The Future of European Immigration

You may have noticed this story coming out of Switzerland: the Swiss just voted to ban minarets in their country. While this has very little actual impact (there are only four minarets in the entire country), it seems to represent just the latest development in Europe demonstrating a pervasive backlash against liberal immigration policies. From Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, to the British National Party in the UK, groups and individuals in Europe are challenging the "Immigrationist" policies that have been in place since the end of WWII.

The one thing that unites the various parties seems to be an aversion to Islam, or more precisely Islamism in Europe. Islamism is defined as "a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam[www.m-w.com]."

Let's look at Britain as an example. Perhaps the most glaring example of widespread malaise over this issue happened in elections held for European Parliament in June. The British National Party (BNP) won seats in the European Parliament for the first time ever. This is especially alarming, given that the BNP voted just this month as to amend the party's charter and allow non-whites into the group [there is a Sikh who is lined up to be the first non-white member, based on their anti-Islamist platform.].

If you want more evidence that this is a grass roots movement, the last few months have witnessed demonstrations all over Britain by a group calling itself the English Defense League (EDL). Several hundred people have shown up to drink alcohol, wave English flags, sing "God Save the Queen," and spar with counter-protesters. If you visit their website, the EDL are quick to portray themselves as anything but the "racists" and "hooligans" the British press makes them out to be.

And finally, more evidence of a popular uprising against immigration comes in the form of results of a survey, conducted by Angus Reid, from November in which 68% of Britons would like to see a decrease in immigration (read the report here). This is up 5% since August.

What's to blame for this trend? I would attribute it to a natural human tendency to distrust the "other," along with some terrorist bombings in Europe, firebrand clerics that don't know when to shut up, assassinations of public figures (Theo Van Gogh), and flagrant expressions of antipathy towards native populations by immigrants.

I'm sure I'll post more about this topic in the future. I predict that immigration will play an important part in coming elections throughout Europe. Don't be surprised to see parties with anti-immigration policies make significant gains, despite the repeated charged of "racism," "xenophobia," and "fascism" that will certainly be hurled at them relentlessly.

Armchair Attorney

If anyone has been reading the news this week, they probably recognize the photo above. It is associated with a story coming out of Chicago. Here's the summary (or read the story here):

Some University students wanted to go to a club. 200 White students were admitted, and 6 Black students were denied entry, allegedly based on their "baggy pants." One of the black student swaps pants with a white student to see what would happen. The white student gets into the bar without delay, and someone takes a picture of him. Voila! All the makings of an inflammatory race story.

So, let's examine 'Exhibit A.'

This picture shows two people wearing the same exact pair of pants. The gentleman on the right was not allowed into the club, supposedly based on the pants, but later that night the gentleman on the left was admitted, wearing the same pair of pants. So, if it wasn't really about the pants, what other variable is at play? Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it is clearly a matter of race. I rest my case.

But wait a second. Let's take a second look at that photo, paying attention to the person circled in yellow. I guess someone got past the racist goons at the front door. Or is there something else going on here? To be honest, I don't know. If I were on the jury, before passing judgment there are a couple of things I would want to know, such as:

• How was the gentleman on the right wearing his pants when he was denied entry? Was he "sagging?" This may be a small point, but it is certainly germane.
• In the initial group of students, were any White student denied entry? Were any Black students admitted?
• Did the same club employee both deny entry of the Black student, and allow entry to the white student?

As of now, it seems this story will just fizzle out. The students agreed not to sue if the managers of the club underwent some "managerial diversity training." No marches organized by the oh-so-relevant Reverends Jackson and Sharpton. Pity.

I just thought it was great how one photograph can both support and undermine an argument.

Further on 'Terrorist=Hero?'

While scanning the news today, I came across this headline:

Lockerbie Bomber Gets Standing Ovation from African MPs

Huh? Really?

Before I go on, let me state a key assumption on my part. I assume that Megrahi is guilty. I have read reports that there was pressure on the judges to reach a guilty verdict, but this does not mean Megrahi wasn't guilty. It seems there was ample evidence to convict the guy.

