Thursday, June 22, 2017

Like a Scared Little Girl

It wasn’t very long ago that newby Senator Kamala Harris made a name for herself by trafficking in bad manners. Sitting on Senate panels, questioning administration officials, Harris distinguished herself for being unable to shut up long enough for the witnesses to answer her questions. For her efforts she was twice, or was it thrice, rebuked by the committee chairman.

The Feministocracy rose up to defend Harris against this egregious instance of manly oppression. Some practically nominated her as the next Democratic candidate for the presidency. She leaned in; she refused to be cowed; she showed how tough and strong she was when facing manly men. She stood up to the patriarchy.

But then, last week Harris was given an opportunity to take a stand against misogyny, to take a stand against Islamist oppression of women. She was part of a Senate panel, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, convened to interview victims of Islamist oppression. What did she do? You guessed it. She said nothing. As in, nothing. She did not even ask a question. She shrunk into the corner like a scared little girl.

As for other three female senators on the panel, it was the same story: the silence of the feminists. North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill shrunk into their own corners, for fear of offending Islam. Senator McCaskill managed to pipe up that the hearing was offensive to Islam.

Neither she nor Harris found  anything offensive in the fact that witness Ayaan Hirsi Ali suffered genital mutilation and a forced marriage. Not one of the women senators found anything objectionable about any of it. They stood up for Islam. Another witness Asra Nomani had been threatened with death for having had a child out of wedlock. About that the brave Senator Harris had nothing to say.

Hirsi Ali and Nomani wrote about it all in a New York Times op-ed. They explained:

When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.

Of course, it’s raw hypocrisy. But it also shows that terrorism works. It shows that terrorism threatens, intimidates and silences women. Even women senators. During the last election many people seemed to understand that Hillary Clinton, like Angela Merkel, was not tough or strong, but was weak. Even if they thought that Donald Trump was more bluster than power, they preferred rolling the dice with a man rather than take the risk that a woman in power would shrink into the woodwork, like a  scared little girl.

Otto Warmbier Was a Jew

For all the stories about Otto Warmbier we have heard nothing about the fact that he was Jewish. It’s not just the media. Important Jewish organizations have remained silent about the fate of a young American who was abandoned by the Obama administration. After all, they cannot be expected to say anything that would make Obama look like he was disfavoring Jews.

Liel Leibovitz reports in Tablet:

Now that Otto Warmbier is dead, it’s time to ask what, if anything, might’ve been done to save the innocent young American from being detained and tortured by North Korea’s genocidal regime. To answer that question, it’s instructive to compare Warmbier’s case to those of two other Americans similarly seized and imprisoned by our enemies—Steven Sotloff and Jason Rezaian.

The Obama Administration, Warmbier’s father Fred said in a recent interview, urged a policy of inaction. “When Otto was first taken,” he recalled, “we were advised by the past administration to take a low profile while they worked to obtain his release. We did so without result.”

The Sotloffs, whose son, Steven, was a journalist kidnapped by ISIS in Syria, were given similar instructions. When they tried to raise the ransom money necessary for their son’s release, the Obama Administration, they said, warned them that negotiating with terrorists was out of the question. Steven was eventually executed in a gruesome beheading documented on camera and shared widely online.

As it happened, the Obama administration wanted to see the plight of Jason Rezaian played up in the media. Leibovitz suggests that since Rezaian had been kidnapped by the Iranians and since Obama wanted to make a deal with the Iranians he was happy to gin up support for whatever he had to do to trade Rezaian for planeloads of cash.

Leibovitz concludes:

To the victims of Obama’s legacy—which include the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in Syria as the United States did nothing so as not to jeopardize the Iran Deal—add two more American families, the Sotloffs and the Warmbiers, whose personal tragedies are compounded by the silence forced on them by the previous administration.

In another, follow-up article Leibovitz calls out the American Jewish organization for their silence about Warmbier.

You’d think that the cluster of handsomely funded Jewish organizations that fly the banner of promoting and protecting Jewish life in America and abroad would notice and acknowledge Warmbier’s murder. So far, though, American Jewish officialdom has been deafeningly silent.

Why is this so? These organizations have been spending all their time bashing Donald Trump and defending notorious anti-Semites like Linda Sarsour. They pledged allegiance to Barack Obama and are leading the Resistance to Donald Trump:

The odious Anne Frank Center, whose disingenuous mission statement blathers on about a kinder and fairer world where Jewish children are safe from the death camps of tyrannical regimes, didn’t bother taking a break from bashing Donald Trump to lament a young Jew put to death by the world’s worst offender of human rights. Nor did the ADL, an organization quick to stand up with Linda Sarsour as she denied Jews their right to self-determination but not so swift when the victim was a young Jewish man whose crime was pulling a silly prank at his hotel while on a college tour of a nation that routinely starves, imprisons, and executes hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. Everywhere you turn today, you hear no one demanding justice for Otto Warmbier.

In case you forgot about Linda Sarsour, James Kirchick recounts her monstrous views:

Linda Sarsour is a progressive-media darling. One of Essence magazine’s “Woke 100 Women,” Sarsour was named a leader of the Women’s March that followed President Donald Trump’s inauguration, despite declaring that “nothing is creepier than Zionism”—though her wish to “take away” the “vagina” of clitoridectomy victim and human-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, praise for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, upholding Saudi Arabia as a bastion of women’s lib, embrace of the terrorist murderer Rasmea Odeh, and claim that “Shariah law is reasonable” because “suddenly all your loans & credits cards become interest-free,” are all—at least in my humble estimation—definitely creepier.

