it was classifying “Japanese’’ and “Chinese’’ as races, along with “Negro,’’ “mulatto,’’ “quadroon,’’ “octoroon,’’ and “white.’’ Based on this year’s enumeration, the government proudly announces, “Tabulations will be available for 63 race categories — six single-race categories and 57 different combinations of two or more races.’’

If you’re wondering how there are 63 racial categories now, then let us look at what the Census Bureau has to say:

The Census Bureau collects race data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country, and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically or genetically. People may choose to report more than one race to indicate their racial mixture, such as “American Indian and White.” People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.

In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include both racial and national origin or socio-cultural groups. You may choose more than one race category.

As you can see, their definition is exceedingly unhelpful. They acknowledge that their is no biological, anthropological, or genetic standard by which they are defining as race, but that instead the definition shall be the product of social standards. This assumes a national uniformity that does not exist, an acceptance of questionable consensus standards, and attaching oneself to a label whose boundaries are rendered fluid by virtue of their function as a sub-category of something as mutating in definition as race is. More at issue though is the decision to include “national origin” or “socio-cultural groups” as valid identifiers of race, for it would seem to sanction a massive range of answers that in both social and historical context would not fit what the average person understands to be a race. “Korean” is a nationality and “Hmong” is an ethnicity, yet the census lists the former as an option and the latter as an example of an acceptable expansion upon the “Other Asian” choice.

By this standard then, I could readily identify as American, for I was born here. Some conservatives have considered this very idea, and seem to believe it technically legal. And Jacoby agrees, noting that the New York Times endorsed this very notion in the mid-19th century. Of course, I’m a first generation American, the product of legal immigration. Being of Canadian stock, I might then identify under that category instead. But is isn’t as though my family spent centuries in Canada. We fled there from what is now Belarus in the early 20th century, so Belarusian might seem more fitting. Based on the history of said region though, I might just as easily identify as Lithuanian, Polish, or Russian for at one time or another they all occupied said land before my family escaped. The Russians had the most recent control, so identifying as Russian might make the most sense. Complicating the picture though is that fact that my family is most likely not from Belarus, but settled there at some period during the Russian occupation, at which time Russian simultaneously held a multitude of other neighboring territories, any one of them being potential historic homes of my family.

Given how confusing national origin would prove, I might instead identify as being of a socio-cultural group. At the most basic level, that might mean identifying as either Jewish or Semitic. Either should clearly be a valid answer, for just over two decades ago, the US Supreme Court acknowledged Jews as a being part of a racial category separate from Caucasians. This could further justify me describing myself as either Ashkenazi for specificity’s sake, or as Israeli, Hebrew, Egyptian, or Iraqi based on the national origin criteria stated above and Jewish history. Obviously, the national origin identification choices are even more absurd than before, for I am much more removed from any of those lands than Belarus or Canada. Ashkenazi seems equally poor, for it is a better indicator of how frequently I recite Birkat Ha’Kohein and what I consider chametz than anything else. That theoretical value is expunged outright by my atheism.

So why not save myself the mental energy and identify simply as Jewish? After all, the Census is said to collect data for statistical purposes, and will neither be linked to the individual nor freely divulged in a way that threatens privacy. Or at least that is the official claim. History though tells us a much different story. In 1942, Congress passed the Second War Powers Act, which required that”any information or data” be collected by the Census Bureau be made available to other government entities. It is well established that this enabled the government to more easily locate and intern Japanese-Americans during the Second World War. More recently, the Department of Homeland Security collected Census data on Arab-Americans, which we know only through a FOIA petition from EPIC. Given then that the cause for concern extends beyond general distrust of an overreaching government, and there are multiple examples of outright abuse, I have no desire to identify as such on my form.

Many would suggest then that I identify as White. But I see two substantial problems with this. First, as mentioned earlier, I am bothered by the notion of embracing a social construct to placate government workers. Even if I accepted the notion of race, and that White was the logical choice, I would remain hesitant, for virtue of the simple fact that I’m Jewish enough to not be White in the eyes of a disturbingly large percentage of the population. But second, and perhaps more importantly, I do not wish to provide said answer for the very reason that the inquiry on race is pernicious. Look at the official justification for said inquiry:

Information on race is required for many Federal programs and is critical in making policy decisions, particularly for civil rights. States use these data to meet legislative redistricting principles. Race data also are used to promote equal employment opportunities and to assess racial disparities in health and environmental risks.

If you cut past the rhetorical efforts to make this seem positive by citing “civil rights” and “equal opportunity” issues, the meaning is rather clear: tell us your race so that we can better interfere in your community and use race-related issues to justify doing so. Even if we are to assume it will be used only in service of every liberal’s favorite example of what makes this necessary, the Voting Rights Act, it remains objectionable. While laudable in helping to enfranchise Black voters, the VRA has also been widely cited as justification for affirmative racial gerrymandering. That is, while our courts have held that redistricting efforts that diminish the political power of minorities are impermissible, no such restriction extends to redistricting in such a way as to optimally concentrate minorities into voting regions that give them more power. In practice, this leads to the creation of majority-minority districts, where a target percentage is to be Black or Hispanic, so as to ensure that candidates of said group are move viable, and that those groups at large can put their votes to better use. This is extremely objectionable, in that it leads to the creation of extremely odd shaped voting districts, the disproportionate influence of certain groups who are being extended special privilege, and has partisan implications. That last point is especially concerning, for Hispanics, and to a far greater extent Blacks, do not vote Republican. Thus, racial redistricting counts, as one of its major consequences, the creation of permanently Democratic seats, thereby negating the value of having actual elections.

So, knowing that specific racial information is liable to be exposed and abused, and objecting to both the notion or race and the available labels, how did I answer the question of race? I checked “Some other race” and wrote “No race” in the provided box. I am hoping that this does not yield a follow-up phone call or direct visit, but I certainly imagine it will. After all, while the workers I spoke with seemed to believe that however I identified would be valid, and I found “No race” the closest acceptable short answer, I should be compliant with the law. Yet, since my answer surely is not the sort they desire, mere compliance probably won’t end their harassment.

I mention legal compliance because of the United States Code, Title 13 (Census), Chapter 7 (Offenses and Penalties), SubChapter II:

221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

* (a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

* (b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

* (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Though the Constitutional mandate for the Census does not mention race as required information, the Supreme Court has held that questions not explicitly included in the Constitution may still be made a mandatory component of the Census, such that legally speaking the above penalties could realistically be imposed on those who fail to answer or who inaccurately answer the Census. Rare as enforcement may be, the risk is higher than I care to assume given my financial limitations and desire to avoid even the remote prospect of imprisonment.

It is clear that we must, legally speaking, all fill out our Census forms, and we must indeed answer absurd questions such as those asking about race. But, short of not outright lying, there is no established guideline. So fill in whatever answer you find most comfortable, appreciating fully the consequences of giving the government certain answers, be it helped to undermine the democratic process or receiving further communications from their army of underinformed temp workers.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

In order to preserve formatting, specifically as related to footnotes, I have this as a PDF and uploaded it to Scribd. The essay is embeded below, though you may download it as well.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Most recently, the British National Party issued a statement denouncing the English Defense League as “a Zionist false flag operation, designed to create a real clash of civilisations right here on our streets between Islam and the rest of us.” Indeed, in the full message, Griffin goes so far as to suggest this is part of a Zionist (his way of identifying Jews while still giving him the capacity to claim he is speaking about only a select few of us) cabal that ends with the UK using nuclear weapons against the Muslim world. And of course for good measure, he indicts the British newspapers endorsing the ELD as co-conspirators. If all of this sounds like the sort of vile anti-semitism that Czarist Russia and Nazi Germany serialized for mass consumption to inspire support for brutally repressive anti-Jewish policies, that is because it ought to. The British National Party after all, is one of the most beloved European political parties among participants in neo-Nazi forums like Stormfront.

Now then, what is the English Defense League all about, and are they fit allies as the BNP condemnation might suggest? Formed on June 27, 2009, the English Defense League is a group of “ordinary, non-racist citizens of England and supporters who have had enough of being treated as second-class citizens to the Jihadis in our own country,” with around 300 members. They are not against all Muslims, or even the disturbingly violent faith of Islam. Rather, they seek to compel government action “against extremist Muslim preachers and organisations.” Their rejection of racism could not be any more clear, for they openly declare that “Everyone from those whose ancestral roots are in pre-Roman Britain to immigrants just arrived yesterday will be welcomed into the EDL with open arms as long as they are willing to stand up with us for English values and against Islamist hate.” Aside from receiving death threats from Jihadists and their ill-informed anti-fascist allies on the liberal fringe, the group notes that they regularly receive such threats from white supremacist groups, as a consequence of which, most of the group’s leadership is not publicly disclosed. In essence then, the group can summarily be described as a loose coalition of Brits from many different walks of life and political backgrounds that is united in its opposition to the most objectionable elements of the Islamic community, which is against the use of violence, and which has no broader aims or objectionable inclinations.

It seems to me that given presently available information, there are only two issues that exist as it pertains to the ELD. First, while it is growing rapidly, it seems poorly organized, and lacking in the sort of centralized orientation needed to present a consistent and appropriate message wherever branches are found. This could ultimately cause the group to splinter, with the secondary risk that some of the offshoot groups will be swallowed up into white supremacist movements. The other issue with the English Defense League is that they seem to be insufficiently informed about the nature of Islam, such that they draw a distinction between regular and radical Islam. While it is entirely appropriate to state that many individuals who identify themselves as Muslims are peaceful and are valued participants in society that have no interest in undermining our way of life, it is necessary to emphasize that their self-identification is not entirely valid. That is to say, those who call themselves Muslims but reject Jihad, caliphate building, and the subordination of those infidels the ummah opts not kill, are guilty of apostasy. And, as we know from al-Baqarah 2:217, “Whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever.” In other words, when enforced, Islam punishes such respectable individuals with death. When not, such as in the Western World, they are simply deemed apostates to be killed when circumstances allow (following the rejection of an invitation to return to Islam), who even if allowed to die of natural causes will suffer eternal torment in the afterlife. All of this is a roundabout way of saying that there is no moderate Islam, only moderates who continue to self-identify as Muslims.

Those being the biggest problems with the ELD, it is therefore appropriate that those interested in fighting against the Islamists stand in partnership with said organization. Their aims are informed by a highly moderate and inclusive ideology, such that they are more above reproach than even many of the best regarded anti-Jihadist parties (like the Sweden Democrats). It is my hope that they continue to grow, and that the anti-Jihad community rejects the paranoid rantings of Charles Johnson, instead standing with these well intentioned men and women.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Though I do not want to paint too rosy a picture about the operations and content of Student Life prior to this staffing change (such as the horrid coverage of Dr. Daniel Pipes), as somebody who has worked at other student papers and for a range of more professional sources too, I feel able to say that on the whole, the previous standards of operation were generally commendable, and the results often praiseworthy.

First and foremost among what made Student Life function as a credible vehicle that was more newspaper than sub-tabloidal misallocation of paper (as is presently the case) was that, rather than choosing governing sentiments as fit the agenda of those in charge, they upheld journalistic standards, chief among them free speech. It is understood that, especially as it pertains to editorial columns, the writer is given sufficient discretion to not only choose their topic, but write about it in a tone and with a slant of their own choosing. For their part, the editor is generally expected only to make alterations to grammar and syntax, and if need be, removing statements that qualify as libel. And that was the position taken by my editor, and insofar as I am aware all others, up until the staff shift. Not a single article I wrote between September of 2008 and April of 2009 was censored, including an article where I advocated applying an obscure Israeli law that would make the vast majority of its government eligible for life imprisonment and another article decrying Gandhi and the undue popularity he continues to enjoy postmortem. The new staff however, was quick to abandon this standard. Or rather, Kate Gaertner was. Being the new Senior Forum Editor, she has the ability to override the decision of the daily editors. And, at least in my experience, said group was not actively inclined to follow Gaertner’s reckless lead. Rather, they were just a bit too green behind the ears to challenge her abuse of authority, meaning that from day one, she could censor articles whose viewpoint she disagreed with, altering the tone, or making changes that made the article less coherent (as happened with my Fujimori article), thereby making the author seem less competent.

