From President Bush's Mouth

According to the Associated Press, the government may have the authority to open private mail without a warrant under certain circumstances. According to Andy McCarthy, this has always been the case. As Andy McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor, I'm willing to take his word for it. Still, there's nothing unusual about news outlets blowing stories out of proportion. What is unusual about this story is the mind-boggling stupidity of the opening paragraph.

A signing statement attached to postal legislation by President Bush last month may have opened the way for the government to open mail without a warrant. The White House denies any change in policy.

This is ludicrous. A measure becomes law when it is included in a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, or if passed by a 2/3 majority in each house of Congress following a Presidential veto. Signing statements carry no force of law whatsoever. They never have, and without a Constitutional ammendment, they never will. This is the stuff of School House Rock, and the fact that an error this obvious should slip passed reporters and editors either out of ignorance or out of a desire to make the story read a certain way calls into question the ability of the Associated Press to be a reliable source of news.

Good News from Afghanistan

A major Taliban leader has reportedly been killed. Military implications aside, the greatest thing about this story is the denial by a Taliban spokesman.

We strongly deny this. He is not present in the area where American forces are claiming to have killed him," commander Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by telephone.

"The American and NATO forces from time to time make such false claims. It's just propaganda against the Taliban."

The fact that Akhtar Mohammed Osmani is not present where he was supposedly killed in no way refutes the claims of the American military as his body could have been removed from the scene. Of course, the fact that he is not present is only meant to be considered if we fail to be convinced by the fact that Khan is strongly denying Osmani's death, as opposed to simply denying it. If he had been on tv when making his remarks, he probably would have pointed his finger sternly as well. "The Americans . . . did not . . . drop . . . a bomb . . . on that man's car. Mullah Osmani."

Outrageous on So Many Levels

The Brussels Journal has a brief post on the increasing freqeuncy of rapes of Oslo women by Muslim immigrants and the disgraceful response of Norwegian authorities. Probably the most disgraceful part of the reaction of one Unni Wikan:

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily. Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, in 2001 said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

Now, it is true that men are sexually drawn to the sight of the female form and the sight of certain female body parts, and it is also true that if women dress so as to limit the amount of skin they show, particularly in certain areas, and limit the extent to which they accentuate certain body parts, it will lessen the amount of unwanted sexual attention they receive from men. However, it in no way follows that women dressing more modestly is the key to addressing Oslo's rape problem, even if it helps (so would granting citizens the right to keep and bear arms). The fact of the matter is that a man who will rape a woman simply because she is provacatively dressed does not belong on the streets of a free society. For the sake of maintaining an orderly society and for the protection of the general public, it is the responsibility of the state to remove those who would perpetrate these unspeakable acts from the general public and to lock them away for long periods of time.

Still, questions remain. Why do Muslim men rape native Norwegian women who are provocatively dressed, and what does it mean to say a woman is "provocatively dressed"? As to the second, I can't be sure of this, but I suspect to be dressed "provcoatively" is to be wearing less than the full traditional female Muslim garb (i.e. her head is uncovered). That leaves the question of why this happens. Three possibilities occur to me. The first is that these Muslim men are driven so crazy with lust by even the uncovered head of a woman that they cannot restrain themselves from immediately engaging in sexual intercourse with the object of their lust, whether or not the woman consents to it. The second possibility is that they are of the opinion that these women are dressing like whores (not necessarily an incorrect opinion) and thus deserve to be treated as such. The third possibility is more disturbing. It is possible that these Muslim men are raping Norwegian women in an effort to bring coerce a change in how Norwegian women dress. Indeed, it is possible that they are doing so with the approval, if not encouragement of radical imams. If the first is the case, these men belong in prison because they only know how to behave as animals, not as human beings. If the second is the case, these men belong in prison because they have neither regard for the rule of law nor the inherent dignity of man. Just because a woman dresses like a whore, it does not mean she deserves to be treated as one. If the third is the case, then not only should the rapists be imprisoned, but the imams encouraging this should either be imprisoned or deported for inciting violence.

This situation is not something to be papered over or accepted in the name of multiculturalism. It is a direct challenge to the rule law and to the inherent dignity of the human person. Norway should take such steps as are necessary to bring this problem to an end, including imprisoning the rapists for long periods of time (at least 20 years with no possibility of parole), and permit their citizens to carry conealed weapons in public. One of the most vital human rights is the right to self-defense, and a people deprived of the ability to defend itself is a people that will find itself subject to oppression from violent factions seeking to increase their power, in this case, radical Muslim men using violence to force a free society to adopt its values. And on the purely practical level, I'd be willing to bet that many of these Muslim men who are tempted to rape "provocatively dressed" women would think twice if they thought there were a pretty good chance it would get them shot.