What do the social justice warriors have to say about Warmbier? They have been yelping about how Warmbier is a privileged white male, and thus that he deserved what he got:

What you do hear are the howls of the social justice brigades, for whom Warmbier, being white and a man, is mostly to blame for his own murder. When the young college student was arrested last year, the regressive left’s flagships, from Salon to the blessedly defunct Nightly Show, gleefully mocked Warmbier, arguing that white privilege was the real reason for his predicament and suggesting that when it came to oppression, there was really no difference between Portland and Pyongyang. “The hopeless fear Warmbier is now experiencing,” opined a young blogger on the Huffington Post, “is my daily reality living in a country where white men like him are willfully oblivious to my suffering even as they are complicit in maintaining the power structures which ensure their supremacy at my expense.”

The Ascent of Mohammed bin Salman

With the ascendance of the relatively young Mohammed bin Salman as heir to the throne of Saudi Arabia the history of the Middle East has turned more positive. Welcoming the American president to Riyadh and allying us with Sunni Arabs in the war against terrorism was a momentous event. Since King Salman’s son, Mohammed was generally credited with the shift in Saudi policy, his ascent was foretold.

You have doubtless read the stories in the American press, both news reports and commentaries. To my mind those in the Wall Street Journal were the best. Following after the convocation in Riyadh, the move was a constructive step, one that has been welcomed by the Journal and the American administration.

For a slightly different take we turn to Debkafile, a website run by Israeli intelligence officers. Being as its writers have skin in the game and boots on the ground, their information is usually trustworthy. One notes that the Debkafile analysis is consistent with views I have expressed variously on this blog.

Regarding the naming of Mohammed bin Salman heir to the Saudi throne, Debkafile opens:

debkafile’s analysts see it as the outcome of a global and regional process initiated by Donald Trump soon after he settled in the White House in January. With his appointment as de facto ruler of the oil kingdom, the Saudi king’s son is ready to step into his allotted place in a new US-Arab-Israeli alliance that will seek to dominate Middle East affairs. Israel will be accepted in a regional lineup for the first time alongside the strongest Sunni Arab nations who all share similar objectives, especially the aim to stop Iran.

Trump’s trip to Riyadh and Jerusalem in early May laid the cornerstone for the new US-Sunni Arab bloc versus Iran’s Shiite grouping and also cemented Israel’s co-option.

Surely, it is early for optimism, but the alliance between America and Sunni Arab nations is beginning to form. Debkafile analysts add that the new blog has been engaging with Israel:

This bloc is in its infancy and has yet to display staying power and prove the wisdom of its policies. But its contours have taken shape. US President Trump is taking the lead role along with Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, another crown prince, Egypt’s President Abdul-Fatteh El-Sisi, and Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Three of those leaders already maintain strong direct – albeit discreet - ties with Israel’s prime minister, its security establishment, military and various intelligence agencies.

And also:

In a lecture on Tuesday, June 20, Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gady Eisenkott, spoke of the covert relations between the IDF and certain Arab nations, which he did not name. There is clearly a lot going on under the surface in various political, economic, financial, intelligence and military fields.

Interestingly, President Trump has overruled cabinet officials who are more hesitant about joining with the Saudis:

Recent events in the region already point to President Trump acting on important matters, such as the confrontation with Iran, the war on terror, the Syrian conflict and US intervention in the Yemen conflict, on the advice of the two Arab crown princes rather than Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

And also:

This was strikingly demonstrated when Trump overrode Tillerson’s recommendation to apply diplomacy for resolving the dispute that led to four Arab nations boycotting Qatar, with the Saudis in the lead, whereas the president then demanded strong action to stop Qatar’s funding of terrorists. He therefore opted for the aggressive Saudi and UAE stance against Qatar’s ruler, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

Will this lead to a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? The best we can say is that without the influence of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, there will be no solution. Thus, current administration optimism for the prospects for peace seem well-grounded:

The evolving bonds between the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Israel are the source of President Trump’s optimism about the prospects of pulling off an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, a vision which eluded all his predecessors in the White House, while knocking over the decades-old barriers between the moderate Arab nations and the Jewish State.

How will this happen?

The first steps towards this goal are in the making. They will include exposing parts of their hidden interaction to the light of day, as well as such important symbolic actions, as opening Arab skies to the passage of Israeli commercial flights, or direct telephone links.

Debkafile concludes:

But the process switched on by Trump in Riyadh took a large stride forward on June 21, with the formalization by King Salman of his young son’s role as the top mover and shaker in the Saudi kingdom. King Salman obtained the support of 31 out of 34 members of Saudi Arabia’s Allegiance Council for confirming Prince Muhammad Bin Salman as crown prince as well as deputy prime minister and minister of defense.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

To Snooze or Not to Snooze

Rise and shine… or else? Stay in bed or get up and out? Decisions, decisions. What should you do?

Most of us do not have the luxury of staying in bed all day. So the neuroscientists framed the issue differently: when your peaceful and reparative slumber is disrupted by your alarm should you hit the snooze button and drift off for another ten minutes of repose? Or, should you hop to it, get out of bed, make your bed—as Adm. McRaven recommends—and go face your day?

Today’s research study asks a slightly different question: how do you make the decision? To snooze or not to snooze… that is the question.

How do you decide whether to get up or to go back to sleep? The point becomes salient when you are pondering an extra ten minutes of sleep, not when you are thinking of chucking it all and staying in bed.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the best course is to get up sooner rather than later, how do you decide and what makes you act accordingly. Is it all about willpower… and your ability to use it to override your impulse to get more sleep? Or can you use another, more devious and circuitous mental mechanism, to convince yourself that the extra few minutes of slumber is not such a good idea. No matter how good it feels.