I was greatly concerned when, within a week or so of assuming power, she overrode the daily editor and made drastic changes to an article about the Federal Reserve written by fellow CLA member Phil Christofanelli. While some of her changes were legitimately necessary to enhance the readability of his column, having seen both the original version submitted and that which ultimately ran, I can say with confidence that she grossly distorted Christofanelli’s position, and left out crucial details that supported or qualified his position, and which were contextually critical. Alas, this was not the last example of her flagrant disregard for the opinions of the few non-liberals who had opted to lend the paper credence by letting it cite us as examples of a balance that never truly existed. The very next week, my article about the famed Peruvian politician Alberto Fujimori was savagely butchered.

Length was obviously not the issue, for it was among the shortest columns I turned in last year, and was nearly three hundred words shorter than the column I’d run the previous week about US-Israel relations. Indeed, the version she decided to run without my consent was a mere 19 words more brief. The real changes she made were not to length, but message. My article was unabashedly supportive of Fujimori, who many conservatives hold as hero based on the stellar results he generated while in power, especially as compared to the job done by those who preceded and succeeded him. In her mind however, that was unacceptable. After the column ran, I met with her to discuss my profound anger over the rape of my column. Her justification was that because I was the only Student Life columnist whose focus was on international affairs, she felt the need to moderate my tone, given that I had no left-wing counterpart. Never mind that with the arguable exception of Christofanelli, who covered various domestic policy issues every other week from a qualified libertarian position, every other writer for the section had a pronounced left-wing orientation. Yet at no time did she ever feel that balance was needed there. After all, the views of said columnists aligned generally with her own, so she felt no need to restrict their speech. In that particular exchange her seeming fetish for censoring conservatives was re-iterated throughout, as she issued various proposals that involved cutting, marginalizing, or balancing my column and no others. We ended with me making rather clear that should my column ever again be censored, I would cease to write for Student Life, as I now have.

Censorship though is not limited to those writing, as such policies just as readily apply to those wishing to join the staff. One individual wishing to write for Forum sent Gaertner an email detailing their desire to write for her section. She did not ask for a writing sample or details of the writer’s credentials. She did however make certain to confirm that their political position was one consistent with her own. She stated, in reference obviously to me, that the paper already had a writer who is “very neo-conservative in his stance [ed - this is grossly inaccurate], very pro-Israel” and that she was not looking to hire another such writer in the name of the “balance,” which consisted of me on the right, and most of the rest of the staff on the far left. It wasn’t until she was sufficiently ensured she wouldn’t be adding another conservative to the staff that she granted the applicant a column.

Of course, once granted a column, even if a Forum writer is not subject to censorship as a result of their ideological sympathies, it all but certain they will suffer from the ill-effects of mismanagement and/or power politics. For instance, it was not until shortly after I attempted to submit my Srebrencia column (now run elsewhere) during the first week of class this academic year that a clear word limit was ever stated, being set at a meager 700 (which, in turn, has caused a decline in quality perhaps moreso than any other singular action since the staffing change). Problem was, what your limit was would vary depending which editor you asked, and who you were. Under the old regime, if there was a word limit, it was perhaps a soft 1000, and I ran at least four articles that were between 800 and 1000 words without so much as a suggestion that I consider writing shorter submissions. Under the new regime, the limit is a hard 700. But, and here’s the catch, it applies selectively. I had run multiple columns longer than that in the short reign of the new governing regime. And indeed, I was told by my editor that the submitted article would run, but that in the future, I should keep articles under 800 words. A friend of mine writing for Forum was told to keep his columns under 550 words by a different editor. Presumably these were not arbitrary decisions, but rather the result of mismanagement by Gaertner, as applied to her subordinates.

I am especially inclined to believe the fault lies exclusively with Gaertner based on her inability to relay simple information to her staff in a timely fashion. After the last minute rejection of my Srebrenica article for being longer than a limit I was never told about, and other issues to be detailed below, I resigned from Student Life on August 30, 2009. From what I have been told, even though the article was in her hands well in advance of that time, she did not bother cutting it until printing day, keeping the Friday Forum Editor in the dark. Likewise, he was not even told of my resignation until the next week, at which time he was tasked with finding a way to fill column inches he had come to expect were already accounted for, being that I had a weekly column.

Still, it may not merely have been an issue of incompetence and limited communication skills on Gaerner’s part, as her apparent love for instigating petty conflicts in an inexplicable quest to ensure that her authority was never challenged, even though hierarchically she was never in any danger, manifested itself regularly. This is perhaps best evidenced by her fear of openness, and the associated reliance on secrecy, witnessed clearly in her management of the Executive Board. Made up officially of senior staff, its job is to select the topics for the staff editorials, as well as the position that will be taken therein. Whatever the connotations of her name, the staff in charge before her held that such meetings should be open to all Forum writers interested in attending, and that when there, participants were equal in status to those who were official members of it. They recognized that there was no negative consequence to this approach, as only those genuinely interested would attend if not obligated. At the same time, there was tremendous benefit that came with it, including helping to determine who would be offered promotions at the next staff roster adjustment, encouraging interaction between junior and senior staff, fostering an open atmosphere that instilled faith the paper, and allowed for a diversity in opinion to be given voice that might otherwise be sorely lacking. Gaertner however, would have none of this. Though she herself had attended several such meetings before being made an editor, unsure in power based on her underwhelming experience and leadership skills, she sought to keep the meetings closed, limiting them only to the newly appointed editors, all of whom had the same or less experience than her, and were disinclined to challenge her authority. Or rather, she almost did.

Having regularly attended such meetings previously, and moreover having both written a Staff Editorial (about University College access by undergrads) and having introduced a piece of software still widely used by Student Life staff to collaboratively edit articles (Writeboard), I continued to attend the meetings without issue. And at first, there was no apparent problem, for she had not announced a policy switch, and no other non-editor besides me made a point of attending such meetings. One week however, I suggested to a friend of mine that also wrote for Forum that he experience an Executive Board meeting, as they sometimes featured rather interesting debate. He agreed, and we went together to the next such meeting. Shortly after leaving, he received an email from Gartner, wherein she said stated he was not welcome at said meetings in the future. She said, “One thing that I wanted to address with you is that the editorial board meetings are technically open only to senior staff members, and we invite Caleb, as a columnist, to come to our meetings because we feel he helps us to strike the appropriate political balance of opinion that an editorial board for our campus community should reflect.” That she even allowed me to continue attending for the remainder of the academic year was a bit shocking, for her actions detailed earlier in this article make clear she had no true allegiance to balance. But this was to be short lived.

Just before the start of the academic year, and prior to my resignation from the paper, I sent Gaertner an email inquiring as to when and where the Executive Board meetings would be held this year, thinking that it might have changed from last year. In response to my inquiry, she informed me that “the scope of eboard has changed this year, and in keeping with our goals, it will be limited to editors.” Now, insofar as I can tell, that policy was not any different from the preceding year since her assumption of power, with one notable exception. And that is the concern for balance. It seems that over the summer, she lost any interest in even pretending that her section enjoyed any. Not being one to avoid confrontation, I responded to her, stating as much, albeit with a somewhat nicer tone. She of course ignored this, as she often did emails I sent where the answer would invariably require that she either concede something to me, or put her foot in her mouth. While other writers would hear back from her in hours, I would never get a response as soon as the circumstances forced her hand, even if I sent two or three emails on the same topic over the course of a week or two. To do otherwise would require that she be less paranoid about protection authority nobody ever sought to challenge. And that inclination seems absent from her DNA.

Ultimately, I do not believe that the sad state Forum, and to a lesser extent other sections of the paper, currently find themselves in is necessarily a permanent condition. Past leadership has demonstrated that within our student body there are a perfectly sufficient number of capable individuals to run a high quality campus newspaper. But those presently in power, especially Gaertner, have done considerable damage in the present to our paper’s quality and reputation. If, when the next staff re-assignment comes around serious changes are not made, with more qualified individuals being given greater authority, I fear that what is presently just a dark period for the paper will become something more permanent and more destructive. Its longterm viability, if present conditions persist, is questionable. And, even if it were to continue on, in its present capacity that would serve only as a blight on this fine institution.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

It is with great reluctance that I am hereby resigning as a columnist in the Forum section of Student Life. My decision to leave was not easily reached, for I feel that my column helped to provide a small semblance of balance in presenting the only regular right-of-center column in the paper. However, my disinclination towards continuing this turf war with you, and generally having to deal with the petty politics that seem to be dreadfully linked with your section of the paper, has left me without any other choice.

With two years as a regular columnist, I have built up my credentials sufficiently to be published in leading specialty newspapers on three continents, and to receive accolades for my work from such academic, journalistic, and media icons as Fred Taub, Julia Gorin, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer. Accordingly, I believe that I have earned the right to expect a certain level of freedom and respect that I am not presently receiving at Student Life.

Thus, rather than remaining to apply pressure and compel reform on areas of great concern such as political balance and a culture of managerial openness, I am removing myself from the paper’s staff so that I can better focus my energies on both writing for publications of greater substance, and dedicating my energies to campus issues of greater importance.

Sincerely,
Caleb Posner

—

For the record, this decision will not have an adverse impact on my writing volume, as I will simply be shifting where I submit my work.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

As the saying goes, history is written by the winners. And when it comes to the former Yugoslav peoples, that can readily be described as everybody but the Serbs. So it is unsurprising then that they have been vilified throughout the West, labeled as war criminals and butchers whose unmitigated xenophobia caused the collapse of a great multi-ethnic state and the bloodiest set of wars Europe had witnessed in a half century. Yet much as Joe Biden and other Serbophobic politicians who called for the repeated bombing of Serbia during the Wars of Yugoslav Secession might believe that summary to be accurate, the facts simply do not lend themselves to such a conclusion. This may be no better demonstrated than by looking at Srebrenica, which has long been Exhibit A in the court of world opinion in the case against the Serbs.

Officially, the story goes that around 8000 innocent Bosnian Muslims were, without any provocation, slaughtered indiscriminately by genocidal Serbs with revanchist aims, who were unmoved by the civilian status of their victims, or that the area they attacked was to be a safe haven managed by the unbiased and above reproach United Nations. As far as making a case for the bloody violence the Western allies would unleash on the Serbs, that did the job rather well, as it played to the sympathies of the emotionally-driven masses. Of course, with respect to capturing the truth, the governmental line is rather inadequate.

So what exactly is the truth? Alexander Dorin, a Swiss researcher who just recently sent his book “Srebrenica – The History of Salon Racism” to print in German (Serb and English translations are planned in the future) said in an interview that, “After 14 years of investigating events that took place in Srebrenica in 1995 I can attest there was no genocide over Muslims in that enclave — the myth about the massacre of Muslims was invented by the late Bosnian Muslim war leader Alija Izetbegović and then-U.S. president Bill Clinton.” Questionable as that allegation may sound to many, it is important to recall that the United States actively armed Izetbegović and his ragtag jihadist army during the war, applied pressure on Tudjman’s secessionist Croat government to cease his involvement in the Herzeg-Bosnia land theft, and sought actively to create a Bosniak state where one had not traditionally existed (for the land falls within the bounds of historic Serbia). Much of this, especially the sale of arms, was documented heavily even by the liberal American media at the time. And indeed, once the other factual inaccuracies become apparent, it seems quite evident that there was not a Srebrenica massacre, but rather a military engagement that, like many US operations, involved some inadvertant civilian casualties, that has been mythologized to give political cover to the warmongers that led us into battle on intelligence information more questionable than any ever utilized by the Bush administration.