Anyway, the article includes a quote from the Speaker of the Parliament of the African Union, Idris Ndele Moussa. He said "We came to express our solidarity. He is the victim of international injustice and a policy of double standards." (Read article here)

A 'double standard,' eh? Well, perhaps there was a double standard here. I agree that the universal standard for treatment of convicted terrorists should have been applied. He should have stayed in prison, according to the established standard. Somehow, I don't think this is what Mr. Moussa meant.

And a member of the Libyan Parliament made a stunning moral equivalency when he said "the visit by the African Parliament to Mr. Megrahi is no different from the reception given to the Bulgarian nurses by European Parliament." (Read about that incident here)

This is remarkable for two reasons:

1) Assuming that the Libyan MP thought that the meeting between the MEPs and the Bulgarians was in some way immoral, isn't he admitting that the visit by the African MPs similarly immoral? Shouldn't he be condemning the visit? Or is this another case of "what's right for me isn't necessarily right for you?"

2) He is also equating the actions of the Bulgarian nurses, which at worst might amount to criminal negligence, with an act of terrorism that deliberately targeted a civilian flight. So intentions mean nothing.

So, what can we learn from this interesting lesson?

That in large parts of the world:

Terrorist = victim of injustice

Negligence = Mass murder

Terrorist = Hero

Can you spot the terrorist in the crowd?

No? That's because he's not in the crowd. The terrorist is the reason the crowd showed up. He's the reason they're all so darned happy. This is a picture from the arrival of the Abdel Baset Al Megrahi, of Lockerbie infamy, in Tripoli after being released from a Scottish prison on humanitarian grounds (read here).

For a thoroughly disgusting take on the events, read this article from an English Language Lybian newpaper (here). Summary: "Thanks for giving him back after he killed 270 of your innocent citizens, but couldn't you have taken better care of him?"

Releasing him was a mistake. I hope we learned our lesson.

The Future of Europe?

I have been reading a lot about Europe lately. Specifically the role of the growing Muslim minority, and its effect on the indigenous culture (when's the last time you heard Europeans referred to as 'indigenous?').

I have been reading one book in particular called "America Alone." It is written by a very conservative Canadian author, Mark Steyn, who sees a very bleak future for Western civilization.

My gut reaction is that he is overstating the problem. As he sees it, Muslims in Europe, with the complicity of the roll-over-and-surrender-at-the-first-sign-of-trouble leftist ruling elite, will fundamentally change the culture and government systems of the continent, in a process he calls "re-primitivization." Liberal democratic institutions will be undermined in the name of multiculturalism, and anyone who opposes this will be called "racist" or "fascist." And that this process is going to happen much sooner than anyone expects because Europeans simply aren't having enough kids. Unless they happen to be Muslim Europeans.

I don't want to believe that this is true. But he cites several compelling examples, the most alarming of which is some poll data showing that not only do Muslims, in large part, have different values, but many ascribe to a different version of reality. And that instead of becoming assimilated, they are actually becoming more segregated and more radical in their beliefs.

Anyway, I was reading the BBC website today, and I found this story: click here. From what I can gather from this short article is that some English folks were showing a little pride in their country (heaven forbid!), and expressing concern over the influence of Islamic fundamentalism. Then a bunch of anarchists and Muslims showed up (an interesting and diametrically opposed mix, it seems to me) and trouble ensued.

As a big fan of Western Civilization, I find this trend very disturbing.

[For an intro to Mark Steyn, see a video about multiculturalism here. It has some great sound bytes.]

The Rise of Monotheism

“They invoked also their own wit, by name of Muses; their own ignorance, by name of Fortune; their own lusts by name of Cupid; their own rage, by name of Furies”

Thomas Hobbes
Leviathan
Half of the people in the world are monotheist of the Abrahamic tradition. What explains the rise and dominance of this religion over vast portions of the globe?

Believers would argue that its victory is because of the underlying truth of the narrative. Skeptics might assert that its power is because of the zeal with which its adherents persecuted and stamped out completing and threatening religions.

However, number of adherents cannot necessarily equal truth, because these numbers vary over time. And intolerance cannot be the deciding factor, because these particular religions are not unique in their persecution of other beliefs. Furthermore, Christianity was in no position to persecute for the first formative centuries of its existence.