What makes you decide to be more active? What mental process allows you to overcome your tendency to be slothful?

We all value self-control. And we all believe that we should not indulge our tendencies to sin. Allow me to introduce another example, from the world of your unruly appetite: should you or should you not eat that extra éclair? How do you decide when an uneaten éclair is staring you in the face, tempting you toward perdition? Is willpower enough, should you say to yourself: I shalt not eat the éclair? Or, I can’t eat the extra éclair… I’ve already had four. Or is something else going on?

Traditional therapy will tell you that if you cannot control your appetite or get out of bed in a timely manner, you are suffering from a recurrence of an unprocessed and undigested past trauma. Your parents forced you to get up for school every morning and you have been marinating in resentment ever since. When you hit the snooze alarm you are rebelling against patriarchal oppression. Right on!

Therapy will recommend that you delve into your sordid past, the better to uncover the reason why you are doing what you are doing. If the blinding insight is of little or no use when it comes to refraining from one more éclair or getting out of bed, you will, thanks to Freud himself, be engaged in a battle between your impulse and your willpower. You will be left with a struggle between your id and your ego… in which struggle, the Viennese neurologist happily declared, you will inevitably lose.

Now, Berkeley neuroscientist Adrianna Jenkins has another idea. She presumably rejects the value of reconstructing your past and she has little faith in your willpower. If you want to make a better decision, she recommends that you use your imagination to project the future that will occur if you stay in bed and compare it to the future that will occur if you get up.

We should not think retrospectively, should not bury ourselves in the past and should not try to guide ourselves by exercising our willpower. We should think prospectively and do what would be called, in another context, policy analysis.

Consider what might or might not happen if you follow this or that course of action. Jenkins even suggests, cogently, I might add, that if you project yourself into the future, envision yourself engaging in future activities, you will override the impulses that seem to be controlling your present. This means that ignoring the future in favor of the past will leave you prey to impulses that you will have no constructive way to control.

Cari Romm offers a sufficiently anodyne example, regarding the snooze alarm:

Hitting snooze just one more time means ten more minutes of sleep means not having enough time for breakfast before running out the door means spending the morning cranky and hungry.

The study offers therapists an effective way to help their patients. It tells them to get over their taste for archeological digs through the buried past and to stop trying to empower the will, even the will to power. They should teach their patients to project alternative, but realistic, futures, through the use of imagination.

Rape Culture in Merkel's Germany

German Chancellor Merkel recently traveled to Rome to join forces with Pope Francis. Together the two want to open Europe to more immigrants and to fight the good fight against climate change.

In the meantime, Merkel’s open-arms policy to Muslim refugees has counted another victim.  Or, should I say, another human sacrifice. A Hungarian tourist was gang raped by three Ethiopian men last August. Nine times.

The case is currently being tried. The Daily Mail has the story:

A tearful woman broke down in court in Germany as she alleged that three asylum seekers raped her a total of nine times when she was ambushed at a town fair.

The alleged attack in August 2016 left the 28-year-old Hungarian victim 'shattered,' she told a court in Mühlhausen. 

Her mobile phone was stolen and the men used it to film their brutal assault which included kicking and punching her and dragging her by her hair, she claims.

The woman said she was forced to have unprotected oral, vaginal and anal sex with three Ethiopian men who she identified in court, The Local reports. 

She claimed the men took it in turns to rape her, sometimes acting as a group, and sometimes individually.

Perhaps Frau Merkel considers this to be collateral damage. You can be sure that the intrepid culture warriors who are fighting against rape culture will say nothing about this Hungarian woman. They are too busy militating for more immigrant refugees.

Call this case: Nightmare and her Ninefold.

They Never Stopped Trying

When North Korea finally released Otto Warmbier the dying student’s father called out the Obama administration for failing to bring him home sooner. President Trump quickly joined the chorus.

Evidently, the charge struck a chord. An Obama spokesman responded yesterday:

During the course of the Obama Administration, we had no higher priority than securing the release of Americans detained overseas…. Their tireless efforts resulted in the release of at least 10 Americans from North Korean custody during the course of the Obama administration.

It is painful that Mr. Warmbier was not among them, but our efforts on his behalf never ceased, even in the waning days of the administration. Our thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Warmbier’s family and all who had the blessing of knowing him.

Message: we never stopped trying.

And yet, they failed. Nowhere in the statement does Obama admit to failure. And clearly, the Obama administration failed. It told the Warmbier family not to put a very public face on the problem. Even now Obama is unwilling to admit to failure, to take responsibility for having failed the Warmbier family. One notes the weasel words: “It is painful….” Painful to whom? Anything to weasel out of stepping forward and showing some shame. Trying doesn't count. As Warmbier's father replied: it's the results that matter.

We should not be surprised. Being Obama means never saying you are sorry and never admitting that you are responsible for anything that went wrong.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Negotiating with North Korea

Otto Warmbier’s untimely and unfortunate death drew everyone’s attention back to North Korea. By showing the world the brutal depravity the regime practices against innocents, Warmbier’s death has made the threat of war against the nation more credible, because more acceptable to American public opinion.

Yesterday, before Warmbier’s death was announced, George Friedman analyzed the state of the negotiations between America and North Korea. Evidently, China is a major player in the process and leaders of that nation will be meeting with high level American officials in Washington tomorrow. As the Wall Street Journal reports, China wants to talk trade. The United States wants to talk North Korea.