For instance, the real number of dead bodies uncovered was closer to 2000. Some 3000 names of alleged victims were alive enough to vote in the 1996 elections. And many other dead bodies were found to be from previous gun battles or from non-violent ends more than a decade before the event in question. Still unaddressed though is guilt. Among the 2000 dead discovered were a very large number of soldiers who, under the leadership of jihadist Naser Orić killed some 3000 Serbian civilians beforehand. That raises perhaps the most important point: Srebrenica was not a purposeful slaughter of innocent civilians, but an effort by Serb forces to save the lives of their countrymen from an enemy army that had already spilled ample blood, and which was cowardly seeking refuge in protected civilian areas that were supposed to be unarmed, and therefore demilitarized. That there is no record of any military orders relating to civilians, or even mandating the execution of enemy soldiers is telling, in that it makes evident the aim was not to inflict unnecessary brutality, but to take control of the area such that the nearby Serb civilians they were charged with defending could go about their business unmolested instead of living with a paralyzing fear that the destruction of their village was imminent. Indeed, the size and weaponry of the Serb forces present would’ve proven insufficient for anything more grand. The physical evidence confirms as much, for of the dead Muslim soldiers discovered, a good number of them died not from execution, but from untreated wounds that came about during the two-sided military engagement.

All things considered then, we must realize that Srebrenica’s infamy is deserved not because it was home to an act of genocide in post-Holocaust Europe, but because the events that unfolded there amidst a highly misunderstood war have been so grossly distorted that the popular myth has overpowered reality, and in turn has given the Serbs a reputation for neanderthalic brutality and bigotry that is entirely undeserved. Even today, with the violence having long come to an end, the Serbs remain villainized and subject to undue scrutiny because of this and other associated lies. It is therefore important that the record be set straight and that the Serbs cease to be made a pariah simply because they were on the losing side of a war our country made much worse.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

You may click here to play the show, or right to save it.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

First, looking at Sotomayor’s past, it appears that during those years she was earning her prestigious Ivy League credentials, she was also cutting her teeth in the world of radical leftist activism of the racialist variety. During her time at Princeton, she submitted a number of letters to the editor that were run in the Daily Princetonian. Among them is one where she decries the racism of her institution towards “Chicano” and “Puerto Rican” students. And what sort of discrimination was she speaking about? Not the sort witnessed at truly concerning universities such as Case Western, but one of affirmative action, or rather a lack of it. It seems that Sotomayor was, and it seems still is, of the opinion that being Chicano entitles somebody to special benefits and preference, so much so that institutions must actively recruit such candidates. Never mind that institutions like Princeton are, when positions exist, already overwhelmed by a number of qualified applicants for the position(s) in question, and thus would normally have no reason to actively recruit candidates. And for that matter, don’t bother considering how absurd it is that race, ethnicity or other irrelevant details that ought not define a person are being called for as a selection criteria, when if Caucasians were to demand such benefit anywhere (even at an HBCU), they would be branded racists and publicly shamed. Instead, what must be realized is that Sotomayor got her way and remained unhappy.

How do we know this? In 1974, Princeton hired a new minority dean. And by that, I don’t mean a dean that happened to be a minority, but rather a dean who was chosen in large measure because he was a minority (it was part of an affirmative action hire to calm down the campus radicals). The student committee, which was tasked with helping the university to make their selection, had six members. The race of sixth member was not noted, so based on the university’s demography, it is likely they were Caucasian. We do however know that the other members were three Blacks and two Latinos. And for the position, they chose a Latino candidate. Of course it should be noted that Sotomayor and a fellow racialist activist constituted the two Latino members, though she remained dissatisfied, marginalizing the substantial student input Princeton administrators solicited by way of her committee, and claiming that the position was scrutinized more closely than other hires. It goes without saying that these are both absurd claims on her part, especially with regards to the latter, for even if true, it would be appropriate. That is to say, in a normal hiring situation, where all interested individuals may seek a position, it is inevitable that qualified applications will appear, and the university will have multiple strong options to fill the existing void with a candidate for the aforementioned job. But, where the pool is restricted by artificial and superficial criteria that don’t speak to the relative merits of those in it (such as minority status), the quality of applicants is far less certain, and thus greater efforts must be made to ensure that even with the restrictive criteria in place, a suitable candidate can still be found.

Of course, one might ask why it is that Sotomayor, a clearly radical racialist, would be appointed to such a prominent position by the university. To answer that requires only two words: Accion Puertorriquena. Founded around the time she began her studies at Princeton, Accion Puertorriquena remains active on Princeton’s campus to this day, and it played a major role in expanding the academic offerings of the university relating to Latino culture and history. Whatever merit this is to that, its importance as a Latino student voice on campus, and more importantly as the Puerto Rican student voice on campus, is apparent in its use as a vehicle to harass Princeton into extreme affirmative action. That is, the group (or at the very least Sotomayor) was not so much interested in giving admissions preference to Latino students as much as it was actively recruiting said students. So important was race-based preference to the group that they insisted the university was obligated to incur substantial expense actively hunting for Latino candidates, even when they already had far more qualified applicants of numerous racial backgrounds than spaces. This of course is on top of their involvement with the Coalition Against Proposition 187 (Proposition 187, a 1994 California ballot measure (which seems strange for a New Jersey university group to be focused on…), was a ballot initiative designed to disallow welfare and other social aid benefits to illegal immigrants), which proves beyond a doubt their disturbing dedication to Latino racial radicalism.

Though political extremism is often a hallmark of youth soon abandoned, it seems that Sotomayor never changed. In 1980 she became a member of the Board of Directors for Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (now called LatinoJustice PRLDEF), which has also always been driven by an agenda of advancing the situation of Puerto Ricans and other Latinos when they were not otherwise being mistreated or in need of help. Their origins however center on ensuring that Latinos need not learn English, as their first lawsuit in 1974 was Aspira v. New York City Board of Education, which resulted at the expansion of failed bilingual education programs over English immersion classes. And much like Accion Puertorriquena, their history is one of fighting for racial preference in admissions and hiring, and in the extension of social aid benefits to illegal and undocumented immigrants.

To this very day she is (or at least through 2000 when the American Bar Association profiled her was) a member of the National Council of La Raza. As with the other radical Latino organizations mentioned, they support racial preference in admissions and employment, social benefits (and drivers licenses!) for illegal immigrants, and substantial accommodation for those immigrants (legal or otherwise) that cannot speak the language. Disturbingly, that isn’t the worst thing about La Raza. They actively support and help run Latino charter schools that are hostile to the United States as a country, and non-Latino peoples in general. Take for instance Marcos Aguilar, Principal of La Academia Semillas del Pueblo (one such school they are connected to, who said who said “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain. . . . We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”

That she has been involved in not one, but three radical Latino organizations, all of them racist in their politics, is outright disturbing. That it was not merely a phase in her youth for which she has since apologized makes her an unacceptable candidate for the Supreme Court. Just as she was worried about diminished law enforcement credibility in the case of Thomas Pappas and his anonymous hate mail sent from his home, she should be worried that any verdict related to civil rights, immigration, or race will be viewed as suspect (with good cause) based on her own actions, which she does openly and without shame (thus making it problematic in a way that didn’t apply in the case she misruled on before).

What Others Are Saying
Atlas Shrugs: She has all the bells and whistles of a leftist candidate – Hispanic? Check! Female? Check! Compelling narrative that tugs at the heart? Check! Brain power? Irrelevant! The left doesn’t like too much brains, too much reason and intellect. It confuses them.
Liberally Conservative: Sotomayor is able to get away with her racist comments because she is a female minority. Imagine Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito making similar comments and not facing hell on earth in the press and at confirmation hearings.
New England Republican: It looks like Barack Obama was listening to Jeremiah Wright when the later was spewing his racist rhetoric those 20 years.
Neocon Express: To take a page from Jenine Garafalo, President Obama appointed a ‘stone cold’ racist and intellectual lightweight to the US Supreme Court this morning.
Stop the ACLU: If the Senate does not question her on her membership to a radical organization advocating racism, there will be a major outcry. Republicans better step up and grill this women before handing her one of the most important positions of power in the U.S.
Sultan Knish: By nominating Sotomayor, Obama is very clearly looking ahead to 2012, by first nominating an Hispanic Woman, secondly a left wing judicial advocate, more specifically one whose views on ballot access will help open up that golden box of millions of votes, and in the case of a Bush vs Gore type Supreme Court case, will always argue on the side of inadequate access.
Thomas Sowell: If you were going to have open-heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is, or by the best surgeon you could find — even if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that money and social position could offer? [...] The Supreme Court of the United States is in effect operating on the heart of our nation — the Constitution and the statutes and government policies that all of us must live under.
Tom Tancredo: I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context, that’s exactly how we would portray it.
Tundra Tabloids: Obama is just doing what comes naturally, as a devout Leftist, he seeks judges that are activists in robes. If the congress won’t pass laws that socialists want, he’ll plant activist judges on the bench that will insist on by-passing the will of the people to placate the will of the few, the privliged of the Left.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Undoubtedly, Sotomayor looks impressive at first glance, in that she graduated at the top of her class at Princeton University, and then when on to graduate from Yale Law, where she was editor of the Yale Law Review. But that’s about where her merits as a potential Supreme Court justice end. Cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, Pappas v. Giuliani, and Doninger v. Niehoff make evident that her rulings either willfully disregard the Constitution, or hinge on indefensible misinterpretations of it.

Let us begin with Ricci v DeStefano, the case most likely to trigger controversy as her nomination is considered (by the Republicans that is, since the Democratic party and most of the media seems to have already okayed her). In it, the city of New Haven, Connecticut was bound by union contracts with respect to the fire department, mandating that exams were to be used as the determinant for promotions. Specifically, the individual chosen for promotion had to receive one of the top three scores on the exam. Black candidates however performed inadequately, with a failure rate twice that of their white cohorts, meaning that none were among those first eligible for promotion after this new advancement exam was rolled out in 2003. This resulted in the city’s independent exam review board questioning whether it was a racially bias exam that could not be certified as valid in determining who would receive promotion. A competing test development company stated when asked that he believed the exam was not so problematic as to be illegal or outright invalid, and veteran firefighters noting that the exam was rather similar to what they had taken in the past. So, logically speaking, the exam ought to have been certified, after which the promotions would be issued. However, the review board was split 2-2, leaving the exams uncertified. A group of Caucasian and Hispanic firefighters who had scored well enough to earn the promotions in question thus opted to sue, claiming that New Haven’s actions violated Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. Though she did not author an opinion in this case, we must recall that when first tasked with rendering a verdict, Sotomayor voted to uphold the District Court ruling, which sided with the city against the hard-working fire fighters on the basis of their skin color.

Pappas v. Giuliani, where her involvement is quite a bit more clear, is perhaps even more disturbing. That case deals with Thomas Pappas, a New York City police officer who was fired from his job because, outside of the office, on his own time and with his own money, he mailed hate material to an assortment of organizations that had first mailed his solicitation requests. Also important to recall is that he did so anonymously, meaning that there was an intent to avoid creating the sort of negative public image that might inspire questions about his biases with regard to police work. Further, he asserted, and this cannot be disproved, that his actions were a form of political protest. Thus, being that the material he sent out was not unlawful in the first place, that it was purposeful political speech, and that he did so without involving his employer in any way, one should think that the Court would side with Pappas, who even if genuinely racist and of poor character, has done nothing that ought to have rendered his at odds with law, or resulted in the termination of his employment in a country where there are substantial limits on the grounds over which an employee may be terminated. But Sotomayor and her liberal ilk disagreed, ruling against Pappas at the expense of the political expression rights.

Of course, her utter contempt for the First Amendment and its promises of free speech rights does not end there, as shown by Doninger v. Niehoff. I’ll spare you the overwhelmingly long version of this story, instead directing you to an article on the matter by Mark Kernes if you are so inclined. Put briefly, this was a case of Avery Doninger, a student government member at Lewis Mills High School, using some off-color language on her livejournal to describe her feelings about certain school administrators that were making every effort to impede or cancel a “Jamfest” event that the students had (with prior school authorization) been planning for quite some time. While this was going on, Doninger was up for re-election, seeking the position of Senior Class Secretary, having previously held the equivalent position for her class junior year. Having failed to display the “good citizenship” expected of candidates running for positions in student government (by using the aforementioned off-color language on her livejournal), Doninger was denied administrative endorsement, ensuring that she would be left off of the ballot, and all but guaranteeing that she would lose the election. But a funny thing happened. The students, who were impressed by her past performance and her willingness to advocate on their behalf, voted overwhelmingly for her. In fact, she won a substantial 2/3rds of the vote. But the school, so concerned about a student using the word “douchebag” on a livejournal entry that they felt the need to attempt (unsuccessfully) to silence Doninger, proceeded to disregard the results of the election and give the position to the second place candidate. And Sotomayor agreed with their actions. In the unanimous court opinion, of which she was a signing justice, Tinker’s principal that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” was acknowledged, but then rendered irrelevant by what followed. Instead, she regarded the school’s mission (something which, I might add, had no constitutional basis to exist) of imparting a “proper respect for authority” as being more critical than allowing for dissent. That the somewhat crude language was used outside of the school, and in the context of political dissent over the decisions of those in power at the school, was deemed inconsequential. Not only then was free speech dealt a serious blow, but the verdict seems to suggest that dissent is improper and should be disallowed if it is at odds with respecting the authority of people who have done little if anything to earn said respect.