What do you suppose it is about monotheism that enough of our ancestors found compelling?

(This posting was contributed by Dane, and incorporates a few minor changes from me)

World View, Pt 1

I found a cartoon on Al-Jazeera's Website that I'd like to share. It really captures some extremely important aspects of popular world view in the Middle East.

So, what we have here is a Jew, drawn with exaggerated features (in classic Anti-Semitic fashion), dragging a reluctant cowboy, representing America, over a sheet of paper entitled "Human Rights." The meaning is obvious and the implications ironic.

This is a depiction of the Grand Conspiracy (Jews using America to destroy Goodness), of which many of the smaller theories (e.g. 9-11, 7-7, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc.) are only a part.

As the premier Pan-Arab news outlet, I think it's alarming that Al-Jazeera publishes this kind of incendiary material. Imagine the BBC or the New York Times publishing such commentary. But conspiracy theories are a major part of the way that Middle Easterners explain the world (read here), whereas they are isolated to the fringe in most Western societies.

I would like to begin a discussion on World View.

What are some major components of your world view? What aspects would people in other cultures find agreeable? What would they disagree with?

And finally, what importance, if any does world view in determining the success of an individual? How about for a culture?

What's in a name?

Apologies for the lengthy hiatus from writing. I was both busy, and completely uninspired.


I have a thing about dishonest names. They really bug me. Some examples of dishonest names include:

• Democratic People's Republic of Korea (AKA, North Korea)


• The Patriot Act


• And the worst one of all, Turkey Bacon.

All of these names want you to believe something that isn't true.

While reading the news today I came across another such phrase. France has just opened a military base in the United Arab Emirates. They are calling it a "Peace Camp." (Read here) Peace Camp?! (Eyes roll)

I have no problem with the idea of operating military bases in other countries, but why try to maintain a facade? Actions like this seem to me to be a lightning rod for cynical commentary. They're really not fooling anyone.

A Roll of The Dice

Dane sent me a topic for discussion about material inequality and fairness. Here's what he had to say:

"The student newspaper recently featured an article (read here) about some film students who went to Cambodia to make a documentary about the lives of people who live in an enormous garbage dump there. Among things that struck me about this article, was what likely happened after the filming. The Americans were able to get on an airplane and fly back to their comfortable homes whereas the Cambodians will continue to live in the same squalor, with almost no chance of achieving a standard of living even close to that of the Americans. In large part, this discrepancy has little to do with thei ndividuals: the Americans were born within the boarders of the geographic area that we call the United States and the Cambodians were born within the boarders of the geographic area that we call Cambodia. By the simple facts of where each individual was born and how the world has been divided upsome individuals get comfortable homes and great opportunity and for others the most appealing place to live is a in garbage dump. Is this just?"

And, if anyone else wants to create a posting on this blog, feel free to type it up and email it to me, and I'll most likely post it.

Live and Let Live?

I found a great article about tolerance in the Times today called "The Limits of Tolerance" (read here). The overtly liberal writer discusses where "tolerant" people should draw the line and declare something to be wrong.

Here are a couple of quotes from the piece--

Addressing some recent issues in the Islamic world involving flagrant violations of women's rights, the authors asks:

• "For us, gender equality is a fundamental value. But we also profess tolerance for other people’s culture and religion. Which principle should prevail? Should we respond to these developments with tolerance?" To which he replies "We should not. Tolerance ends where harm begins."

He goes on to say:

• "Tolerance — live and let live — is a wise response to things that are morally neutral, that harm no one"

I recommend reading the whole piece, and even some of the commentary. It touches on a lot of topics that you all might want to comment on.

Tolerance, it seems, is one of those ideas, like pacifism, that requires all parties to ascribe to it in order to be effective. If only one side in a conflict practices pacifism, then my money's on the other guy. Likewise, it seems like the most tolerant societies sometimes host the most intolerant voices because no one is willing to say "shut up."

Much of the discourse I see relating to tolerance consists of abjectly intolerant people demanding tolerance of their intolerance. I'm not the first to notice the irony.


I don't want to frame this issue as an indictment of Islamic society. Certainly we have our own tradition of religiously-rooted intolerance.
So, where should we draw the line? Should we defend free speech absolutely? Are there some ideas that are so dangerous that even discussing them should be outlawed? Should we tolerate behavior that we think is immoral, but that doesn't actually harm anyone?

Ahoy, Mateys!

Avast! With "National Talk Like a Pirate Day" a mere 161 days away I feel it appropriate to mention the fascinating drama playing out off the coast of Somalia (read here).

Somali pirates have been getting quite a bit of press lately. I heard a piece on NPR yesterday discussing how the international community should handle the situation. One of the guests on the program mentioned that current laws won't really act as a deterrent, as the pirates would have to be taken back to the country of the vessel that captured them and tried there.

Of course once they're in the country they can claim refugee status. This is not what one might call a disincentive for a destitute resident of the Horn of Africa.

Most "experts" I have read about agree that military action is only a band-aid, and will not solve the deeper problems feeding the phenomenon. They argue that the best way to stem the growing trend is to establish a stable government in Mogadishu.

This begs the response, "We tried that, and we got Blackhawk down."

So, maybe a strong naval response is the best option, for lack of will to build another nation. Or should we just change laws so that private vessels can equip themselves to fend off attacks? Should we just pay the occasional ransom? That might be cheaper in the end.

In the meantime, I'm going to brush up on my Somali accent for National Talk Like a Pirate day, and trade in my cutlass for an RPG.

The Earthlings are Coming!

Take a look at the picture below and try to guess where it was taken.



Arabia maybe? The Sahara perhaps? Could be the Gobi, right?


Nope. It was taken on Mars.

I hate to think how much money this picture cost to create, and yet I feel undeniably proud that it was taken. Not proud in a narrow patriotic sense, but proud in a transcendent way that our species is able to do this. Go team Humans!


Which brings me to a odd question. Say we were just contacted by aliens and they invited us to send a delegation to some galactic meeting. We need a flag that represents Earth (yes, even aliens are flag wavers). What should this flag look like? What symbols and images, if any, would it display?


I just hope it doesn't look anything like Zambia's flag, which is probably the strangest flag I have ever seen. In case you don't know what it looks like, here you go:

Right and wrong

Here's a little primer for a discussion about moral relativism:
In case this cartoon doesn't make any sense to you at all, please read here for some context.

So, what say you? Are some legal codes simply "better" than others? And if a legal code is a reflection of a society's values, morals and ethics, can we say that there are some societies that are objectively more moral than others?

And if you don't want to comment on any of those questions, expressions of indignation are certainly welcome.

Extremely moderate and decidedly ambivalent

I am a fence sitter. I often catch flak for this attribute. "Pick a side" people say. "At least I stand for something" they declare. I am a dreaded "swing voter" (sorry Ms. Coulter).

But it seems to me that sitting on the fence is more tenable than most of the other positions out there. I am merely exerting my right to say "I don't know."

And in fact, I don't know. And in many cases I don't think anyone really knows most things they say they "know," in an objectively truthful way. Ask me my opinion on most everything, and I'll likely give you both sides of the argument.

There are of course exceptions. There are many things which I think are objectively true. Here are some examples:

• 1+1=2
• Nothing rhymes with Orange
• You really can't just eat one 'Lay's' potato chip
• Most people routinely engage in irrational behavior and have inconsistent beliefs (which brings me to my next point)

For those readers who are unaware, the title of the blog comes a quote taken from the footage of the demise of the Hindenburg (seen here). I think this event is both tragic and typical. Tragically typical.

Had humans conquered the air? Yes. Did we do it in a completely reckless and irresponsible way? Again, yes. Can you think of other instances where we have repeated this trend? I can.

My fence sitting is rooted in my deep distrust of other people's beliefs. Most people believe many things that are simply not true.

I would like to use this blog as a forum for my friends and family to discuss ideas, lay out arguments, and occasionally share a laugh.

Hopefully you can help me discover some new ideas that I can add to my "objectively true" list.

So now my question to you is where shall we begin?