Friedman opens his analysis:

There are signs that the North Korean crisis is easing. These signs are, in my opinion, part of the negotiating process that has been underway in recent weeks. This process has two purposes. The first is to reach a settlement. If one is not reached, the second purpose is to allow the United States to justify an attack by being able to demonstrate that it has left no stone unturned in a search for an alternative to war. And in fact, the United States doesn’t want war. A war with North Korea, like all wars, would be risky. It would put the South Korean city of Seoul in danger of severe casualties if North Korea retaliated with its artillery, and it would open the door to significant American casualties as well.

A negotiation such as this is a complex process in which each side must convince the other that it is prepared for war but interested in a settlement, while not appearing too eager for one. Each side will make threatening gestures and conciliatory gestures at different points in the talks. Just like in a negotiation to buy a home, both sides must be genuinely prepared to walk away from the deal, creating the illusion that making a deal is not essential.

By these terms, we have not yet persuaded the North Koreans that we are willing to use military force. Everyone knows that the potential consequences for South Korea would be extremely dire, and we do not, apparently, have a way to forestall them. Alternately, the pain that China could inflict by an economic boycott might constitute a sufficient threat.

American officials recognize that China’s ban on importing North Korean coal has had an effect, but we now want China to do more.

Friedman sees the negotiation in terms of manipulating emotions, especially the emotions of fear and greed. In his words:

A negotiation is about taking advantage and control of the other side’s fear and greed. Indeed, there are times when a show of weakness is the key to getting the other side to walk into a trap. But the most important thing to keep in mind is that you are not merely managing the other side’s perception of reality; you must also be ruthlessly controlling your own behavior to project the image and message you want to project.

Certainly, this presents an interesting view of negotiation. I would only add that a good negotiation is a trade-off. You give something and, in exchange, you gain something. If either party senses that it has been manipulated, that it has been taken advantage of by devious means, the purpose of the negotiation will have been undermined.

Second, as I have occasionally noted, in a good negotiation both parties must feel that they have saved face. In the current situation, if North Korea seems to be reacting to pressure, either from America or China, its leaders will lose face and thus find it very much more difficult to govern their nation. Authoritarian rulers need to have face, lest their rule seem illegitimate.

One might say that the recent round of taunts from North Korea, especially its missile tests, are designed to assert its control of the situation and to assure its people that it is not being pushed around or manipulated by any great power. If that nation cannot maintain its dignity and self-respect it will not be able to negotiate anything.

Friedman believes that you cannot negotiate effectively if you do not know the outcome you want. I would suggest that even if you begin a negotiation knowing the price you want to pay or receive, you will probably not get what you want. In most cases the desired outcome is a deal. In the current situation a deal would bring North Korea into the real world of diplomacy. They would exchange their nuclear weapons for legitimacy.

More importantly, America wants to reduce or eliminate the threat that North Korean nuclear weapons pose. One suspects that there are several different ways to achieve this end. At the least, we should pay attention to the way the negotiation unfolds, because we will all, thanks to Barack Obama, be facing the same problem with Iran in the coming years. One notes, yet again, that we are in this bind with North Korea thanks to Bill Clinton's failed diplomacy!

But, Friedman continues, negotiation does not merely involve two leaders. The negotiators must also have the support of their nations. Since they are not in it alone they must manage expectations on the home front.

He writes:

All of this becomes enormously complicated in negotiations between nations because the mood of the nation must also be managed. Particularly with democracies, negotiations can be frustrated by political eruptions that can be misread as weakness in your position. This leads not only to lack of confidence during the negotiations, which is deadly, but in democracies it leads to negotiators losing control over their positions.

American diplomatic negotiators can best be seen as brokers, caught between the American people and the adversary nation-state. There are two strategies for managing this problem. The first is to conduct negotiations in secret, which comes with a number of problems. If the secret leaks, it could cause a public uproar. The adversary will know that you are afraid of the public reaction and will either use that as leverage or shy away from making a deal, concerned that you can’t actually deliver. And if a deal is reached and then announced, the public will realize that negotiations were taking place in secret and its response will be, at best, unpredictable. You can try to keep the deal a secret, but on a significant issue, this can blow up in the negotiator’s face.

The second and better strategy is to make the issue appear less critical than it actually is. If the public can be persuaded to maintain a level of indifference despite the seriousness of the subject, the negotiations have a much higher chance of success. The adversary can’t manipulate public opinion and use the potential for public anger against you because the public is not engaged. The adversary, therefore, is forced to deal with the negotiators, who are free to conduct the talks with confidence.

By political eruptions, Friedman is suggesting that a negotiator must be seen as having the full confidence of his nation. If the nation is embroiled in political conflict or if the negotiator’s position seems tenuous, he will have more difficulty persuading his adversary that he can deliver what he is promising.

Friedman suggests that the best way to solve the issue is for the negotiators to make it appear that the issue is less grave than it appears. He will downplay the importance of the negotiation in order to lull the general public into complacency, thus giving him a freer hand to conduct his business.

What is going to happen? Friedman thinks that the crisis is insoluble. Mark Bowden, in the Atlantic, wargames the different possible strategies and concludes that the best we can do is to live with a nuclearized North Korea. Military action would be too costly. Negotiation will not yield a positive outcome.

In Friedman’s words:

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has signaled both that war would be catastrophic and that the U.S. will not accept North Korea’s acquisition of deliverable nuclear weapons that can reach the United States. And it will not wait for North Korea to acquire them in order to strike. Nothing in the negotiations seems to have solved the problem, and without capitulation on the core issue by one side or the other, it appears insoluble.