And of course in her past there are a number of other disturbing verdicts, though none as important as the above. Litmus test for appointments or not, a judge who consistently makes irrational, freedom-limiting decisions should, on that basis alone, be rejected as a potential candidate for the forthcoming vacancy. But, even were one sympathetic to her politics, it is not otherwise clear that she belongs. Disregarding the absurd controversy surrounding her comment that judges make policy from the bench (which is a provable fact, and thus does not reflect something meriting further review by those of us opposed to her nomination), there are questions being raised about her fitness for the position. Famous legal scholar Jonathan Turley said of her nomination, “My main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions. I have read about 30 of the opinions and they do not support the view that she is a natural pick for the Court. She is without question a historic pick — like Thurgood Marshall. However, Marshall was not a lasting intellectual influence on the Court.” And his point is well taken. Having the right heritage and an atypical success story does not render qualified. But if asked, Sotomayor seems to feel strongly that such details do make a difference, for speaking at UC Berkeley she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That of course is a reflection of the “empathy” that this token candidate is expected to bring with her. That’ll mean a great win for identity politics, and an even greater loss for the Constitution and American individualism.

What Others Are Saying
Bench Memos: Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.
Cato @ Liberty: In nominating Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, President Obama chose the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.
Crunchy Con: Given that we were certain to get a liberal justice out of Obama, I suppose one has to take comfort in knowing that Obama made a quota pick too, and did not choose a liberal justice who can match intellects with Roberts and Scalia.
JammieWearingFool: Great News: Obama Picks Radical Hack for Supreme Court.
Libertarian Party (USA): By nominating Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama has made it clear he prefers an activist for his personal causes over a rational interpreter of law.
Michelle Malkin: Identity politics triumphs.
Patterico: Sotomayor will almost certainly be confirmed, but she does appear to be one of the more leftist of the nominees that had been under consideration. Empathy über alles, dontcha know. Republicans should (emphasis on should) be able to have a field day showing how she’ll move the law to the left.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

I hope also to launch a podcast of yet-to-be-determined length and frequency starting in September, dedicated to in depth discussion of international affairs, and I am currently reviewing the technical requirements with my would-be co-host.

That aside, I am also happy to announce that my article on Israel-US relations, which ran in Studlife earlier this month, was recently also run by Arutz Sheva, my favorite Israeli news website. And it seems that Google News has indexed said article.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

According to TNS Nipo (a marketing and statistical research firm), Geert Wilders and his Partij voor de Vrijheid enjoy 40% popular support in the Netherlands, and will take the plurality of the nation’s 25 seats come June. Indeed, even the most out-of-date and statistically questionable polls show his level of support at approximately 18%. In other words, Wilders will be one of this election’s biggest winners, which is excellent news. The PVV is one of the only parties that is steadfast in its commitment to defending Western civilization from the Islamist threat without relying on Christianity as a crutch. Though Wilders has given an expected nod to the Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe more than once, he has just as readily noted the humanist character of the continent that is rooted in pre-Christian Rome and Greece. Equally important, in his view defending Europe means standing up for minority rights, enhancing economic liberty, and reducing the size of the EU. One particular platform point often overlooked, yet really quite positive, is the PVV’s aim of having Bulgaria and Romania, both politically represive economic wastelands, booted from the EU.

Likewise, Czech voters appear prepared to vote in their finest, with opinion polls showing the Občanská Demokratická Strana likely to receive 1/3 of the nation’s 22 seats. The party of Václav Klaus and Mirek Topolánek is one of the only parties in Europe boldly fighting the anti-civilizational eco-hysteria that is currently en vogue, while simultaneously advocating loudly for economic liberalization, EU devolution, and Russoscepticism. The party is keenly aware of the threats that communism, Russian agression, and loss of sovereignty to outdated institutions and new liberal fads pose to the Czech Republic as a nation, and Europe as a continent. And so their continued electoral support at home, which by all accounts should be sustained through the European Parliamentary Elections, is a very encouraging sign.

Unfortunately, not all of the EU members seem interested in building a better Europe or even standing up for their own true interests. Most visably, the UK is preparing for a return to the dark ages by welcoming the anti-semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay British National Party into the European Parliament for the first time ever. The anti-capitalist, pro-conscription lunatics have thus far always fallen short of entry, but are projected to earn at least 3 seats, and by some accounts even more. The BNP bears the rare distinction of being branded by the European Parliament as an “openly Nazi party.” What is especially disturbing is that they, alongside some of the offensively liberal British parties, are gaining at the expense of the UK Independence Party, which has been an exemplary defender of British sovereignty, individual liberty, and reduced taxation.

With the elections still six weeks away, there is ample time for popular opinion to shift. But, at least with the information we currently have, it seems reassuring that several nations seem intent on enhancing the quality of the alarmingly powerful EU. We can only hope that in those nations instead inclined to shift support towards parties that embarrass the human species, a last minute change of heart will prevent them from making such egregious errors.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Let us proceed by establishing the purpose of an age of consent. Two primary reasons exist. First, the goal is to prevent child exploitation by disallowing intercourse with those who lack the capacity to issue informed consent. And second, it is a means of controlling the abuse of authority that can sometimes exist when there is a profound gap in age between to potential partners. At face value, both seem to be entirely noble aims. However, upon further scrutiny, their use as justification for intrusive and non-nuanced law becomes quite obviously invalid.

I will address the latter issue first. Positions of authority are not merely a question of age. A boss has authority over his employees in a far greater capacity than a teacher might over a student. Yet there is no law forbidding their fornication. Instead, the issue of authority is dealt with at the institutional level, with many companies having strict rules regulating sexual and romantic conduct in the office or between those it employs. It seems reasonable that such mechanisms might just as easily work in schools, religious institutions, or other areas where adults potentially have authority over minors. That provides for this first aim, for arguing that the age gap is problematic in and of itself is irrational. This is evidenced by the fact that it is perfectly legal, as it ought to be, for a senior citizen to have sex with somebody old enough to be his grandchild. Such sexual relationships rarely develop however, based on disinterest of one (or both) of the parties, as would generally apply here too.

The bigger question thus becomes about the ability to consent. What benchmarks are to be used to determine if a person is capable of issuing consent? I believe that the knowledge base must be there, and the physical development must support it. In other words, I would argue that consent may be issued as soon as the minor (of adequate mental capacity) has entered puberty and received some sex education. Once they understand the mechanics, proper safety, and the potential consequences of their actions, why are they not believed to be responsible enough to have control over their behavior? Surely if children are taught of law and bound to it, they can be taught about sex and entrusted to control their own experiences thereafter.

Logic thus lends itself to abolishing the age of consent, and instead applying the above. In doing so, we become free to emphasize the real issue: a culture-specific disregard for the notion of informed consent. I speak of course of the situation in the Persian Gulf, which includes a number of oil-rich nations that fancy themselves as modern and Western-oriented, where marrying girls aged 10 and under is still rather common. To varying extent, this finds legal sanction in those nations because men like Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, endorse such sex-inclusive unions. Lest one write this off as the rantings of a closeted pedophile who has been unnaturally elevated to such heights, I feel inclined to note that his position is supported within Islamic scripture. For as Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 states, “Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).” This practice is then considered exemplary because Muhammed is the uswa hasana, al-Insān al-Kāmil, essentially “the perfect man and role model” (see Qur’an 33:21). Thus, his decision to have intercourse with a nine year old girl, who we have no indication entered puberty, is sanctioned practice, and allows for such consent-devoid arrangements to this day.

While the standards of conduct were quite different in seventh century Arabia than 21st century Western civilization, such practices continue worldwide, and ought to be the focus of our concerns. After all, these girls are not only uninformed, but underdeveloped and left without choice. Thus, they cannot give or deny consent. It is that, not the ability of a 17 year old in North Dakota to have intercourse without fear of legal consequence, which threatens basic human rights and the very reasonable underlying aims that our outdated age of consent laws seek to protect.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Every week, I write an article for Student Life, the main campus newspaper at Washington University. The overwhelming majority of the staff is quite liberal. There is, as I understand it, one other non-liberal columnist, and his articles tend to be quite a bit less controversial. Last week however, the other non-liberal found that his column had been substantively altered before running, and he had been given no notice of the changes. His editor, the same as mine, said that he hadn’t made the changes to the column, but rather that our Senior Forum Editor, Kate Gaertner, had. She claims the changes were a matter of length, but this obviously false. While the length was cut, most of the changes made involved either the removal of contextually-necessary facts or a major softening of tone. Comparing the two versions, there is no question that the one ran was inferior, and a discredit to the author’s name.

So imagine my displeasure when this week I opened up a copy of the paper to find that I was Gaertner’s latest victim (something she confirmed via email after getting wind of my reaction). The old editors, whose term ended in April, never once made a substantive change to any of my articles, instead only making minor grammar or syntax tweaks as they deemed necessary. While I happen to have disagreed with some of their alterations, I was never truly ashamed to see my name attached to the columns as printed. That is unfortunately no longer the case. On Wednesday, I submitted my latest article about Alberto Fujimori, and saw a disturbingly different version run on Friday.

Here’s how the two versions compare (excluding the sort of minor changes I didn’t find particularly bothersome):

Original:
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70 year old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder and other less serious offenses by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima, and was given a 25 year prison sentence.

Altered:
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70-year-old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima and sentenced to a 25-year prison sentence.

Changes:
Dropped “lesser charges” to make the sentence factually erroneous.
“Sentenced to a sentence” is terrible wording.

Original:
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger, but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The veracity of this assertion still unproven to a sufficient extent that he deserved conviction aside, let us consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.

Altered:
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The degree to which he deserved conviction remains questionable, but aside from that, it is imperative that we consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.

Changes:
Massive meaning change. It goes from questioning the allegations themselves to how fair his convition was, and based on the rest of the article, it would seem to imply the question hinges upon his job in office. However, his excellence as President and his supposed guilt are largely different questions and I tried to separate them (still answering both), in the article.

Original:
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980 (after a dozen years of military dictatorship), at which time the student-driven Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…Indeed, in 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed the practice enforced the capitalist system they so violently rejected.

Altered:
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980, after a dozen years of military dictatorship. At this time, the student-driven, communist Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…In 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed that voting enforced a capitalist system that they found despicable.

Changes:
Addition of the word communist before Maoist, which is not only redundant (being that it is a school of communist thinking), but unnecessary, in that anybody who is unfamiliar with Maoism had no business reading this article. And I should hope that WashU students have learned such basic information by this point in their lives.

Further, to find an ideology “despicable” is not problematic. The problem comes in the violence. By removing the “violently reject” phrase, the sentence is too mild in its approach to the Shining Path.

Original:
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the massive communist insurgency.
Altered:
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the communist insurgency.

Changes:
Removing massively again gives the Shining Path too little blame. They controlled large sections of the country, and for years were one of the most violent and threatening insurgencies anywhere in the world.

Original:
And, not only did he drain the national reserves, but he left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations, the cost increasing greatly through interest because he refused to service the massive debt he helped create.

Altered:
In addition to draining the national reserves, Garcia left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations.

Changes:
First, it makes Garcia seem less at fault, since it fails to make clear that he was the source for much of the debt. That becomes especially important given the essay’s conclusion. Beyond that, the refusal to pay debts is important, because again that caused great problems for Peru that Fujimori had to overcome. So this change ultimately serves to advance Garcia at the expense of Fujimori, which is unacceptable.

