Too Cool, Man

It would appear that an international team of astronomers has devloped a way to indirectly map dark matter.

More Muslim Rabble-Rousing

This time in Britain. It would appear that living in a multicultural society also produces contempt for that society.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Apparently not. In a piece for The American Conservative, Steve Sailer reports on Professor Robert Putnam's finding that racial and ethnic diversity erodes social trust and cohesion. That this is the case shouldn't be that surprising. There are two groups* people tend to trust most: their family and their friends. To a lesser extent, we trust those who seem to share certain beliefs with us, value similar things, engage in similar practices, and take part in similar traditions. To a lesser extent, we trust those who something look like us. In short, we tend to trust people with whom we have things in common, and the more we share in common with someone, the more likely we are to trust him. We can identify with these people, see where they're coming from. If we're concerned about being stabbed in the back, we can pick up signs of betrayal the more familiar we are with the person in whom we have placed our trust.

On the other hand, if we have no real experience or common tie with a person or a group, we have no basis for placing or trust in said person or group. Furthermore, absent a necessity of some sort (e.g. having some common task to perform, being in a desperate situation, etc.), there is no reason to attempt to forge the sort of bond that will lead to trusting someone. This is simply human nature, and it's not going to change.

Still, this is not the whole picture. The United States has always been racially and ethnically diverse, yet by and large racial and ethnic minorities (religious ones, as well) have eventually been able to assimilate into American society.** Why is this the case? Sailer offers the following to explain why ethnic minorities have been largely able to assimilate into American society:

The importance of co-operativeness has fallen in and out of intellectual fashion over the centuries. An early advocate of the role of cohesion in history’s cycles was the 14th-century Arab statesman and scholar Ibn Khaldun, who documented that North African dynasties typically began as desert tribes poor in everything but what he termed asabiya or social solidarity. Their willingness to sacrifice for each other made them formidable in battle. But once they conquered a civilized state along the coast, the inevitable growth in inequality began to sap their asabiya, until after several generations their growing fractiousness allowed another cohesive clan to emerge from the desert and overthrow them.

Recently, Princeton biologist Peter Turchin has extended Ibn Khaldun’s analysis in a disquieting direction, pointing out that nothing generates asabiya like having a common enemy. Turchin notes that powerful states arise mostly on ethnic frontiers, where conflicts with very different peoples persuade co-ethnics to overcome their minor differences and all hang together, or assuredly they would all hang separately. Thus the German heartland remained divided up among numerous squabbling principalities until 1870. Meanwhile, powerful German kingdoms emerged on Prussia’s border with the Balts and Slavs and Austria’s border with the Slavs and Magyars.

Similarly, the 13 American colonies came together by fighting first the French and Indians, then the British. In this century, two world wars helped forge from the heavy immigration of 1890 to 1924 what Putnam calls the “long civic generation” that reached its peak in the 1940s and ’50s.

There is a good deal of truth in this, and I don't disagree with it per se, but I think Sailer misses something important (though he does touch on it in a slightly different context). The United States is governed by the rule of law, before which all are equal. Thus, there is built into the very fabric of American culture the notion that good citizenship is determined by adherence to the law and the willingness to defend the American Constitutional order, not by your culture of origin or who your relatives happen to be. The United States is a meritocracy, not a class-based or ethnically-based society. You are defined by what you do, not from whence you came. Thus, Americans have traditionally been culturally conditioned to resist the natural human inclination to mistrust anyone sufficiently different, provided the minimum baseline of acceptance of the traditional American beliefs in meritocracy and the rule of law.

Sailer sets this in direct contrast with the situation in Mexico, where trust does not extend beyond the extended family. This is of pressing concern because of the large numbers of illegal immigrants in the United States who are from Mexico, as well as those who will continue to come across. With as many as 12 million illegal immigrants on the United States today, most of them from Mexico, and living and working in the American Southwest, they have established large enough enclaves where they have little need to interact with Americans outside of work. This separation is reinforced by the language barrier between Americans who speak English primarily and Spanish-speaking Mexicans. Sailer sums up the situation this way:

While no more than 12 percent of L.A.’s whites said they trusted other races “only a little or not at all,” 37 percent of L.A.’s Latinos distrusted whites. And whites were the most reliable in Hispanic eyes. Forty percent of Latinos doubted Asians, 43 percent distrusted other Hispanics, and 54 percent were anxious about blacks.

Some of this white-Hispanic difference stems merely from Latinos’ failure to tell politically correct lies to the researchers about how much they trust other races. Yet the L.A. survey results also reflect a very real and deleterious lack of co-operativeness and social capital among Latinos. As columnist Gregory Rodriguez stated in the L.A. Times: “In Los Angeles, home to more Mexicans than any other city in the U.S., there is not one ethnic Mexican hospital, college, cemetery, or broad-based charity.”

Since they seldom self-organize beyond the extended family, Los Angeles’s millions of Mexican-Americans make strangely little contribution to local civic and artistic life. L.A. is awash in underemployed creative talent who occupy their abundant spare time putting on plays, constructing spectacular haunted houses each Halloween, and otherwise trying to attract Jerry Bruckheimer’s attention. Yet there is little overlap between the enormous entertainment industry and the huge Mexican-American community.

In late October, I pored over the 64-page Sunday Calendar section of the L.A. Times, which listed a thousand or more upcoming cultural events. I found just seven that were clearly organized by Latinos. While it’s a journalistic cliché to describe Mexican-American neighborhoods as “vibrant,” they aren’t.

Some of this lack of social capital is class-related—Miami indeed has a vibrant Hispanic culture, but it’s anomalous because it attracts Latin America’s affluent and educated. In contrast, Los Angeles is a representative harbinger of America’s future because it imports peasants and laborers.

What does this mean? If the Mexican population continues to grow at anything like the rate it has been, it will lead to a bi-cultural society with the Americans and the Mexicans staring tensely at one another across the walls of their cultural enclaves. America's civic culture will decline even faster as trust among her citizens declines still more, and the state will attempt to step in and fill the void that once was filled by America's vibrant civic society. In short, the state will assume massive new powers in an ill-fated attempt to preserve public order. Just like what's happening in Britain, if not quite as bad.

*The two groups need not be mutually exclusive.

**To a large extent, the great exception had been Black Americans. At least in part, this stems from the fact that the same rule of law that enables other racial and ethnic minorities to assimilate into American society was used to prevent Black integration into American society, first through slavery, then through Jim Crow and other similar laws.

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.