Global Scare-Mongering

The London Sunday Telegraph carries an important article by Christopher Monckton intended to shred the predictions of the recent Stern Review Report on climate change. In reality, the article does much more, showing how bad science is responsible for much of the hysteria surrounding the issue of global warming and the belief that man is responsible for most, if not all of it. According to Monckton's numbers, increased solar activity could conceivably account for all observed warming over the past century. What's more, the UN undersetimates the natural greenhouse effect, overestimates average temperature changes, increases known physical constants, and uses flawed measures of ocean temperatures.

Monckton concludes that warming is likely to range from 0.1 to 1.4 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, less than the UN's low-end assumption of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Why aren't these conclusions being widely published? This piece indicates specific, fundamental flaws in not only the Stern Report, but in all of the science underlying what is commonly called the "consensus view." If the numbers in his piece are correct (as I suspect they are), a reassessment of the science on global warming should occur. If the numbers are wrong, they should be refuted immediately. Yet it is more than likely that this piece, as well as research that supports the views of skeptics of global warming caused by human activity, will simply be ignored by major universities and government institutions, as well as the likes of the BBC, CNN, the AP, the New York Times, PBS, Reuters, and even media outlets with an interest in things scientific such as the Discovery Channel. This is the same way the established figures in the scientific community treated Intelligent Design, and there were negative consequences as a result.

Now, I don't want to equate global warming skepticisim with Intelligent Design where scientific merit is concerned. As far as I can tell, there is sufficient scientific evidence supporting skepticism about man-made global warming, while there is no scientific evidence whatever supporting Intelligent Design. However, both have gained traction because their claims were simply ignored or dismissed out of hand, as opposed to being challenged or refuted, though this has changed with regard to Intelligent Design, and Intelligent Design is no longer regarded as highly as it was a couple of years ago. If Monckton is wrong, and the data he cites are wrong, prove it. If he's right, and his data are right, make sure future research reflects this. The purpose of science is to determine the state of the natural world, not provide ammunition for a political cause. The Stern Report and the UN's global warming research are examples of science becoming the whore of politics, and the consequences are potentially devastating for both science and society at large.

The Latin Mass

Stephen Bainbridge succinctly states the case for the return of the Tridentine Mass to common use. I agree completely with his case and have only one thing to add to it. Arguably the biggest substantive objection to the Tridentine Mass has been the fact that most people are not familiar enough with Latin to understand the words being spoken during the Mass. In this day and age I think this objection has been rendered largely irrelevant by the ability to make written translations of the Mass readily available to the congeration. Furthermore, these translations can by juxtaposed with copies of the actual Latin used in the Tridentine Mass. I know this because I have provided for myself a copy of the Rosary in Latin accompanied by an English translation of the prayers, both of which I obtained here.

On the whole, I think the introduction of a vernacular rite was a good thing, but something was lost when the Tridentine Rite was abandoned. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes. The resurgence in demand for the practice of the Tridentine Rite is evidence that it possesses something of value that is at best under-emphasized in the Vernacular Rite. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes, at least until the Vernacular Rite can be modified to adequately address its shortcomings.

Vietnam: Rising Capitalist Power

The New York Times has a fascinating profile of Vietnam's current economic climate. Currently, the economy of Vietnam is growing faster than almost any other economy in the world. It's standard of living is rising rapidly, especially for skilled laborers; the stock market is booming; and their tax code will soon be superior to the United States' tax code in some ways. Not bad for a Communist country that was on the verge of starvation fifteen years ago.

And who deserves a good chunk of the credit for this? Certainly Vietnam's leaders do (more on them in a bit), but I'm thinking of a particular American president with a not-so-stellar reputation, namely Richard Nixon. His decision to engage China in an attempt move it away from the Soviet Union politically hastened the end of the Cold War and laid the groundwork for China's embrace of something like capitalism. If this had not happened, I don't believe either China or other states in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam, would have had the wherewithal to look to Western capitalism as a cure for the ills of their economic systems.


On thing omitted from the profile (not surprisingly, as the piece was about Vietnam's economy), is the question of whether the increase of economic liberty in Vietnam has been accompanied by an increase in political liberty. Has Vietnam made progress in granting its citizens rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech, or is it following the Chinese model of vibrant economic growth accompanied by large-scale supression of religious and political freedom? WIll Vietnam become a free and open society as it continues to grow economically, or will the Vietnamese state exploit new technologies and expend great energies to keep its people under its thumb?

Where's Adam Gobetti When You Need Him?