Original:
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians, that the group or splinter factions of it have begun to once more function.

Altered:
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians that the splinter factions of the Shining Path organization have begun to function once again.

Changes:
This sentence was rendered factually incorrect. While the splinter factions are most active, technically speaking there is still a Shining Path, which the original acknowledged and the altered version does not.

Original:
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale by the crippling blow Fujimori delivered to the terrorist organization.

Altered:
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale thanks to the measures taken by Fujimori.

Changes:
This again gives Fujimori too little credit. He didn’t passively make a few changes in law and happen to succeed. He instead put forth a massive military effort to crush the infrastructure of the organization, similar to what Sri Lanka’s government is doing to the LTTE.

Original:
That he also managed to save Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the very least.

Altered:
Moreover, the way Fujimori salvaged Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the least

Changes:
The original phrasing treats the preceeding as true, and commends him greatly for ALSO fixing the economy. The new phasing, coherence issues aside, suggests that even if the above is false, he saved the economy. In other words, it undermines my entire tone and defense.

Original:
But in view of the highly questionable nature of much of what he was found guilty of, and the exceptionally positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is entirely inappropriate.

Altered:
But in light of the questionable nature of the accusations brought against him, and the positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is inappropriate

Changes:
Again, the tone is muted by removing my zeal. Words like “highly” before questionable, “exceptionally” before positive, and “entirely” before inappropriate are important in conveying the utter absurdity of the conviction, which was the entire point of the article.

Original:
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing.

Altered:
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing so.

Changes:
Adding “so” at the end of the sentence is unnecessary, and makes the sentence less coherent.

So as you can see, the changes were extensive. And if she tries to claim it was a length issue (when I meet with her, which I’m scheduled to do), as she did with the other non-liberal columnist, that will not stand. Under the old staff, I ran four articles exceeding 850 words. I never had a hard word limit, just a suggestion that the be under 1000 words. Last week, my first article under the new editors ran uncensored and was 930 words. I was however warned about keeping future submissions under 800 words. The Fujimori piece, as submitted, was 666 words long. As ran, it was 647 words. I somehow doubt a 19 word reduction for a column well below the upper limit was needed. And certainly, such changes didn’t have to fundamentally alter my tone and argument, as Gaertner’s atrocious version did.

I find it concerning that in two weeks both non-liberal writers have suffered the same fate at the hands of an editor that has only been in charge since the start of April. Her predecessors has the good sense to treat non-liberal writers fairly, so as not to force their resignation and render the paper entirely devoid of any shred of ideological balance. While the paper was (and is) overwhelming liberal, those previously in charge were never so boldly hostile to differing opinions. I can’t imagine how Gaertner will attempt to justify this, or how further the quality of the paper will decline under her control, but I suppose I’ll find out soon enough.

UPDATE: I met with the Senior Forum Editor to discuss this issue. Some highlights:

* I presented her with a list of changes and notations of why they were unacceptable (see above). She tried to argue with one or two of them, generally conceded that I had a valid point, and apologized for the errors made.

* I noted that my biggest issue was that many of her alterations changed my tone, and this was completely inappropriate. She stated that she had intended as much, because being the only international issues writer for Student Life, she wanted to make sure the position taken wasn’t too extreme. I told her point blank that I’d soon tender my resignation than moderate my tone to whatever it was she regarded as acceptable.

* Evidently disinterested in that scenario, she then proposed that I move online only, which I quickly rejected. Print may be a dying media, but I refuse to be chased out of it for not towing the liberal line.

* Next, she proposed that every week she writes a response to my column to provide balance. I made clear to her that I cover a broad range of material, some it quite obscure. So, while I wouldn’t feel the need to stop her from responding to my articles, I wouldn’t feel compelled to go mainstream either. And that would translate to substantial additional research on her part, especially on occasions where the topic of choice pertains to my areas of expertise (Israel and the Balkans).

* She then asked about doing that just when bigger international issues arose. As I noted, I generally avoid such stories, but were I to address them, her rebuttal would be fine. I did however make clear that I objected to her efforts to essentially provide “balance” against my column and not the vast multitude of liberal columns. After all, I am one of two conservative writers total, and by far the more controversial and hawkish of the two (being that the other is a libertarian).

* Ultimately, it ended with her promising to only make grammatical changes in the future, with my continued contributions hinging upon her keeping her word.

I’m still extremely concerned about the direction this paper is headed given some of her answers/suggestions, as well as those issues detailed above, though for now I’ll continue writing. But, if ever again I should see my article so butchered, then said piece shall be my last.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980 (after a dozen years of military dictatorship), at which time the student-driven Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public. Instead, they began a ruthless campaign of guerrilla warfare, which by 1992 had resulted in more than 20,000 unnecessary deaths. Indeed, in 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed the practice enforced the capitalist system they so violently rejected.

But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the massive communist insurgency. In his term as President, predecessor Alan Garcia drove businesses out of Peru through a series of anti-market actions, including his efforts towards the nationalization of private banks in 1987. By the time he left office, there had been 2.2 million percent national inflation, a decline in wages to a three-decade low, and a 20% loss of GDP. And, not only did he drain the national reserves, but he left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations, the cost increasing greatly through interest because he refused to service the massive debt he helped create.

Undoubtedly then, Fujimori was tasked with addressing two epic problems that on their own would have overwhelmed lesser men. Yet he rose to the dual challenge with remarkable ease. He crushed the Shining Path terrorist organization and restored governmental authority to all of Peru. It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians, that the group or splinter factions of it have begun to once more function. Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale by the crippling blow Fujimori delivered to the terrorist organization.

That he also managed to save Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the very least. He cut price controls and government subsidies, opened the country up to investments, and simplified taxation and tariff laws. His willingness to make drastic marketing reforms secured IMF loan guarantees, which he put to good use. In 1994, just four years into his rule, Peru was posting a 13% growth rate; the highest in the world. Total GDP growth between when he assumed office and stepped down was an impressive 44.6%, and a $10 billion foreign currency reserve was built up.

In essence then, Fujimori saved Peru from itself. He turned around one of the world’s most volatile economies and reintegrated it in the international order, thereby building a foundation for the gradual improvement in the life quality of his citizens. He also brought an end to the bloody violence and instability that threatened the social order and basic human rights of his people. It is possible that in doing so, some inadvertent violations of the law took place. But in view of the highly questionable nature of much of what he was found guilty of, and the exceptionally positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is entirely inappropriate. Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing. This is especially reasonable with his incompetent predecessor who caused so much more damage now serving as President anew.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

How is social justice being defined? After all, if it means something absurd like working for the equality of economic circumstance, being supportive of every minority or special interest groups and their right to play the role of victim, or otherwise advancing the politically correct, historically sanitized hyper-multiculturalism that is destroying Europe and to a lesser extent the United States, then the obvious answer is no. Such ideas are the product of defective liberal thought, hinging on the suppression of individual rights for the sake of an inexact common good. If however it means tolerance and open-mindedness, judging people on their qualifications and competence rather than inconsequential details such as race or gender, or supporting a system of legal and equality and an opportunity-creating free market, then there can be no bigger advocate for social justice than the conservative. In either such case, the question would answer itself. Thus, what I find troubling is that a conservative group would adopt uncritically such an outmoded liberal buzz word and offensively use it to question to the character of their own ideological brethren.

Quite why it is that the College Republicans would willingly associate themselves with the Social Justice Center to ask such an absurd question in so inappropriate a capacity is beyond me. There are, in my estimation, only two potential answers. First, the College Republicans have become so worn down by the tide of liberal ideological oppression at Washington University that they cannot remain steadfast enough in principle to distance themselves from such nonsense. Second, this is a desperate attempt to win approval and wider campus acceptance at an institution where their image is not particularly positive as a consequence of their ideology. It may well be a combination of the two. In any case, this illustrates a serious problem of the CR that extends well beyond their partisan alignment. They are doing nothing to advance conservative intellectual discourse or conservative principles, instead facilitating the myth of balance and ideological tolerance by being the useful token organization that can be cited as a conservative force, but which has been declawed and lobotomized.

The CLA was offered the opportunity to be involved with this event, but the scant details and inappropriate name immediately turned us off. This is a decision the group made of which I am especially proud. After all, dialogue across ideological lines has its place, but playing the patsy for an exceptionally liberal organ of an overwhelmingly liberal institution as they treat conservatism in monolithic terms and subsequently evaluate it by their own warped rubric does not. If the left wishes to discuss true conservative philosophy and its aims, they must first realize that the Republican Party is by no means conservative, and that the College Republicans do not speak for us. They must further understand that such discussions will not be held on their lopsided terms over which we lack control, but in a way that treats conservatives and our ideologies fairly. There is certainly a place for such discussions, and I believe the CLA can and should play a vital role in them. But this cannot happen when we tie ideology to partisan identity and then emphasize their offshoot student groups as the chief sources of credibility in the political discourse.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Unpopular as it may be to say in the United States, increasingly those on the Israeli right, for perhaps the first time since Kach was disbanded, are suggesting that Israel is disadvantaged by its relationship with America, and needs to redefine the terms of association if bilateral relations are to be retained. And indeed they have a compelling case. Historical precedent shows us that land won in a defensive war, as Israel fought in 1967, need not be restored to the losers or be given independence of any sort. Israel made the mistake of not formally annexing the territory at that time, but it did not become a problem until President Carter, who has proven himself to be deranged on all matter of Mideast policy, strong-armed the “right wing” Begin into surrendering a massive portion of territory to Egypt in the name of peace. Never mind that four consecutive military defeats would’ve sufficed as a deterrent against open warfare. Instead, let us ask whether the peace Israel supposedly has with Egypt is of any value. When it so readily facilitates arms smuggling for the fifth-column Palestinian insurgency and could readily fall to the increasingly powerful domestic Islamist factions, what good did such massive concessions do?

If you answered “paved the way for yet more dangerous land concessions,” pat yourself on the back. Using the return of Sinai as precedent, Clinton was able to compel Rabin, who to that point was not nearly so enthusiastic about displacing hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes to create a new enemy state, to sign the Chamberlain-like Oslo Accords. Rather than rise to crush the violent Muslim threats as Israel had so often needed to do in decades past, Oslo marked Israel’s loss of credibility, in that it began Israel’s formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority and their territorial claims on Israeli land. Even when Palestinian violence prevented the agreement from coming to fruition, Oslo went on to serve as a pretext under which every post-Rabin Prime Minister has made efforts to displace citizens for the purpose of creating yet another hostile regime in the region. And under the Bush-backed Sharon government, the very first steps to creating a new jihadist state were taken.

In the more than three years since Israel expelled its own citizens from Gaza, destroying 21 established communities to create a Hamastan where crucifixion is now a legally authorized form of punishment, Israel has suffered the consequences. Those terrorist organizations that seek to destroy it can now more easily arm themselves, and have added yet more population centers to the total territory they can rain their rockets upon. This surrender of land has of course done nothing to placate the international community, the United States included, which still refuses to recognize Israel’s capital city as Jerusalem. After Costa Rica and El Salvador moved their embassies to Tel Aviv, the international norm of allowing a country to choose its own capital within its territory is globally violated only for Israel. And indeed, that is but one of many examples of the unequal treatment Israel faces on the world stage. At best, the US occasionally votes against anti-Israel UN resolutions, usually along side the South Pacific island nations it heavily subsidizes. In practice though, this does little other than create a false illusion that the US-Israel relationship is vital only to the latter, and that Israel should be grateful for what little it gets. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel, for its part, has always offered military assistance to the United State, who rejects it routinely, and has served as the only trustworthy and powerful ally in one of the globe’s major powder kegs. And, at least under the present system, Israel essentially obeys the suicidal commands that its American master gives it.