Friedman does not believe that we can live with a nuclear North Korea. He concludes his essay by suggesting that conflict is on the horizon…

Therefore, we still believe that North Korea and the U.S. are on the road to military conflict in the near future. War became a possibility after mid-June. The negotiations will continue, since there is little to lose. But U.S. forces can’t remain on alert in perpetuity, and the longer the U.S. waits, the greater the possibility of an intelligence miscalculation that allows North Korea to acquire the capability to strike the United States. Negotiation shapes the perceptions of all sides, but perception is not reality, and successful politicians understand that well. The reality continues to point toward action, and the action continues to look bloody.

One suspects that only China can avert catastrophe now. 

[Addendum: for an extended analysis of the chances that China might pressure North Korea, see this article by Will Edwards.]

Monday, June 19, 2017

Multicultural Diversity in Germany

In America, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has begun to crack down on the Salvadoran criminal gang called MS-13. In Germany, where people are more enlightened, police and judicial authorities have ceded areas of the nation to criminal gangs. Many, if not most of the gang members are Muslims, but they have been in Germany for a generation or two. They are, as one says, assimilated.

German prosecutors and judges are too afraid to do anything. Soeren Kern reports on the phenomenon for the Gatestone Institute. (via Maggie’s Farm) As always, his report contains extensive documentation.

Kern begins with the action in a Hanover court, a court that exculpated gang members who wounded police officers. If they can get away with injuring the police, what can’t they get away with:

A court in Hanover has handed suspended sentences to six members of a Kurdish clan who seriously wounded two dozen police officers during a violent rampage in Hameln. The court's ruling was greeted with anger and derision by police who said it is yet another example of the laxity of Germany's politically correct judicial system.

The case goes back to January 2014, when a 26-year-old clan member, arrested for robbery, tried to escape from the magistrate's office by jumping out of a seventh-floor courtroom window. The suspect was taken to the hospital, where he died. Members of his clan subsequently ransacked the hospital, as well as the court, and attacked police with rocks and other projectiles; 24 police officers and six paramedics were injured.

The judge said he was lenient because the defendants witnessed the death of the 26-year-old and were traumatized. The judge also revealed that he had reached a deal with the clan, which among other effects prevented police from testifying in court.

The real reason for the pusillanimous approach:

Observers have surmised that the real reason for the judge's leniency was that he feared his family might be subjected to retribution from the clan.

Middle Eastern crime syndicates have established themselves across Germany, where they engage in racketeering, extortion, money laundering, pimping and trafficking in humans, weapons and drugs.

The syndicates, which are run by large clans with origins in Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, among other places, operate with virtual impunity because German judges and prosecutors are unable or unwilling to stop them.

The clans — some of which migrated to Germany during Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war and have grown to thousands of members — now control large swathes of German cities and towns — areas that are effectively lawless and which German police increasingly fear to approach.

In other contexts, these are No-Go zones. In the midst of splendidly liberal Europe organized criminal enterprises are occupying the nation, setting their own rules and refusing to respect the nation’s laws. The Europeans are facing an invading army, not refugees seeking succor. As long as Merkel and Co. allow it to happen, it will continue to happen. Similar No-Go zones exist in other European nations, like France and Sweden.

The German judicial system has failed. Kern continues:

Ralph Ghadban, a Lebanese-German political scientist and a leading expert on Middle Eastern clans in Germany, said that the Hanover ruling was a massive failure of the German judicial system. He added that the only way for Germany to achieve control over the clans is to destroy them:

"In their concept of masculinity, only power and force matter; if someone is humane and civil, this is considered a weakness. In clan structures, in tribal culture everywhere in the world, ethics are confined to the clan itself. Everything outside the clan is enemy territory."

In an interview with Focus, Ghadban elaborated:

"I have been following this trend for years. The clans now feel so strong that they are attacking the authority of the state and the police. They have nothing but contempt for the judiciary.... The main problem in dealing with clans: state institutions give no resistance. This makes the families more and more aggressive — they simply have no respect for the authorities....

It’s hard to imagine that the gangs do not respect German girl power. It’s impossible to believe that they do not understand that women are just as strong as men. Apparently, they see girl power as a sign of weakness. They are exploiting the weakness. 

How bad is it? Here is some documentation:

In Berlin, a dozen or more Lebanese clans dominate organized crime in the German capital, according to Die Welt. They effectively control the districts of Charlottenburg, Kreuzberg, Moabit, Neukölln and Wedding. The clans are committed to counterfeiting, dealing in drugs, robbing banks and burglarizing department stores. Experts estimate that around 9,000 people in Berlin are members of clans.

The clans reject the authority of the German state. Instead, they run a "parallel justice system" in which disputes are resolved among themselves with mediators from other crime families. A classified police report leaked to Bild described how the clans use cash payments and threats of violence to influence witnesses whenever German police or prosecutors get involved.

And also:

In Mülheim, around 80 members of two rival clans got into a mass brawl following a dispute between two teenagers. When police arrived, they were attacked with bottles and stones. More than 100 police backed up by helicopters were deployed to restore order. Five people were taken into custody but then released.

In Munich, police arrested 20 female members of a Croatian clan believed to be responsible for up to 20% of all the burglaries committed in Germany. Investigators believe that the clan has at least 500 members throughout Germany.

In Bremen, police effectively surrendered to clans from Kurdistan and the Balkans because of the need to conserve limited personnel resources for the fight against spiraling street crime by migrant youths.

