Bush and California
Okay, Bill Whalen is right: President Bush doesn't need California to win reelection. Statistically, mathematically, electorally, whatever--we all know that. But, for one thing, California Republicans really need Bush to help them out if the Golden State is ever to escape the inane political morass it finds itself in. We CAGOPers can not move forward if our own popular president abandons us because he doesn't think he can win here and therefore we're not worth spending time and money on. What kind of compassionate conservatism is so mean that it ignores fellow conservatives who want to advance the same Republican agenda on the state level of the Union's most populous state as Bush is doing in DC? Also, for all this talk about it not being necessary for Bush to take California, we're missing the fact that if he did lock up our state, the Democrats would have absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning a presidential election. Yes, California is a tougher electoral block to conquer, but it's worth the money and the effort to fight for the votes here. What would it say about a president who smugly acts as if he can ignore the votes of America's most populous, rich, and economically important state and still be reelected--even if he is right?

"Adding Russia to the Anti-Saddam coalition"
Is Ariel Cohen right about Russia and Iraq? Will we see American troops marching alongside the Red Army (or whatever they call themselves these days) into Baghdad?

Dreher gets it
Since I spent countless hours researching and writing a term paper discussing Europe, nationalism, and immigration, I like to pretend that I really do understand what the real issues are in Europe. Rod Dreher, however, gets it exactly right in his NRO column today--presumably without needing to do all that hard work. Here are Dreher's words at the end of his article, and I agree with them:

"The fact that that anodyne opinion — that freedom of speech is an acceptable part of democratic society — is enough to get a man killed in today's Europe should shock the conscience of the continent. Fortuyn may or may not be a martyr in the war against fundamentalist Islam, but he is almost certainly a martyr in the war on political correctness. European populations are aging, and cannot maintain their welfare states without massive immigration; immigration from Islamic countries threatens to change European values inalterably. Fortuyn said Europe cannot avoid confronting these realities. He may be a more powerful force for change by the way he died than he would have been had he lived."

"'The clock is ticking in Europe, and is ticking in a democratic way,' says [John] Hulsman [of the Heritage Foundation]. 'Maybe now is the time to begin real dialogue about immigration, crime and culture, because if a real one isn't begun, these impulses that can't be processed through democratic institutions are going to have ugly manifestations. This is the problem in Europe: nothing of real significance is ever discussed by the political elites.'"

The questions that are not being discussed in Europe, yet should be, are questions that go to the core of European identity. They involve sensitive questions of race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, and civic values. After the Holocaust, which was a direct result of Europe not dealing with these exact same issues of identity, culture, and assimilation in regards to the internal Other of the Jew, Europe collectively decided that going back to ignoring the deeper issues and clouding discussion in the terms of political correctness would be the only fixes needed. Dreher is right that Europe needs the immigrants to keep their bloated welfare states going, but Europe also needed the merchant-class Jews (read: bankers and money-lenders, who were and still are disproportionately Jewish) to survive economically, and look at what happened there. Now Jews and Muslims are in danger because Euro-elites are too afraid to talk openly about what national identity is and should encompass.

Thankfully, in America, we don't have this problem. Since we are an immigrant nation whose elastic national identity is based solely on our civic values given to us by our Founding Fathers, we can embrace newcomers of all races, ethnicities, religions, and nationalities. Multiculturalism, however, is preventing peaceable integration of our immigrants precisely because it presupposes an American identity that is more "white" and "Eurocentric" than it really is. American civic values really are universal values, not European civic values, and that's why people from every corner of the globe believe fervently in the American dream.

It's still an open question whether Europe can adopt American-style immigration policies and survive, keeping her cultures and traditions intact. But this open question is exactly what's been kept from being discussed, and this supression is what drives Le Pen, Haider, and (yes, even though he's in a completely different ideological class) Fortuyn to gain massive public support and popularity to the dismay of Euro-elites. If the elites don't want to discuss the matter fairly and openly for fear of being labeled "racists" or "xenophobes," then the peoples of Europe will speak democratically and through other means of expressing popular will, and will make their opinions heard. Such vulgar popular expression might not end up being very pretty.