So what is it that Israel gains? Chiefly the benefits are financial, and truth be told, not nearly as vital in the present as might have been true decades ago. Given the global financial recession and the hostile nature of the current American government, that number can only shrink, thereby reducing the value of such an alliance for Israel. While mutual technological development, commercial exchange, and military cooperation are all part of the bilateral relationship and are worth preserving, they are far less valuable than having the freedom to set its own policy and respond properly to the grave security threats Israel faces. So until the United States is willing to redefine its relationship with Israel as one between equals, it may be better for Israel to terminate the alliance and begin to more proactively seek out different partners around the globe.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

As Robert Spencer, the noted expert on Islamic theology who wrote Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, remarked in a recent interview, “Obviously ‘the problem’ is rooted within Islamic texts and teachings that mandate warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. Ibn Warraq’s observation that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam is absolutely true….” Realizing that, the natural question arises as to what forms this effort of subversion for the purpose of caliphate building is permitted. Dr. Walid Phares, terrorism expert and professor at the National Defense University, points out that while the jihadists often employ violent tactics, many instead have utilized the Islamic concept of taqiya (a false front, or concealment of belief) to present a moderate image while still retaining Islamist ideological aims. In other words, realizing that jihad cannot be fought only on the battlefield, especially when militarily speaking the ummah (Islamic community) is overwhelmed, many Islamists rely on liberal Western multiculturalism and political institutions to advance the same agenda without spilling blood.

The disturbing truth is that there are a great many examples of stealth jihad, most of which never get adequate mainstream attention. For instance, the Council on American Islamic Relations, often regarded as the Islamic NAACP, is a proponent of a thoroughly anti-Western agenda, and it associates readily with organizations who regard us as evil incarnate. Speaking to a crowd of Californian Muslims in July 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad stated, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” Similarly, their Executive Director Nihad Awad participated in a conference for Hamas members and supporters in 1993. Fundraiser Rabih Haddad was convicted of helping transfer money to a Hamas front group, and other CAIR members members including Randall Royer and Ghassan Elashi. The head of their Michigan chapter Muthanna Al-Hanooti has been charged with spying on behalf of the Iraqi government. And that is just the beginning of a laundry list of disturbing details about CAIR that implicate them as a force for stealth jihad. In the United States, they are perhaps the most influential group, though it would be a great mistake to disregard the many other powerful forces for the non-violent destruction of Western civilization, including their indirect parent the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizb ut-Tahrir.

It is therefore critical for the success in the misnamed War on Terror, which should instead be relabeled the War for Western Civilization, that we understand these there are links between the ideology and the violence, and often times said connections are the “moderate” front groups operating here and abroad. Such organizations, if not watched and held accountable for their cooperation with jihadists, threaten our very civilization. If their aims succeed, though the results may not be quite as bloody, the outcome is unthinkable. To live in a society where a woman has half the legal worth of a man, where homosexuals are executed by the state, and where the kuffirs (infidels) are forced to pay an extortive protection fee to continue living (the jizyah) is a prospect that should alarm any decent person. The best step then is to educate ourselves, and demand our political leaders to the same. To start, I strongly recommend that you attend Robert Spencer’s talk on Stealth Jihad on Tuesday, March 24 at Graham Chapel, beginning at 6:30 PM.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

On February 17, 2008, the Albanian-dominated autonomous province of Kosovo seceded from Serbia in violation of international law at the encouragement of the United States and many of its Western European allies. More than 50 nations, nearly two dozen of whom are EU members, have extended full recognition to Pristina. The bloodied and much coveted region (often called Serbia’s Jerusalem) is 88% Albanian, 7% Serbian, and 5% other (mostly Bosniaks, Turks, and Roma). Serbia, for its part, maintains that Kosovo is an integral component of its territory, in view of both history and international law. The Albanians, through a mixture of historical distortion and post-cleansing ethnic demography have suggested that Kosovo is not Serbian, and thus must be recognized as an independent nation (or, as some Albanian nationalist politicians suggest, a part of Greater Albania). Disputed legal status aside, one thing that is clear is that since NATO bombed Belgrade into submission and turned control of Kosovo over to the United Nations, what little authority Serbia had over the long autonomous province was lost. In the years since the transfer of power the status of the Serbs and other non-Albanian minorities living in Kosovo has declined dramatically, even when compared to the already abysmal treatment they were afforded under the Tito regime. Now regarded as independent by many Western nations, Pristina has a free hand to manage its own affairs, or as the case may be neglect them and thereby facilitate the further victimization of ethnic minorities. The situation is thus one which ought to be subject to far greater scrutiny by those concerned with human rights, for it could most charitably be described as tense and ideally suited for an upswing extreme violence. How is it that we have reached this point? And more importantly, how is it that justice and equality may be restored before more churches are bombed and innocent people are made victims?

The History

The exact origins of the Serbs are subject to substantial dispute, though the earliest recognized reference to them was made by geographer Vibius Sequestrus in the 6th century CE. And in his book De Administrando Imperio, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus acknowledged the Serbs as having inhabited the Balkans (including among other areas, Raška: a part of modern day Kosovo) since the mid-seventh century CE, when Emperor Heraclius (reign: 610-640 CE) invited Serbs to settle in the area on the condition that they defend it from foreign aggressors. The only individuals recorded and recognized as having previously inhabited the region were the Illyrians, who were all but destroyed through barbarian attack, with survivors mixing indiscriminately among other ethnic groups in the region.

Some though, chiefly Albanian nationalists seeking to build a historical justification for their expansionist aims, have suggested that they are the direct descendants of the Illyrians. There is however, little support for their claim. Starting with the Croatians in the 16th century with scholars like Vinko Pribojević, there has been a conscious effort in the Balkans to link various ethnic groups positively with the Illyrians for political purposes. When Bogoslav Šulek definitively proved through linguistic analysis in 1844 that there was no direct link between the Illyrians and any Southern Slavic peoples, Albanian nationalists began to embrace Illyrian identity and construct highly questionable links in historical and linguistic terms to justify their claims. On its face, the Albanian claim falls flat, both because of archaeological gaps, and even more apparently through language. Of particular note is the extreme scarcity of Greek or Greek-rooted words in the Albanian language, which should have been abundant based on geography and trade had the Albanians been settled in the area constantly since the time of the Illyrians. Moreover, as Hemp pointed out, Albanian words such as Tomor (Latin Tomarus) are inconsistent with the phonological evolution of the language, suggesting that they were first modified through an intermediate language. The consequence of that would be to imply that the Albanians are not from Albania (much less Greater Albania), and do not have the historic roots many expansionists wish to present as fact.

In the early years of Serb settlement in the Balkans, their territory was, barring the occasional violent revolt, under the control of the Byzantine Empire. In 1183 however, a successful campaign by Grand Prince (of Raška) Stefan Nemanja marked the creation of a truly independent, Byzantine-free Serb state, comprised largely of territory that is presently known as Kosovo. His son continued the consolidation of territory, and by 1217 (two years before the establishment of a Serbian Orthodox Church) Pope Honorius had blessed the coronation of Stefan II (Stefan Prvovenčani) as King of Serbia. Following the papal endorsement, kingdoms across Europe recognized independent Serbia for the first time. Serious challenge to Serbian power in Kosovo was not long off, with the Battle of Kosovo taking place on June 28, 1389. It was one of the crucial early events that would lay the framework for a dramatic ethnic and religious shift in the now disputed region

The Battle of Kosovo saw the defeat of Serb forces at the hands of an Islamic army raised by Sultan Murad I of the Ottoman Empire, who had been waging many smaller attacks against Serbian lands in the preceding years with much success. Serbian territory in Kosovo was almost wholly seized, and remaining Serbian states fell in just over a century. Less than two decades before the last Serbian outposts fell to sword of Islam, then-Christian-Albania was also annexed by the Ottoman Empire. This is of particular consequence because, starting in the 17th century, Albanians began on large scale to convert to the religion of their conquerors – an option refused by the vast majority of the Serbs. Accordingly, under the sharia legal code of the Ottoman Empire, the Albanians found themselves with a newly elevated status, for they were now part of the ummah (the Islamic community), and were no longer kuffirs (infidels) subject to dhimmi (second class, a status accorded to certain non-Islamic peoples in dar-al-Islam (nations governed by Islam)) status. Having refused conversion, the Serbs staged a war for independence at the encouragement of an alliance of Christian powers. Like previous efforts, this campaign for liberation failed. With the prospect of Ottoman reprisal against the Serbs who had chosen war over conversion, many fled West to free Christian nations. The Serbians having left en mass, the Vilayet (province) of Kosovo (which includes the portion of Macedonia dominated by Albanians and considered a part of Greater Albania) was resettled by newly Islamic Albanians, permanently altering both the ethnic composition and the prevailing religious ideology of the area.

Albanian nationalism became a major force in the late 19th century, after the Russo-Turkish War, wherein the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano granted recognition to an independent Serbia, included in which was some territory occupied by Islamic Albania. In the subsequent decades as the Ottoman Empire began to collapse,war broke out in the Balkans to redraw the map, and tension between Serbs and Albanians reached new highs, with Kosovo being the focal point. After World War I, Kosovo was recognized as part of The Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (aka the First Yugoslavia), at which time the once ethnically-Serb territory of Kosovo was 75% Albanian, the overwhelming majority of whom were Muslim. They sought union with the independent state of Albania, trying diplomatic and later violent means to recreate the envisioned Greater Albania. After a failed appeal to the League of Nations in 1921, the Kachak movement arose to try and remove Serbians through guerrilla warfare. Success in their efforts would be achieved however only during World War II, when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy awarded Kosovo to their Albanian ally following the takeover of Yugoslavia.

After the Allied victory in World War II, the Second Yugoslavia was formed, of which Kosovo was a part. Specifically, it was made an autonomous province within the Serbian republic. With the 1974 constitutional reforms, Kosovo became a de facto republic under the manipulation of Tito, the purpose being to ensure a weakened Serbia, which he viewed as necessary for the preservation of the federation, and more importantly his own political power. This was welcomed by Albanians both inside and out of Kosovo, because they saw it as a step towards the rebuilding of Greater Albania. Especially thanks to Serb emigration to other parts of Yugoslavia and an Albanian baby boom, it was evident that the demographics were shifting massively to the advantage of the already dominant Albanian population. With the death of Tito presenting what many considered an opportunity to divide the Federation, violence ensued and during the 1980′s more than 20,000 Serbs were forced to flee Kosovo for fear of their lives. This particularly brutal period was characterized by figures such as Fadil Hoxha calling for the rape of Serbian women, and instances of terrorism such as the burning of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate in Pec, the center of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Under the rotating presidency system that included Kosovo, as well as the increasingly anti-Serbian republics of Croatia and Bosnia, the Serbian government failed to take a strong stand against these abuses, paralyzed by fear and the instability of the federation.

Slobodan Milosevic, sent to pacify the Serbs who were justifiably angry at the lack of action on the part of the Federal government to protect their life and liberty, broke with orders and actually allowed for a redress of grievances. This seemingly simple act brought about the start of a pro-Milosevic movement that eventually facilitated his rise to the forefront of Yugoslavian politics in any atypically democratic fashion. Unfortunately for him, this rise came at the very time Yugoslavia was disintegrating from a spike in ethnic nationalism and violence in the post-Tito era. During the 1990′s, the Wars of Yugoslav Secession began, wherein republics left Yugoslavia often through aggressive warfare. During this time of national disintegration, anti-Serb, anti-Jewish, and anti-Roma violence by the Albanian majority in Kosovo reached even greater heights, organized primarily through the Bin Laden associated, drug smuggling, organ trafficking terrorist organization known as the Kosovo Liberation Army. Despite labeling the KLA as a terrorist organization, the Clinton administration worked in partnership with them in 1999, when the NATO forces bombed Serbia and forced them to retreat from Kosovo, granting authority to newly established UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) and the “freedom fighting” terrorists that had survived the war for independence.

The Present

With Serbians displaced from Kosovo in 1999, the cause for violence ought to have ended. Albanians comprised nearly 90% of Kosovo’s population and Serbs less than 10%, and ultimate authority was with an international body rather than Serbia or the Federal Yugoslav government. But the end of war brought no peace for the Serbs that remained in Kosovo who, to this day, are victims of undeserved brutality. Examples of this include the 2001 Podujevo bus bombing that killed 12 passengers headed to the graves of loved ones to pay their respects, and the 2003 gun attack in Goraždevac that killed or injured eight Serbs, all between the ages of 10 and 20. In 2004 alone, more than 200 Serbian homes and dozens of Orthodox Churchs were burned to the ground.