Welcome to multiculturally diverse Germany.

Selling Big Lies

A great propagandist will sell you a narrative that makes no sense. He will do so by taking control of the media presentation of the topic and by denouncing anyone who disagrees, who manifests the least particle of doubt, as a bigot, a Nazi, a mass murderer and a terrorist. 

When Muslim terrorists commit acts of terrorism, right thinking people will immediately rush to the barricades to explain that we must suppress Islamophobia. When a boy thinks he is a girl we must accept that he is a girl, to the point of subjecting him to treatments that will stop puberty. Of course, the propagandists love facts and are opposed to all forms of child abuse.

The climate change chorus is up in arms about the Trump administration’s renunciation of the Paris climate accord. It is telling us that America has now abandoned the environmental cause and, with it, world leadership. Considering that citizen of the world Barack Obama had already abrogated American world leadership on anything other than the quixotic quest to shut down industry, it was rich indeed.

In the aftermath of the Trump decision California’s Governor Moonbeam flew to China in order to ally his state with the Middle Kingdom and against the United States. The spectacle of an American governor trying to embarrass the American must have warmed hearts and minds in Beijing. Who know how easy it was to manipulate governors.

Joel Kotkin exposed the folly of the Brown trip:

California Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent trip to China reflects the massive disconnect inherent in the progressive establishment worldview. The notion that the country that is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, emitting nearly twice as much as the United States, and is generating coal energy at record levels, should lead the climate jihad is so laughable as to make its critics, including Trump, seem reasonable. All this, despite the fact that the U.S., largely due to the shift from coal to natural gas, is clearly leading the world in greenhouse gas reductions.

If you are praising the heroism of Gov. Brown be sure to mention that your opinions are incontrovertible facts.

Kotkin continued:

Paris is good for China in that it gets it off the hook for reducing its emissions until 2030, while the gullible West allows its economies to be buried by ever-cascading regulations. The accords could have cost U.S. manufacturers as many as 6.5 million industrial jobs, while China gets a basically free pass. President Xi Jinping also appeals to the increasingly popular notion among progressives that an autocracy like China is better suited to address climate change than our sometimes chaotic democratic system….

Ultimately, the Paris accords are much ado about nothing. The goals will have such little impact, according to both rational skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg and true believers like NASA’s James Hanson, as to make no discernible difference in the climate catastrophe predicted by many greens. In reality, Paris is all about positioning and posturing, a game at which both Brown and Xi are far more adept than the ham-handed Trump.

When it comes to leadership on green energy and climate change the left thinking elites now worship German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Miss Open Arms herself. After all, Germany shut down all of its nuclear power plants because of climate risk and is now burning more coal. Keep in mind, when you are selling a narrative, facts only matter if they appear to support your point.

Kotkin explained Merkel’s folly:

Never mind that Germany’s green energy plan has been so successful that the country is reopening coal plants, and has produced increasing emissions the last two years, in large part due to the inefficiencies of the renewable sector. Germany, like most of Europe, also suffers from such low birthrates that it must depend on more immigration, largely from the most lethal parts of the world. The European Union is expected to shrink by 2050 under any circumstances, while Germany’s population will drop by 8 percent.

Europe’s immigration policy is such rank madness that more and more people are shrugging their shoulders and accepting its inevitable consequences: the Decline and Fall of Western Europe.

As for Vladimir Putin, he never had it as good as he had it during the Obama administration. Effectively, our citizen of the world president ceded world leadership to Putin and Xi Jinping. Naturally, this has led the media elites to go into paroxysms of rage about how Trump is Putin’s puppet.

And then there’s this, in Kotkin’s words:

For all the hysteria surrounding Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, Putin would have been better off with the Democrats in power. Putin needs two things to put his “Upper Volta with missiles” back at the center of global geopolitics: a weaker American military and more curbs on U.S. fossil fuel production. Democrats are more likely to accomplish these goals than Republicans, who are more closely tied to the defense and energy industries.

Kotkin concluded that America will retain its preeminence for decades to come.

America is likely to remain the dominant country in the world — economically, culturally and technologically — for decades to come. Unlike Germany, China, Japan or Russia, its population will not be shrinking in 2050, and it enjoys both advanced technology and vast resources. Trump may damage our image in the world, but even his clumsiness will not be sufficient to undermine our continuing pre-eminence.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Fighting Islamist Terrorism, the Chinese Way

It’s Ramadan and nations around the world are awash in Islamist terrorism. The West is besieged with Muslim refugees and is making a valiant attempt to integrate the new population. As of now, it has had limited success and a great deal of crime, added to the terrorist incidents..

In authoritarian China things work differently. China has its own Muslim population, called Uighurs. The group has launched several terrorist attacks, among them the rampage through the Kunming train station in 2014. There, knife wielding terrorists murdered 33 people and injured many more.

The Chinese authorities did not merely declare war on terrorism. They decided to repress the religious practices of all Muslims.

The Wall Street Journal editorializes about the Chinese approach to terrorism:

It’s Ramadan, and Beijing is again restricting the peaceful practice of Islam in its western territory of Xinjiang. This year government employees are required to ensure that friends and family aren’t fasting or otherwise observing the Muslim holy month. Under the “Together in Five Things” campaign, cadres are even living in the homes of the Uighur minority, according to the World Uyghur Congress.

The government has suppressed Ramadan. It is not interested winning hearts and minds. The Journal continues:

In February Mr. Chen described security as “grim” and urged the People’s Armed Police to “bury the corpses of terrorists and terror gangs in the vast sea of the people’s war.” So much for winning hearts and minds.

It did not stop with Ramadan. Other identifying characteristics have also been banned, presumably because they denote separation:

New “Regulations on Anti-Extremism” that came into effect in April outlawed veils or “abnormal” beards. Parents can’t give children “overly religious” names such as Muhammad or encourage them to follow the Muslim faith. 

And also:

Other measures include antiterror drills, shows of force by the security services and the installation of satellite tracking devices in cars. Mandatory activities for students are deliberately scheduled on Fridays to prevent them from attending mosque services, and rewards are offered for reporting men who wear a beard or women who wear a veil.

Control over the Uighur population goes far beyond religion. The use of their native language is discouraged in schools, and economic opportunities are limited. The best jobs go to Han Chinese settlers, who are given incentives to move to Xinjiang. Peaceful dissent is not tolerated. 

The Journal does not approve. It sees the Chinese approach as repressive—a reasonable description—and suggests that it is likely to provoke a violent uprising:

Yet China’s fears of a Uighur terrorist movement may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Uighurs flee the country and some become radicalized, Islamic State issued a video in February in which a Uighur fighter threatened China with “rivers of blood.” The government’s anti-Islamic policies are also causing anger among Muslim nations such as Indonesia.

Chinese officials continue to respond to every outbreak of violence in Xinjiang with greater repression. By restricting even the peaceful practice of Islam by historically moderate Uighurs, Beijing is traveling a dangerous path that threatens domestic stability.

From the Chinese perspective Western tolerance has produced far more deadly terrorist attacks than has Chinese repression. 

Western thinkers have bought the oppression/rebellion narrative and have used it to avoid any repressive measures. It says that if you push down on a gas that is in a confined space the gas will eventually explode its container. It's a persuasive narrative, but it is probably not true.

Back in the day, when Tiananmen Square was filled with students demanding democracy, the Chinese authorities cracked down viciously—invading the encampment with tanks and murdering dozens of the demonstrators. At the time, serious Western thinkers like Nicholas Kristof and Jonathan Mirsky declared that the Chinese people would soon rise up against oppression and overthrow their authoritarian masters. We are still waiting.

They were wrong. They misread the situation. Where we saw Woodstock they saw another Cultural Revolution. Where we saw enlightened students who wanted merely to vote, they saw a new generation of Red Guards. The population of China preferred prosperity to famine. They trusted their leaders more than they trusted students revolutionaries.

In any event, the repression did what it was supposed to do. Now, the Chinese government is forcing Muslims to conform to Chinese ways, even at the expense of peaceful religious practices. No country in the West could do such a thing, but if terrorism continues to spread in the tolerant West, how much longer will it be before Westerners decide that the Chinese way is better than the liberal democratic approach?

Lipstick Therapy

Here’s a question that you might not have asked yourself. Then again, if you are a woman and want to improve your academic performance, you might very well have asked yourself what it takes to gain an edge on your next test.

Now, serious researchers, who apparently had run out of subjects, have studied the effect that cosmetics have on a woman’s academic performance. To my knowledge they have not studied the effects that cosmetics might have on men’s academic performance.

The next is: a woman who wears makeup to her exam will score much higher than did those women who did not. One notes that when a woman is taking a test, she will assume that the other test takers will not be focusing on her appearance. 

Women have long known how that extra flick of eyeliner or dash of lipstick can boost their confidence.

And now, it seems, it’s also more likely to help them pass exams.

Research shows that women who put on make-up before taking a test achieved ten to 20 per cent higher marks than those who did not wear any.

Psychologists say the result could be down to the ‘lipstick effect’, whereby using make-up boosts self-esteem and has a knock-on effect on memory, confidence and mental ability.
Naturally, you are normally skeptical about the stories you read in the Daily Mail. I understand. And yet, this report comes to us from the Harvard Medical School and from an Italian University, so it can’t be all wrong:

The researchers, from Harvard Medical School and Chieti University in Italy, said: ‘Women may use make-up to increase self-esteem by boosting their attractiveness; this makes them feel better during stress. Positive emotions increase information accessible in memory.’

A woman who is feeling stressed should put on some lipstick or maybe even a little eye liner. It will boost self-esteem, produce more positive emotion and allow her memory and rational faculties to function more effectively. 

Who knew?

The Cult of the Non-Politician

What does Donald Trump have in common with French president Emmanuel Macron? Neither is a professional politician. Both were elected to save us from professional politicians. John Podhoretz adds Theresa May to the list, though, to be fair, she certainly has had more experience with government. May’s problem has less to do with inexperience and more to do with personal ineptitude.

Podhoretz writes:

In Britain, the thuddingly conventional Theresa May called an election meant to empower her and barely squeaked by an anti-Semitic terrorist-loving back-bencher loony leftist named Jeremy Corbyn who had spent three decades as his Labour Party’s crazy uncle in the attic. May is a dead prime minister walking.

In France, the leaders of the two major parties that have dominated French politics for nearly 60 years both collapsed in corruption scandals and surrendered their nation to a 39-year-old one-time investment banker named Emmanuel Macron who campaigned with 3-D holograms like Princess Leia and had a little bit of government experience. His party, which came into existence a year ago, is likely to end up with the most dominant position in the national legislature in the history of France’s Fifth Republic.

And of course America elected Donald Trump, while the heart of the party that opposed him belonged not to Hillary Clinton — the Theresa May of America — but rather to a 74-year-old socialist gadfly who has never gotten anything done in the Senate.

He continues:

Macron and Trump sold themselves specifically as anti-politicians beyond the ordinary boundaries of left and right, beholden to no party but themselves — visionary business executives who could cut through the nonsense and get things done.

Surely, being good at running a business is easily be transferable to running the government:

The cult preaches that the skills of leadership and decision-making every good businessman possesses are transferable to any circumstance. It’s why, to take one notorious example, Apple’s board felt comfortable dethroning Steve Jobs in 1983 and handing the job to a guy who had run Pepsi — because if you’ve run one corporation, hey, you’ve run them all.

You might recall that we discussed and debated these questions on this blog. For the record, I expressed doubt that the skill set could easily be transferred. Many commenters disagreed vehemently. From my perspective the Trump administration’s problems have derived from inexperience, not from some rarefied psychological disorder.

Podhoretz describes the early days of the Trump presidency:

He does not know how Washington works. He does not know how the executive branch works. He does not know the political system works. He does not understand the difference between the rules that govern a privately held family company and the astoundingly complicated set of rules that have been put in place to restrain American politicians from just doing whatever they want.

He seems remarkably powerless in the most powerful job on earth, and remarkably ineffectual. This enrages and frustrates him. The question is whether this bold experiment in empowering the citizen politician will, over time, prove to be such a failure that we will look again to the people who actually know the rules and master the trade to govern us again.

It is also fair to say that Trump is facing an unprecedented violent assault, from the media and from inside the government, and that the nation is descending into civil war. He is not facing a normally loyal opposition. Yet, he does not know enough about the ways of Washington to manage the situation effectively—assuming that it can be managed. Everyone agrees that Trump's habit of tweeting on the fly has aggravated the situation. When your opponents despise you, you do well not to fuel the fire.

One understands that bureaucrats have the long knives out, but one also understands that a very large number of senior administrative positions have gone unfilled. In many cases the government is being run by Obama holdovers. One can see that however well Trump’s skill set, especially in communications, worked in the past, it is not working in the present. For example, since Trump spent most of the presidential primary season insulting and belittling his Republican opponents-- to the delight of many-- why do you imagine that these same opponents would jump on the Trump train and provide him with quick legislative victories?

Somewhere in his book on the Art of the Deal Trump said that skilled negotiators negotiate with their gut. I have often suggested that his view, shared by no small number of people, is wrong. Perhaps a real estate developer who has spent his life building buildings can rely on his intuition. But that simply means that his knowledge is so deeply ingrained that he does not need to think through every step.

Yet, if your gut has made you a great developer or a great investor or even a great television personality it does not necessarily make you a great president. Great presidents are experienced politicians. They are so experienced that they seek advice. They accept that they do not have all the answers. And they know better than to go with their gut.

We all hope that Trump’s a quick study, n’est-ce pas? 

Can Words Kill?

You have no doubt heard about Michelle Carter. The young woman in Massachusetts persuaded a young man who was infatuated with her to… commit suicide. She showed off some girl power, don't you think? For her actions, which involved sending texts, she was recently convicted of involuntary manslaughter and is facing up to twenty years in prison.

I hesitate to dive into the complex legal thicket surrounding the prosecution and conviction. Undoubtedly, it will all be taken up in numerous appeals. But, I find Elie Mystal's analysis cogent and compelling. It comes to us from the Above the Law blog:

What does it mean to be convicted of killing someone who kills himself:

If “free will” is to mean anything, you cannot “suicide” a person to death. You can murder someone, you can accidentally murder someone, you can pay someone to murder someone for you, you can set up a criminal organization under which murders occur on your behalf, you can even set up conditions so inherently unsafe that you are criminally responsible for anybody who happens to die. But you can’t kill a person who kills themselves. The self-killing breaks the causal chain between your actions, however reprehensible, and the death.

Judge Lawrence Moniz in Massachusetts found Michelle Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Conrad Roy. Roy killed himself with carbon monoxide poisoning in his car in a Kmart parking lot. But I guess according to Moniz Roy didn’t really kill himself because Carter sent him a lot of mean texts and phone calls encouraging him to commit suicide.

Might one argue that Carter was inciting, like shouting fire in a crowded room? Mystal disagrees:

Carter was not disturbing the peace. She was not inciting a riot. She didn’t push him into the car and lock the door. She didn’t turn on the gas. She didn’t threaten to kill him if he didn’t do it himself. 

Do words kill? Do nasty texts kill? If so, what does this do to our first amendment rights:

If we’re going to live in world where words kill people, and self-inflicted wounds are not self-inflicted if somebody tells you to inflict them, how far back in the causal chain are we willing to go? My mom says I’m not fat, I’m just big-boned, will somebody arrest her if I have a coronary? How far back does it go even in the instant case? Who told Michelle Carter that heaven “existed” and was a nice place? Haul their asses into court. Would Roy have killed himself if he knew that only worms and darkness awaited on the other side?

What is it all about? Mystal says that it’s about revenge against a decidedly unappealing human being:

The prosecution of Michelle Carter clearly isn’t about justice. It’s about revenge and deterrence. We want to punish Carter because her texts were so mean, and we want to warn teens not to bully each other online because there will be consequences. Convicting someone for texting a man to death is a perverse miscarriage of justice, but if it stops one teen from body-shaming a fellow teen on Instagram, most parents will be cool with the conviction.

He concludes:

The law is designed to prosecute people who do awful things, not people who say awful things.

Michelle Carter didn’t save Conrad Roy. That’s not the same as killing him. The law shouldn’t have such a hard time distinguishing between the two.