Adam Gobetti, your friendly, neighborhood anarchist would be thrilled to learn that the Czech Republic is currently getting along just fine without a government. Indeed, it hasn't had one since June. Granted, it's not as though the entire government has ceased to be, but there is no party or coalition of parties controlling it at the moment, and things seem to be going swimmingly.

One thing I would be interested in knowing is whether or not the executive branch continues to function, collecting and spending tax revenue. If so, the lack of a governing coalition in the Czech Parliament isn't that big a deal, but if the gears of the central government have simply ground to a halt, then this demonstrates the maxim that government which governs least governs best. Indeed, it would show that in a well-ordered society where the rule of law is well established, it is best to leave well-enough alone, even to the point of temporarily doing away with the central government (an unintended consequence in this situation, to be sure). Now, this all changes if there is a threat to domestic order, be it internal or external, but short of that, the central government need not intrude into the lives of its citizens.

Multiculturalists Are in a State of Shock

Apparently Colonialism wasn't all bad. Who'd'a thunk it?

Now that's not to say it was an unadulterated good (What human endeavor is?), but clearly many Western colonizers did something right.

Interestingly enough, the study found that the country that had the greatest positive impact on its colonies was the United States.

Good News

The Supreme Court has upheld, at least temporarily, Arizona's law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls in order to be able to vote.

Frankly, that anyone would challenge such a law strikes me as absurd on its face. As citizens in a democratic society we have the obligation to participate in our own governance, and the most crucial manner in which we, the people participate in our own governance is through the exercise of the vote. To this end, voting should be as easy as is reasonably possible. However, voting should not be so easy that the vote of those responsible for determining who fills elected positions in our government can be diluted or even undermined by those who have neither the duty to determine how we are to be governed, nor the right to vote. To prevent this happening, it is only common sense to expect that those attempting to vote be able to establish that they are indeed eligible to do so. In order to do this, the state of Arizona has required all eligible voters provide photo ID proving they are who they say they are. I can see no good-faith reason to oppose this on principle.

Of course, there are nefarious reasons for opposing such a measure. Allowing people to vote without proper identification opens the door to massive voter fraud. Illegal immigrants can vote. People can vote multiple times. Those not registered to vote are able to vote.

Who has derived the most benefit from this? Those who are opposed to the measure, namely Democrats. They oppose this measure because it undermines their electoral prospects, and it's a shame. Instead of moderating their positions to better appeal to the public (without sacrifricing their principles, of course), the Democrats have tried to win elections by hook or by crook, all the while maintaining many of the far-left positions that have caused them to lose so much power has turned one the great American political parties into a joke. Given the current political climate, there is no reason the Republicans should have the slightest hope of holding either house of Congress. Yet, the Republicans are likely to hold the Senate and still have an outside shot at holding the House of Representatives. The war in Iraq is not going well (largely because we have done little to nothing to address Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq), and the economy is perceived as being in much worse shape than it is. Republicans have been rocked with scandal after scandal, including two Representatives pleading guilty to charges of bribery. Then there's the Mark Foley mess, the issue of border security and runaway federal spending.
The Democrats should take back both houses of Congress with majorities that should take ten years for Republicans to whittle away, but the Republicans have a chance to retain control of the House and Senate. That this is the case is a testament to just how devoid of a coherent philosophy the Democrats are.

North Korean Test

North Korea has reportedly tested a nuclear weapon. For my part, I'm skeptical. According to both the French and the South Koreans, the explosion was the equivalent of 550 tons of TNT*, and there has been no radiation detected at the site of the explosion as yet.

North Korea has claimed to have nuclear weapons since 2002, but there has never been any hard evidence to support this claim. It has also seen a significant portion of its income dry up as the United States has taken measures to disrupt its distribution of counterfeit American dollars. It seems possible that North Korea staged a phony nuclear test either to extort economic aid from the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia, or to advertize their nuclear wares to the Iranians. It is also possible that the "test" is motivated more by domestic politics than international politics. Either way, North Korea gains as much by a fake test everyone else believes is legitimate as by an actual nuclear test, especially after its failed missile test on 4 July.

In short, the most likely scenario at this point is that North Korea buried a few hundred tons of TNT, set it off and claimed it had conducted a nuclear test (and that the radiation had been perfectly contained). Until I see any hard evidence to the contrary (e.g. radiation being emitted from the test site), I see no reason to belive North Korea has conducted an actual nuclear test.

*Russia claims the explosion was equivalent to 5,000-15,000 tons of TNT, which would make it similar in size to the Hiroshima bomb. If this is correct, I'd be more inclined to believe that North Korea did indeed carry out a nuclear test.

Update: Apparently I'm not the only skeptic.