Today Kosovo has just three Jewish families, individuals who survived the nearly successful 1999 effort to kill or deport all Jews in the region. Needless to say, those remaining few to not enjoy much security, and make for easy targets in future violent attacks. Roma, who before KLA tyranny numbered 150,000, have shrunk to a meager 22,000. Those still living in Kosovo have virtually no freedom of movement and are under constant threat of violence. Many have taken refuge in the remaining Serb enclaves of Kosovo, and the rest have been herded into displaced persons camps similar to those seen after World War II. Meanwhile, the power vacuum that was created in Kosovo after the war has since been filled by the Wahabists who are pouring billions into the economically weak territory. Thus, even with the Al-Qaeda linked KLA ceasing to be the de facto source of Kosovor power, Islamism has a significant role in Kosovo’s affairs, and promises to increasingly radicalize this highly explosive piece of land if left untouched.

In view of the Islamist character of Kosovo, where the post-KLA political system is still dominated by the former leadership of the terrorist organization, the future of 100,000 Serbs who have opted to remain in spite of the violence against them, is exceptionally bleak. North Kosovo, where the largest number of Serbs remain, is physically connected to Serbia and thus carries on as though it were beholden to Belgrade instead of Pristina. They are considered the fortunate ones, able to find better paying jobs in the economically less volatile Serbia proper, and more importantly able to flee to safety should violence erupt yet again. More remote Serbian enclaves like Gračanica are surrounded exclusively by Albanian communities , and are continually hemorrhaging territory to the surrounding cities that are expanding to facilitate Albanian population growth. Such Serbs are particularly vulnerable to the abuses of an Albanian government with unchecked authority, as evidenced by a February 17 report in the Irish Times of a Serb man falsely convicted and jailed for a crime so that the government could seize his land.

For the non-radical, non-Islamist Albanian the situation leaves much to be desired as well. Kosovo’s economy, when compared to Serbia’s, is downright awful. Per capita GDP is less than €1000, and unemployment exceeds 40%. Especially with UNMIK downsizing and the removal of foreign forces that spent billions annually in Kosovo, the situation promises to deteriorate even further. Education too is lacking, having post-secondary school attendance rates that are the lowest in Europe. With nearly three-quarters of the world’s nations not recognizing Kosovo, it creates problems for those interested in venturing outside the country, as their documents may be rejected. And, as the jihadist element of the population grows, the more secular Albanian Muslims may find themselves subject to the same variety of violence often witnessed in Egypt and other unstable Muslim countries, or that which they have previously inflicted on the Serbs.

The Solution

There can be no doubt that the current system, wherein the legal status of Kosovo remains disputed and it attempts to operate independently sans-recognition by the great majority of nations, is unsustainable in the long term. Should this system remain the quality of life, the financial security of the state, the the prospects of long term regional peace would all approach disturbing levels. Any solution then must take into account how to improve the rights of all affected peoples, help ease the ethnic tension that so often results in war, enhance the general quality of life, and be just. Accordingly then, the only viable option is for the international community to withdraw recognition from Kosovo and reunite it with Serbia, this time removing the autonomy that was consistently expanded until the only remaining step was outright independence.

Serbia is often portrayed as equivalent to Nazi Germany in the Western media (despite the fact that they fought with the Allies, while the Albanians openly cooperated with the Axis), based on the exceptionally biased and misleading coverage in the mainstream media that accompanied the two unjustifiable and unlawful wars Clinton launched against it. However, history shows quite the opposite. Many of the alleged Serb war criminals awaiting trial in the Hague (or who died before a verdict was rendered, as was the case with Milosevic) were among the staunchest defenders of Yugoslav unity, and remained committed to the concept until it was abundantly clear that the dissolution of the federation was immanent and war was unavoidable. Indeed, reviewing the historical record, not one of the Wars of Yugoslav Secession was the product of Serbian instigation. Serbs, more than any other peoples, sought to keep the multi-ethnic dream alive. But, at the same time, they showed a great degree of moderation when left to deal with secession efforts on their own (for it must be recalled that those earliest cases were handled by the Yugoslav government, of which Serbia was a small part), as evidenced by the non-violent separation of Montenegro in 2006. Accordingly then, we can expect a Serbian government to better uphold the rights of minority populations and to apply a truly equal legal code (a concept first conceived of and implemented by Serb ruler Dušan in 1354).

Presently, the government in Serbia is left of center, and it is becoming increasingly Western in spite of the anger most Serbs feel over the loss of Kosovo. More than 60% of Serbians support joining the EU, and the government has already signed the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. It may join the EU as early as 2012. Kosovo, given its unclear status and the ability of any EU member to block ascension (including the many who don’t recognize it), would be ineligible on its own to ever join, and accordingly to enjoy the economic, educational, and travel benefits that come with membership. Even prior to EU membership, Kosovo would stand to gain dramatically, for Serbia boasts a much higher per capita GDP of nearly €8600, and is considered a much more attractive target for foreign investment. Additionally, by holding documents for a globally recognized state, the travel, commercial, and education restrictions that might otherwise apply would be waived. This is something that advantages all Kosovors, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

The transfer of authority over to Serbia would allow for the removal of the dangerous Islamist element that threatens the internal peace of Kosovo, while still allowing peaceful Muslims to practice their faith unmolested. Also, it would ensure that those remaining Orthodox Churches in Kosovo that haven’t been burned down by Albanian nationalists would be protected. By removing the pronounced religious tension and creating a better quality of life for all of those living in Kosovo, the impending threat of violence would be greatly reduced, and the prospect of war would fade. There would be genuine incentive for cooperation, ensured by the removal of the politician devices previously abused by Albanian nationalists that caused the war in the late 1990′s.

Finally, the solution I am proposing is consistent with international law in a way the present situation is not. UNSCR 1244, which authorized a UN presence in Kosovo, also re-affirmed the territorial integrity of Serbia, Kosovo included. It further stated that any future decisions regarding Serbia and Kosovo with respect to post-war land and governance would be addressed through negotiation and would rely on a UN framework. When the US pushed for Kosovo’s independence, it did not seek UN authorization because two of the Security Council permanent members (Russia and China) vowed to veto it. They reasoned that a unilateral declaration of independence would be destabilizing, and that independence could only be sanctioned if it were the product of bilateral agreement. As the existing legal framework was craftily avoided so as not to tar Kosovo with an image of illegitimacy, officially the status of Kosovo remains that it is a part of Serbia, with any details beyond that not firmly decided in the law. So, in keeping with the terms under which Serbia was forced out of Kosovo, the only just outcome is that it be recognized as a party of Serbia, which UNSCR 1244 stipulates it must be. That it should be absorbed fully rather than made autonomous is not a question covered in international law, but is one whose answer is made apparent in view of the problems that have historically arose from its autonomy.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

A a member of NATO for more than five decades that has also displayed an interest in ascension to the EU, Turkey enjoys the image of being a moderate Muslim state. In years past, that may well have been the case. Shedding the Ottoman legacy, Turkish society was re-shaped at the start of the 20th century under the guidance of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Presently labeled a “crypto-Jew” and “free-mason” by conspiratorial Islamist websites of Turkish origin, Atatürk instituted secular law in place of the religious variety, and emphasized national unity over religious factionalism. He greatly improved the status of women and minorities, and helped make education accessible to the masses on a scale never previously witnessed in his homeland. His legacy, though still held in great reverence by a number of Turkish citizens, has lost significance in recent years. Starting with the 2002 election wherein Erdogan’s Islamist Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi won more than two-thirds of the seats in government, the dynamic has changed. Even in 2007, when presented with the opportunity to remove Erdogan’s party from power, the Turkish public overwhelmingly endorsed the AKP, giving them 330 of 550 seats, allowing their retention of single-party control of government.

Students of Turkish politics may recall that when Erdogan’s AKP first achieved victory in the 2002 election, he was unable to assume office. This is because in preceeding years he had earned a ban from holding political office, the consequence of having been convicted and jailed for illegally inciting religious rhetoric. At the same time, the Islamist party he had used to establish himself on the political scene was banned as being a danger to the secular and progressive character of the state. It required an alteration of the law to excuse his career of religious fundamentalism, illustrated by his emphasis on implementing segments of sharia law bit by bit, as was the case with his ban of alcohol when he served as Istanbul’s mayor. While Erdogan talks a good game and avoids any of the obvious foreign policy blunders (e.g.: NATO withdrawal) that might cause Western diplomats to view him askance, he has been equally cautious in making sure that other anti-modern Islamic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia know that he is a reliable enough ally for them to continue pouring money into Turkey. Simultaneously, the recent resurgence in the imposition of free-speech limiting court verdicts and the massive growth in madrassa education over the once standard secular variety suggests that the disturbing political realities of Turkey are a reflection of a much greater cultural shift away from Kemalism and towards Islamism.

In view of this, the United States and its Western allies must change the way they regard Turkey. The nation with whom strong military and political ties were formed decades ago is dead, replaced by a religious regime whose bedfellows of choice are those nations whose values are most wholly antithetical to our own. To continue regarding Turkey as a friend, and more importantly as viable partner in Middle Eastern diplomacy, is to make a profound error. If the situation on the ground there was not cause enough for concern, surely the endorsement of the bloodthirsty nation of Iran ought to be.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

First returned to public attention in May of 2008 when Olmert was allegedly negotiating the surrender of the Golan Heights to the Hezbollah-supporting Iranian proxy state of Syria, clause 97B reads: “A person who, with intent that any area be withdrawn from the sovereignty of the state or placed under the sovereignty of a foreign state, commits an act that has the potential to bring this about is liable to life imprisonment or the death penalty.” Now, Olmert could be guilty of violating this law in at least two instances. First, as Prime Minister, it was alleged by many political insiders and close confidants that he conducted secret negotiations with the Syrian government, as a part of which he offered to withdraw from the Golan Heights. Second, before becoming Prime Minister he was Minister of Industry, Trade, and Labor in the Sharon government when Israel expelled thousands of Jews from their homes and withdrew from Gaza, creating Hamastan. The law makes no such requirement that the individual be Prime Minister for it to apply, nor does it specifically exclude such individuals. Thus, either instances would be grounds for a charge to be filed.

Undoubtedly many people would suggest that the law does not apply here, because the Golan Heights and Gaza are not part of Israel’s internationally recognized borders. Such individuals misunderstand the definition of sovereignty. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (edited by scholars in the associated field) defines it simply as having “supreme authority within a territory.” So, whatever international law or politically minded individuals might think of Israel’s presence in territory won in the Six Day War, it is quite clear that the legal questions associated with it are irrelevant to considerations of whether or not sovereignty is involved. Obviously, Gaza and Golan Heights were both sovereign Israeli territory, in that the latter has been annexed by Israel and is fully subject to Israeli law, and the former was ultimately under Israeli control until Sharon’s disengagement.

Some might be tempted to suggest that the law applies to the public, and is not intended to restrain governmental action. This too is false. As Israeli legal scholar and land possession expert Howard Grief noted on this very topic, “Pre-existing law always supercedes policy, and is required to be implemented under the ‘Rule of Law’ principle.” Having been issued in 1977 and not amended or rendered invalid thereafter, clause 97 B of the 1977 Penal Code is still in force today, as it was when Olmert violated it during his time as Prime Minister. Just as present day US law can ban politicians from consulting with representatives of outlawed organizations, so too may Israeli law disallow negotiations or actions that might result in a loss of territory. The concept of having laws that restrict actions generally and apply with equal force to members of government is hardly new or unique to Israel. Since that is not seen as a problem elsewhere, there is no reason to believe that should matter in this particular case either.

