November 4, 2005
To figure out why Muslims integrate so poorly into Western societies you have to look at why other religious have integrated well. If you do that, the solution to Europe’s problems with Muslims is obvious – free their women. This will be expensive but bring huge upside.
This behavior comparison technique is used by criminologists to cut through liberal cant. If social conditions made Johnny bad, how come other kids in the same school/housing/family turned out fine?
Europe and the US are full of people from poor and backward nations who play a productive and peaceful part in their new societies. For example, here’s another snip from the Theodore Dalrymple piece used in the post on muslim killers (my emphasis):
Many young Muslims, unlike the sons of Hindus and Sikhs who immigrated into Britain at the same time as their parents, take drugs, including heroin. They drink, indulge in casual sex, and make nightclubs the focus of their lives. Work and careers are at best a painful necessity, a slow and inferior means of obtaining the money for their distractions.
UK society contains Hindus and Sikhs at all levels – they have strong community spirit, but they intermarry with and are respected by the native Brits.
The big difference is the way these religions treat women. Here’s how Indian Hindus see Indian Muslim treatment of women.
THE NATIONAL Commission for Women has done a distinct service to society by coming out with its report on the status of Muslim women in India. Penned by Syeda Saiyidain Hameed, it is literally the `Voice of the voiceless.’
Many girls are married off before they are 15. The man has the right to have more than one wife. And he can divorce them at will – with the triple utterance of the word talaq. This talaq can even be conveyed by phone or post-card.
…There is a vicious circle of large families, poverty, little education and less employment. According to the 1991 census, Muslims are 12.12 per cent of the population. But only 4 per cent of Indians who finish school are Muslim. Only 4 per cent Indians in government jobs are Muslim.
And nobody seems to know how to break this vicious circle. To an objective observer the solution is clear enough; there must be a ban on polygamy and triple talaq. A divorced woman – and her minor children – must be maintained as long as she does not remarry. They must have smaller families and they must take greater care to send their children to school.
Of course Indian Hindu society, like our own, has only recently ceased to treat women as inferiors. But unlike Muslim society it has made the transition, for example electing a woman as president in 1966.
The Sikh religion appears to have treated women as equals earlier than any other society:
Against this backdrop it is significant that Sikhism, one of the world’s youngest religions, accorded women complete equality with men in all spheres of life over five hundred years ago.
All of which explains why the US and UK have so many Hindu and Sikh women professionals.
This isn’t intended to romanticize women, who are of course often extremely irritating and lack a proper interest in, for example, the finer points of cars. But it doesn’t take a lot of analysis to see that a society that suppresses the talents of half of its people is going to lose out against one that doesn’t.
So the way to civilize the Muslim killers hiding in Brit society & the rioters in France and Denmark is to free their women. This big project is vastly preferable to the alternatives of deporting and/or repressing tens of millions of people.
To achieve this, European societies have to ensure that Muslim women are fully educated, that they are protected from brutalization by Muslim males, and that the Muslim quasi-legal basis for treating women as chattels is extirpated.
As well as changes in laws, this will need lots of cops – preferably women and probably armed. Cops to keep the streets safe for women, cops to make sure that young women are not prevented from attending school (common in the UK), cops to bust very family member who commits or abets an honor killing or beating (common in Germany), cops to protect the educators.
And look at the upside! Native Europeans are not reproducing enough and face dilution by Muslim incomers. If they do nothing, they’ll be overrun by barbarians, whereas if they free Muslim women their societies will peacefully prosper.
November 4, 2005
I have a soft spot for Prince Charles – he was unfairly blamed for the breakdown of his marriage, but he’s soldiered on and has sound views on architecture. However, like many Brits, he’s so polite that people often don’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
Here’s the London Telegraph reporting his speech in Washington.
Ever so diplomatically, Charles tells Bush to give a lead on global warming
The prince chose a White House banquet and an audience of opinion-formers at which to impart his views on climate change and religious tolerance.
Raising a toast to President George W Bush, he reminded him that the world looked to the US for a lead on vital subjects. “So many people throughout the world look to the United States for a lead on the most crucial issues that face our planet and indeed the lives of our grandchildren”.
There is no way the President could decode this as a plea to be nice to head-hackers and shut down US power plants. In fact he will have interpreted it as stalwart support for the US GWOT and CO2 reduction plan, and clapped heartily.
I’m guessing that the Prince’s lefty advisers told him the stick it to the President, but that Charles declined since he would never insult his host. So the advisers leaked this spin to the Brit MSM, who politely printed it. Nobody else noticed, so no harm done.
November 4, 2005
Most bad actors are fools rather than knaves, so some assumed the special prosecutor who charged Lewis Libby was a fool. Turns out he’s a knave running his own cover-up.
The crime he was hired to investigate did not take place, as was obvious from the start of his investigation. WSJ (subscription):
The law at issue here is the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which makes it a federal crime, in certain circumstances, to reveal the identity of a covert agent…under the act, criminal sanctions can be imposed only if the identity revealed is (1) of someone whose status is classified and who is serving, or has served within five years, outside the U.S.; and (2) where the alleged leaker knows that the U.S. is “taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States.
Ms. Plame simply did not meet the IIPA’s demanding test. She was not undercover overseas, and had not evidently been posted abroad since at least 1997. She was living under her own name and working a desk job at headquarters.
To the extent that her job status was “not common knowledge outside the intelligence community” as asserted by Mr. Fitzgerald, this is irrelevant. Leaving aside the coy nature of this claim, which begs the question whether her affiliation was known only in the U.S. intelligence community, or the global intelligence community (including both friendly and hostile foreign intelligence services), IIPA’s legislative history makes clear that this is insufficient to merit protected status. Merely because the U.S. has not publicly acknowledged or revealed the relationship does not by itself satisfy the “affirmative measures” required for liability under the IIPA.
Moreover, whatever value Ms. Plame may have had as a viable covert agent was surely eliminated years before the alleged “leak,” when she married a U.S. diplomat who himself published her name in his biographical materials. The fact that her husband chose to become a public figure in a debate about the very discipline she pursued at the CIA — WMDs — eliminated whatever shreds of anonymity that remained.
The reason Mr. Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with leaking Ms. Plame’s name…was not because, as he implied at his Oct. 28 press conference, there was insufficient evidence. It was, rather, because there was in fact no crime as a matter of law. The true scandal here is that, despite Ms. Plame’s non-covert status, Mr. Fitzgerald pressed ahead, forcing numerous journalists to testify and actually jailing Judith Miller.
In view of this history, and precisely because the CIA was skeptical of the Niger claims, sending an outside expert to assess them was absolutely correct. The fact that the expert chosen by the CIA was so closely connected to its own bureaucracy was indispensable in assessing the value of that expert’s work — especially after he had openly waded into the debate. In short, the revelation of Ms. Plame’s connection to the CIA was a public service, neither criminal nor unethical.
Which makes Fitzgerald a knave for knowingly imprisoning an innocent without cause and persecuting an administration employee for doing his job.
In true knavish manner, Fitzgerald is trying to cover his sins up, but the WSJ is hot on his trail (subscription):
Dow Jones & Co., this newspaper’s parent company, filed a motion late Wednesday requesting that the federal district court unseal eight pages of redacted information that Mr. Fitzgerald used to justify throwing Judith Miller of the New York Times in the slammer.
The pages were part of Judge David Tatel’s concurring opinion in the ruling against Ms. Miller and Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper. Judge Tatel said the eight pages showed that, with his “voluminous classified filings,” Mr. Fitzgerald had “met his burden of demonstrating that the information [sought from the reporters] is both critical and unobtainable from any other source.”
The pages remain sealed, but now that Mr. Fitzgerald has indicted Mr. Libby and said “the substantial bulk” of his probe is “completed,” there’s no reason to keep those pages secret. The indictment itself discloses the nature and “major focus” of Mr. Fitzgerald’s grand jury probe, including the fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. The special counsel’s own extensive public discussion of the facts in the case should also have vitiated any protection from disclosure under grand jury rule of evidence 6(e).
Since jailing the reporter was only justifiable if she was refusing to shed light on a crime, it follows that these redacted pages must be the evidence Fitzgerald offered to support his claim that a crime was committed.
Fools can be forgiven, but knaves can expect no mercy. It will be fun to watch Fitzgerald twist.
UPDATE: 11/5 – corrected misnaming of the unfortunate Mr Libby