More wisdom on the coverage of Fortuyn
Charles Paul Freund argues in Reason Online that "the process of straining political events through the standard journalistic narrative templates -- especially the right-vs.-left narrative -- can simplify a story so greatly that it emerges as a different story, perhaps even the wrong story." Freund thinks political correctness is also at work:

"For now, appeals to diversity, gender equality, etc., are reserved for groups that, in contemporary journalistic discourse, are given 'oppressed' status. When such groups use these appeals, or when these appeals are used on their behalf, it's legitimate. But when the same appeals are used to argue against the apparent interests of such groups, it's a category violation. In other words, you can't allow the villain any of the good lines without either raising the status of the villain or lowering the status of the lines, and that in the end that is one of the most revealing aspects of the Fortuyn story."

And one of the most disturbing.

Ozzy just wants dual citizenship
In some advice for the president, rocker (and MTV reality TV celeb) Ozzy Osbourne says he should be allowed to have dual citizenship. "I want to be American," states Ozzy, because "America is the coolest place on the face of the Earth." My dad, also a native Brit (although thankfully not quite as much of a freak as Ozzy), held off applying for citizenship for years (he came in the '60s and didn't become a citizen until after I had voted in my first election) because he wanted to retain citizenship to the crown. Now, in this day and age I think Congress, President Bush, a dismissive Lynne Cheney, et al should look into allowing dual citizenship with certain--if not all--countries. Still, the one thing that has always perplexed me in regards to dual citizenship for the UK and the US was this: Our very founding was a revolt against the English crown, so isn't the very foundation of our American identity based on official disloyalty to the monarch of the UK? If the anti-loyalists back during the American Revolution were right, you can't be both a subject of the crown and a US citizen. So what does that mean for British-Americans who want dual citizenship now?

Thanks guys
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit for the referrals.

Note to Andrew Sullivan
You may want to avoid traveling to Holland in the near future. They don't seem to be taking too kind to gay social libertarian conservatives as of late. Oh wait, we don't like those in our own country either. Oops!

How character assassinations by journalists work
If you want to understand why Dave Kopel and others have been upset with the media and the way they portray conservatives (more accurately, non-liberals), read this New York Times article on Pim Fortuyn's murder. In one medium-length column, we have both the truth about the man and the blatant obfuscations that help develop within the reader perceptions that are directly contrary to the truth. Let's begin our examination.

Okay, what does the headline say?

"Rightist in Netherlands Is Slain, and the Nation Is Stunned."

Now, look at these lines:

"Pim Fortuyn, a maverick right-wing populist who was a leading candidate in national elections scheduled for next week, was shot and killed tonight, deeply shocking a country that sees itself as peaceful and egalitarian, and raising the specter of violence stalking European politics."

"Mr. Fortuyn, 54, was a former sociology professor who said he wanted to become the country's first gay prime minister. He carried the same strong anti-immigrant message that has helped propel a resurgent far right to political triumphs in Austria, Denmark, Belgium and, through Jean-Marie Le Pen, France."

Okay, we've now established that he is a "rightist," a "maverick right-wing populist," and someone in the mold of the "resurgent far right" that is evidenced in such places as "Austria, Denmark, Belgium and, through Jean-Marie Le Pen, France." The fact that he was a "former sociology professor who said he wanted to become the country's first gay prime minister" should normally give the impression that this is not your ordinary right-wing populist (after all, how many professors do you know who aren't obviously "elitist", and how many gays have you heard of that can be described as "xenophobic right-wing extremists"?), but we'll deal with ill-fitting details such as these down the road. What's important for the moment is that: A. he is like Le Pen and B. his views are populist (and hence discreditable) and far right-wing in nature.

At least, that's the impression one gets from reading these first two paragraphs, no?

But later on, The Times says,

"Mr. Fortuyn, a former Marxist who defended an eclectic mix of ideas of both left and right, had become the most hotly debated Dutch politician because of his frankness, his passion and his starkly anti-immigrant platform, directed particularly against Muslims, who he said posed a threat to cherished national values like giving full rights to women, and to gays."

So, wait a minute, now they are saying he was "a former Marxist," that his policies were "an eclectic mix of ideas of both left and right," and that he despised Muslims because they don't believe in giving "full rights to women [and] gays." But I thought this guy was like the previously-mentioned Le Pen, who hates Muslims and Jews and presumably wants to see gays back in the closet and women back in the kitchen (one would easily come to that conclusion after reading any of the popular press's description of the Front National's political platform)? I mean, I thought Le Pen was all about restricting rights, not expanding them. Fortuyn, however, "abhorred being compared to Mr. Le Pen and Mr. Haider, for he said that unlike them he was not a racist and was staunchly anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel." Apparently the similarity is in "his frankness, his passion and his starkly anti-immigrant platform" and that he "talked with the confident bombast of other European far-right politicians."

So then, any politician who speaks frankly, passionately, confidently, and opposes liberal immigration policies is herded with the "other European far-right politicians"? This is absurd!

Incidentally, the article's bizarre mixture of truth and demonization also carries a hint of the real crime here:

"In Rotterdam, Mr. Fortuyn's hometown, some of his followers put up banners outside the town hall, saying, 'Killed by the goading of politicians and the hounding of the press.'"

Now if that's not the truth, I don't know what is. But back to our assignment. Here are some more accurate depictions of Fortuyn:

"'He had come to symbolize people's wide unhappiness with the political establishment,' said Ben Knapen, a publisher at one of the largest Dutch media conglomerates. 'I wouldn't have voted for him, but he played a very useful role because he had made the elections interesting for the first time in years with his mix of irony, mockery and vitriol.'"

"Mr. Fortuyn was unrelenting in his attacks on the political class, which he said had become interested only in its own wheeling and dealing and had been virtually paralyzed by forever seeking political consensus."

So how does "the newspaper of record" contextualize this information?

"This message — again similar to the speeches of Mr. Le Pen, Mr. Haider and other resurgent European populists — appeared to resonate with many Dutch. Across Europe, many voters apparently feel disoriented and not represented by the traditional political parties, and consequently a substantial number — roughly one in five in France, or one in four in Austria — have cast their lot with politicians who paint themselves as anti-establishment."

That's right folks, there's no longer any doubt--he's one of those guys, one of the bad, Hitler-esque demagogues who should be kept off the political stage at all costs because of their fascistic policies and agendas.

Later, the NY Times softens their portrait of the man, quoting his Catholic confessor, who calls Fortuyn "a religious man with a warm heart who cared about vulnerable people." More accurate information follows (we're near the end of the article, which is why they're being so fair to him now, in case you're wondering):

"Mr. Fortuyn, although new as a candidate, has written about politics for the past decade, both in books and as a columnist. Yet he was hard to define according to traditional labels. 'He is more a protest-maker than a policy maker,' said Loes Pernot, who said she had not been sure whether she would vote for him."

"During a recent interview, Mr. Fortuyn talked freely on a wide range of subjects, including his homosexuality, the ingrained bureaucracy, the liberal Dutch social policies dealing with abortion, same-sex marriages and tolerance of soft-drugs, and the need to denounce the self-satisfied political class."

"During the interview he was asked why he was so critical of Muslim immigrants. He said he found it shameful that foreign Islamic clergy here used offensive language against gays in this country, and that Muslim men tried to impose medieval rural customs in the Netherlands. 'How can you respect a culture if the woman has to walk several steps behind her man, has to stay in the kitchen and keep her mouth shut,' he said."

Thus, the picture we are left with at the end is a man who "was hard to define according to traditional labels," who "talked freely" of and disagreed with the established political consensus on many issues, and who opposed Muslim immigrants who "used offensive language against gays" and practiced a culture in which "the woman has to walk several steps behind her man, has to stay in the kitchen and keep her mouth shut." This is the real Fortuyn, and yet the image we are given of him from the beginning of the article is of some European right-wing extremist whom we should be at least somewhat repulsed by--if we are to call ourselves good, tolerant people.

And that, folks, is how character assassination works. No, you don't have to lie (although you can get away with it). You don't have to be one-sided (even though that's the norm these days anyway). You can even tell the truth somewhere in the story, like this article did. The result, whether intentional (most likely) or not (highly doubtful, as the intelligent journalists working for the "paper of record" or undoubtedly the most highly coveted in their field), is an insidious form of sludge-slinging that works to exterminate the voices of those who dare to disagree with established opinion.

Well media, mission accomplished.

Why I loathed paying my student activity fee at USC
The money used to bring speakers and artists to campus isn't spent fairly at American universities. Here is more evidence of that. I suppose I could despair, but I prefer to look on the bright side: as a graduate, I don't have to confront that sort of bullshit anymore. And my friend Brendan wonders why I opposed an activity fee increase.

Did he see it coming?
Dave Kopel decries the media's character assassinations of right-wing politicians, but did he presciently realize the real world consequences such attacks can generate as evidenced by Fortuyn's murder?

The Jenin manufacture, er, I mean, massacre
Props to Daniel Gordon of The Jewish Journal for so deftly exposing the fraudulent reporting of journalists who have written of the massacre in Jenin.

"The crescent on the French hexagon"
Some words of advice for France:

"Now France must look inward and change its ingrained patterns. Toward this end, the government will have to overcome its tendency to whitewash reality. The immortal values of the Republic have worked to the country's detriment - in the name of all-embracing Frenchness the country has isolated an entire population...."

"The time has come for the Republic to openly confront its demographic identity, to ask itself what kind of a nation it is, and what kind of a nation it wants to be...."

"France has no choice. It must reassess its relations with the large Arab-Muslim community in its midst, and no less importantly, its relations with the long-standing Jewish community. The Republic may need another revolution to become a pluralistic, multi-cultural country - a country that resembles America more than it does Austria, constructed of flexible yet sturdy materials in the finest traditions of governance. If it fails, Europe and the whole world will have been struck a mighty blow."

Well, Hanoch Marmari gets the analysis right, but I am not sure France should follow his advice in this exact form. I think multiculturalism is exactly what has failed, but pluralism is still (and always) an important ingredient to a fully functional democracy. France--like the whole of Europe in general--needs to do a better job of listening to its citizens' concerns and stop dismissing opposition to immigration as knee-jerk xenophobia. The issues are much, much deeper than that, and go to the core of French national identity. If the French elites keep ignoring these sentiments that fuel both Le Pen rightism and Muslim immigrant (anti-Semitic) hooliganism, the problem will keep degenerating into a morass of violence perhaps not incomparable to what we've seen in South Africa, Indonesia, India, and other places where the papering over of questions related to national identity have led to massive rioting and bloodletting.

Some good articles in Ha'aretz
There are some great articles in Tuesday's Ha'aretz op-ed pages, including a long excerpt from a speech by Sen. Joseph Biden given on the Senate floor recently, wherein the liberal chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee attacks the Arabs for their wild claims that there was a massacre in Jenin.

Also, Ari Shavit says Bibi Netanyahu has a vital test before him coming this Sunday, when the "Likud Central Committee convenes to discuss the draft proposal that would rule out the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River...."

Amir Oren sees an advantage for Israel in some of the logistical restructuring going on in the Defense Department, as Arabs will lose some influence over American military strategy because of the shift of the European Command to include Russia and Central Asia.

Finally, the main editorial advises Sharon and his diplomatic lackeys to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that the Bush administration buys into the dead-end goals of the Israeli right (see the Bibi-related article above for further information on these dead-end goals).

How blogs affect your Google search
Check out this story.

Why handguns are good
If you had any doubts that America's more liberal laws on guns were better than Europe's strict gun control regulations, this story should clear them up for you.

Drawing the right conclusions
On European gun violence, John R. Lott had this to say:

"Gun-control advocates frequently ignore another inconvenient fact: Many countries with high homicide rates have gun bans. It is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union, with a ban on guns that dated back to the communist revolution. Yet newly released data show that from 1976 to 1985 the U.S.S.R.'s homicide rate was between 21% and 41% higher than that of the U.S."

"Many French politicians complained during their presidential election that the shooting in Paris meant 'it's getting like in America, and we don't want to see that here.' Americans may draw a different lesson from the evidence, and hope that they don't become more like the Europeans."

That's more good good sense from the author of More Guns, Less Crime.

More on Fortuyn, Le Pen, and the European media
Instapundit and one of his readers have some wise observations on the type of character assassination and demonization widely used in the left-leaning press that leads to unfortunate events like Fortuyn's murder. Check it out here.

Humo(u)rless isle
A Tory minister has been sacked because she told a racist joke. Now, her remark may have been off-color and ill-advised, but this smacks of political correctness gone way, way bad. I mean, she already apologized if she offended people; why be so ruthless by labeling the woman and forcing her out of the shadow cabinet? I suspect one of two things: Iain Duncan Smith had some previously unknown grudges against Ann Winterton, or he's pandering to minority voters with his anti-racist posturing. If it's the latter, I'm disgraced to be a Tory supporter.

Repercussions of Fortuyn's assassination
Hell is already breaking loose.

Brouhaha in the Defense Department
I'm not sure what to make of the latest flap between Sec. of Defense Don Rumsfeld and Army Secretary Thomas White, as detailed Yahoo news story, but I don't think cancelling the Crusader artillery system is a good idea. From what little I know about it, the new system would be more efficient and effective than what we have now, which will pay dividends in both future military costs and saving our soldiers' lives. Also, it will put us far beyond anybody else in artillery capabilities. Why are we canceling this program? To buy more C17s and smart bombs? I'm sure there's a way we can have both if we'd just become a little smarter with our appropriations in other budget areas--in defense spending and elsewhere.