Surely, many people, even those convinced that Olmert has run afoul of a valid and enforceable law would suggest that the Penal Code should be revised, with 97B being removed. That would be foolish though, for history has validated this provision. The land for peace formula has proven time and again that lasting Israeli security will not come from giving up land. Instead, doing so only jeopardizes what little security Israel has, further exposing major population centers to missile and rocket attacks and other acts of war. There can be no better proof than Gaza. Instead of utilizing it to build a viable and modern state, the Palestinians installed a jihadist organization in power, which has since used Gaza as an operational center from which to launch a daily barrage of devastating rockets on Israeli cities like Sderot and Ashkelon. But foolish and inappropriately optimistic as Israeli politicians seem to be, those representing the mainstream parties have yet to learn this lesson, even though insightful men such as Rabbi Dr. MK Michael Ben-Ari and Professor Paul Eidelberg have been bringing attention to this reality for decades. This law, if actually enforced would cause a shift in policy that could only aid the long term security of Israel, for it would force an abandonment of the method that has failed Israel for so long. For that to happen though, clause 97B must be made real again. And the best way of doing that is by bringing up Ehud Olmert on such a charge.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Sections 62 through 67 of the 2008 Criminal Justice Act makes it a punishable offense, for which one may receive three years in prison, to possess pornography that meets the outlined definition of extreme. Legally, pornography is regard as extreme if any action depicted therein “[can] threaten a person’s life, results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or sex with an animal (dead or alive).” As such niche fetish material constitutes only a small percentage of all available pornography, many people are unconcerned, suggesting that most individuals will be unimpacted by this change in law. It turns out however that as many as 9.5 million UK residents could be guilty of violating this law, or so claims Backlash (the chief opponent of this law). Consider for a moment what that means. 9.5 million adults could be jailed for three years for owning a single image or video clip of material that is legal to perform but is regarded as excessively kinky by the sexually repressed members of government and law enforcement who wrote and will subsequently enforce this policy. Even if you have zero regard for the critical value in protecting freedom of speech and freedom of choice, and even if you see nothing wrong with conducting a witch hunt against people with different sexual preferences, one need look no further than the cost that this might have on British society to see why this law is so flawed. As of 2004, the cost of incarceration was £38,000 (54,344 USD) per prisoner per year. So, even if no new facilities were built to house them (impossible as that would be given the huge influx of new inmates), ignoring the lost tax revenue and the consequences of depleting the working population, this law has the potential to cost £1,083,000,000,000 (1,548,711,367,474 USD) if all those eligible are convicted and sentenced. Suffice to say the prospect of spending more than a trillion GBP to imprison otherwise law abiding citizens for their choice in pornography (created by and with consenting adults) is absurd.

Given the lunacy of this law, many people wonder why it is that it was passed in the first place. Simply put, certain sex hating Members of Parliament want to stop the flow of pornography, and as here in the US, realize that this is best done by attacking the fringe before going after mainstream material. With strict censorship laws on the books, such material was already illegal to produce in the UK. But in the age of the internet, there exists an ample online supply of such material courtesy of Brazil, Japan, the United States, and a great multitude of European nations. Nationally mandated ISP filtering would of course be ineffective, both because any filter list is always incomplete, and because of technological loopholes such as dark nets or FTPS transfer. Nor would it punish those who already had the material on their computer or other physical media. So instead they opted to pass a broad and oppressive law that potentially endangers the liberty of millions, hoping that because the average person is not directly impacted by this policy, they will remain silent. Doing so though would constitute a great mistake, for as Niemöller famously remarked “…they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.” That is to say, if we do not stand up for others when their rights are being trampled upon without due cause, we cede ground to those who will later seek to deprive us of the liberties which we personally care about. So, regardless of what one may think of the sexual preferences of those under attack by this law, we must all be vocal in our objection to it, and more importantly, to the multitude of less extreme but still alarming anti-pornography and anti-sex positions taken by our own national, state, and local governments.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

The controversy as most people understand it has focused around the words of Williamson, who quite recently on Sweden’s STV network declared, “I believe there were no gas chambers … I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers. There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies!” Forgetting for a moment that Holocaust denial is as much a favorite past time of anti-Semites as oppressing satellite nations was of the USSR, one might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, that he believes there is more evidence that God exists, and he had a son who walked the Earth, before being crucified and resurrected than there is found in the established historical fact of well documented Nazi genocide that happened in his life time, merely suggests he is mentally unbalanced, not a bigot, right? Well, his involvement in the Society of St Pius X says otherwise.

Born in 1970 as a means of giving shelter to archaic Catholic dogma, the Society is best understood for its steadfast opposition to all of the Vatican II reforms that moderated the Church. As part of their rejection of the changes made by the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, they naturally disregarded Nostra Aetate, the declaration that formally established that the Jews were no more responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus than any other peoples. This was groundbreaking precisely because for centuries after the rise of Christianity, anti-semitic violence and legal discrimination in the West was often justified by the suggestion of Jewish culpability in the death of Jesus. Lest one suggest that that this was not a purposeful rejection of said concept by the Society, byuut was instead part of a broader stance against doctrinal reformation, let us look at what else the Society has to say. Their website still proudly carries an article entitled “The Mystery of the Jewish People” wherein they declare that “Judaism is inimical to all nations in general, and in a special manner to Christian nations.” They continue, “Jews must not live together with Christians…because their errors and material superiority have virulent consequences among other peoples.” How these statements may be construed as anything other than outright anti-Semitism is entirely beyond comprehension, especially when placed in the broader context of their essay, which sounds like it was written by the Ustaša clergy rather than enlightened men of character.

Many will suggest, perhaps correctly, that the Pope’s intentions here are noble. Rather than hoping to stoke the flames of anti-Semitism at a time when rates are already skyrocketing, he is seeking unity among Catholics. That may be, but it does little good for the Church to welcome back a movement that is fundamentally opposed to key points of theology, and does nothing but create tension with the Jewish community, who the Catholic church was finally starting to improve relations with after centuries of complicity in unspeakable crimes against them. The Society has shown no change in ideology, and has no intention of ceasing its shameful proliferation of hate and dishonesty, suggesting that there is no place for it in civilized society. And while I certainly don’t hold the Church in high regard given its actions throughout its long and troublesome history, actions like this make myself and others even less inclined to regard the Church as institution that still has a place in our modern and rational society. That such ideas would even be seriously considered, much less actualized, suggests quite strongly that those of us skeptical of the Church have due cause to be.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

In 2006 Iceland became the third nation, after Norway and Japan, to legalize commercial whaling. But the cap was set quite low, allowing only 30 minke and 9 fin whales per year to be hunted and sold. With the economy hurting as it is, the quotes were altered to allow 100 minke and 150 fin whales to be hunted and sold every year for the next five years. Unsurprisingly, those who object to whaling are up in arms about this recent news, decrying what they consider to be an indecent move given that fin whales are endangered and minke whales are classified as “lower risk.” So this begs two questions. First, is whaling a defensible and potentially legitimate practice? Second, if so, do the conditions of Iceland’s economy justify this pro-whaling change in law?

Excluding the lunatic fringe such as PETA leadership or members of the ALF terrorist organization that they have have financial links to, most humans recognize a supremacy of species. That is, it is understood that humans are of greater consequence than other animals. It is for this reason that medical testing which might cause large scale animal death is performed. Similarly, it is why we remove dangerous animals from society by putting them to sleep. And of course, like so many other animals, we eat those lower down on the food chain. Or, as the conditions may warrant, we use them in fur and leather products. Why then should whales be in a protected class of animals who cannot be treated as their position on the food chain would dictate? Rarity is hardly a sufficient cause, for indeed if there is a market demand for whale products, there is every reason to believe that those companies profiting from it will ensure population stability through innovative means. One example of that being the whale farming proposal that has created quite a buzz in Japan in recent years. The only other argument then is their supposed majesty. But the prospect of legislating to protect only those animals we regard as special in some intangible way is absurd, and not something that any rational person would dare propose. Accordingly then, one must conclude that whaling is a reasonable and defensible practice that can have a place in society if market forces so require it, which whale meat sales in Iceland and Japan suggest they do.

Realizing that whaling is valid economic activity, the question of how appropriate the decision of Iceland’s government to raise the caps becomes much simpler to address. The practice itself not an issue, the chief consideration here is the impact it will have. An additional 300 seasonal jobs will need to be created in light of the new quotas, which is of great value considering the tiny population (319,000) and the relatively low unemployment rate (4.8%). Moreover, because it is an industry restricted to just three nations, this change in policy allows for Iceland to become an even more important force in commercial whaling, which will have a tangible impact on the nation’s GDP. As one of the countries hardest hit by this global economic slump, the importance of taking actions with real and immediate financial benefit cannot be overlooked. And though this alone cannot save Iceland’s floundering economy, this small step signals a serious effort to fix the problem, and will ultimately aid in the nation’s recovery.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Leader of Partij voor de Vrijheid, it would be entirely within reason to describe Mr. Wilders as the most important political figure in Holland, and one of the fastest rising stars of Western Europe. His party is more libertarian in character than anything else, with a platform that calls for tax cuts but also recognizes the importance of secular humanism. What makes the party particularly controversial though is the party’s view of Islam. It was summarized to a large degree in the famously controversial short film Fitna, for which Mr. Wilders has received a great many death threats. Essentially, they realize that Islam as a matter of basic theology and thus practice embraces violence. Individual Muslims may choose to reject this component of their faith, which he urges them to do. If they do, and further wish to assimilate in Dutch society, Mr. Wilders is content to let them be. But, as is glaringly apparent from Dutch news, the vast majority have opted not to become a part of the larger Dutch society or to adopt a moderate tone. There has been no large scale repudiation of violence in the Islamic world among the scripturally versed, only some vague rejections from their political front groups in the West. And so he continues to draw attention to this, and to the threat it poses to the long term survival of a free and democratic Europe.

It seems though that in Dutch politics, honesty is rarely the best policy. The day after we installed a spineless snake oil salesman in the highest office of the land, the courts of a country supposedly known for its liberal permissiveness has decided to try a man for the “insult of Islamic worshipers.” If this is to be par for the course, we may as well do away with democracy. When politicians who are loyal to the nation in whose government they serve run the risk of legal action not for slander, but for bruising the egos of the hypersensitive, no real debate can occur, and the entire political process becomes little more than a facade. That this should happen is alarming enough. That it is happening to one of the few competent politicians in the world for the crime of honesty should inspire the fury of all freedom-loving peoples.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

The political significance of the event has not been lost on them, as is evident by their most recent campaign efforts. In the Hindustan Times, they took out a front page ad decrying the weakness of the current government, which they declared had taken inadequate steps to combat terror and provide for India’s security. As this event is not particularly isolated, in that India has been victim to more Islamic terrorism than nearly any other nation in existence, many are seeking a party that can bring about meaningful reform. And it would seem that the Indian People’s Party is the logical front runner in that sense. They have proposed considerably tougher anti-terrorism laws, and have a detailed plan to overhaul the national security apparatus, making it much more effective. There is due cause to take them seriously on matters of defense and security, as during their brief time in power in earlier years, it was they who conducted Operation Shakti, giving India nuclear weapons.

This attack, which has re-oriented the national political mindset, must be put into perspective. At this point, the evidence suggests that the Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out the attacks. Further, some in the US intelligence community are suggesting that direct training of the terrorists was handled by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. Whatever the exact details may prove to be, it is quite clear that major fault for this unspeakable atrocity rests on Pakistan in some capacity. The Congress Party has proven over time unable to appropriately confront this threat, or to realize and act on the obvious links between the Pakistani government and the terrorists causing death and civil unrest in India. It is thus imperative that they not be left in charge, as their likely failure to respond will only send the signal that India is cowardly and cannot act when threatened. Whatever one might wish to say about the Indian People’s Party, which based on their track record ought to be mostly positive, there is no disputing that they are, as evidenced in rhetoric and their track record, keenly aware of the true security problems, and are intent on rectifying them.

So, while the loss of innocent life at the hands of deranged Islamic terrorists is deeply upsetting, it is important that this be used as a lesson more than anything else. People realize once more, as they always should have, that the Congress Party is incapable of protecting India, and that any long term solution involves dealing with Pakistan in a much harsher way is presently done. The Indian People’s Party has a message perfectly in sync with this, and is thus well positioned to return to power, thereby giving India a chance to properly secure itself from internal terrorist threats and the greater Pakistani problem. So, as with all things, there is a silver lining to this horrific chapter of Indian history: the chance for genuinely positive change that will prevent such occurrences in the future. Let us hope then that when the polls open, the voting public has the intellectual clarity needed to take advantage of this second chance and elect a government actually capable of preserving their life and liberty.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles: