16. desember 2002

Oil prices soar, and Americans discover Venezuela The escalating crisis in Venezuela is finally finding its way into American media, as the price of crude oil soared to $30 a barrel. Coupled with uncertainty about Iraq, this can become a very expensive crisis for American consumers. And a very lucrative one, incidentally, for oil exporters like Norway. Read a first-hand perspective on the Venezuelan crisis every day in Miguel's blog. 11:17:17 PM    comment []

Strom Thurmond never renounced his past One can easily be accused of beating a dead horse, or at least a retired Senator, but I found it interesting to read Timothy Noah's article in Slate, saying that Thurmond "never publicly repudiated his segregationist past." Lott, apparently, was just not as smart as the old man. 10:43:05 PM    comment []

Carrying our burning crosses Being a radical libertarian means having to defend the rights of some pretty sick people. I am, of course, referring to our ongoing debate about whether burning crosses is a form of speech that should be protected by the US first amandment and similar free-speech protection in other countries. The debate actually started here, including some good comments from the readers, pro and con. Here are some other references, in a somewhat messed up chronological order: Rayne responded, respectfully disagreeing with my free-speech position, and also posted a follow-up later. The Raven added some thoughts in the comments at mine's and Rayne, and also posted a lengthy discussion from his perspective, well thought out as always. Rob ranted from Emphasis Added. His position is clear: racism has been proven indefensible and does not merit any defence. Cross-burning serves to "create an atmosphere conducive to racial violence," and this expression is not legitimate in civilised society. Kriselda of Different Strings replied to Rob with a very interesting comparison to the use of the Swastika by some fellow Norse pagans. I concur. Symbols have a life of their own in culture. It is people who attribute meaning to rituals and symbolic expression. Over time, meanings do change. It seems we mostly concur that burning a cross can be compared to speech. It expresses an idea. It is not comparable, as the justices discussed, to actually pointing a gun at someone, even if it will be felt as a threat, maybe at a comparable level. Pointing a gun is a clear, direct threat. Yes, it is an expression, more or less like the words "I will kill you", and neither should be able to hide behind a stature protecting freedom of speech. It could, I guess, be argued that a public cross burning is a direct threat against people. Cross-burning directed at e.g. an individual family or a black neighbourhood I have few problems seeing it as an explicit threat, and I think if someone was able to specifically formulate a law targeting this activity, and only that, it could be justified. I do, however, have a very serious problem with the argument that we all agree racism is bad, this has been settled once and for all, therefor we can prohibit any expression of racism outright. It would be a serious infringment on freedom of expression, and I suspect the fallout of such a statute would be far more intrusive than putting an end to some pointy-hatted cross burners. My take is, as always, a broader issue. Who should determe what kind of expression is legitimate and what is not? At what point in history should we sit down and make a select group determine what kind of expression is legitimate and what is not? Look a century back in time, and think about issues like women's rights, gay rights, reproductive rights and of course racial tension. Let us assume that at some point we took the majority opinion in even the most enlightened (whatever that is!) societies and hammered it into law. Think Germany in the 30s, the US in the 50s. Freedom of speech should be as broad as absolutely possible. In times of high tension, people can easily be persuaded to overreact, and the constitution is not there to protect the majority's sensibilities, but the rights of the minority, especially the most unpopular minority. During WWI, when war hysteria raged North America, a small sect were persecuted and their leaders were sentenced to lengthy prison sentences for religious rants against the military. These sentences were later overturned by a courageous supreme court. That sect later became known as Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not untypical that freedoms are tested for the benefit of the rest of us by such extremist religions and groups. During WWII, the supreme court gave in to war hysteria when a number of Americans were interned for no other reason than their ethnicity; they were Japanese-Americans. Unlike the German-Americans or Italian-Americans, their origin was visible, and racial prejudices did the rest. These examples merely serve to illustrate that to prepare for hysteria and mob rule, freedoms should be broadened as much as possible, and the defenses against oppression should be strengthened and fortified. And that needs to be done, even if it means tolerating the free speech of some very unsavatory groups and individuals. 8:59:25 PM    comment []

I didn't mean to lead you on by fucking you With a headline like that, you just have to read what those maniacs at The Onion are up to now. 7:12:47 PM    comment []

Google Stats 2002 Google has published a Zeigeist showing the most popular search terms of the year. Some surprises, some not-so-surprising things. Hmm. Googlesluts must write more about Eminem and Jennifer Lopez. 5:27:07 PM    comment []

Defending Lott Defying the trend, William Saletan in Slate takes a shot at defending Trent Lott, the incoming Senate majority leader under siege. He argues, in my opinion extremely unconvincingly, that Lott was not referring to integration when he praised Thurmond's 1948 platform. Here is the first argument presented: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we [Mississippians] voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." Many critics think that by "problems," Lott meant integration. He says he meant problems with national defense, law enforcement, and balancing budgets. Based on the inherent meaning of his words—as opposed to what he should have remembered when thinking of 1948—Lott's explanation makes more sense. "Problems" is plural. "All" implies a broad range. Saletan's defence is extremely disingenious. The problems were of course not "integration." They were the "problems" that racists everywhere claim comes as a result of intergration: increased crime, increased expenditures on welfare, race riots, etc. He could also have referred to the lengthy, strenuous struggle for human rights in such a disrespectful manner. Thus his whole attempt at textual and grammatic analysis collapses. The next line of defense is not more convincing: True, segregation was the central idea of Thurmond's 1948 campaign. It's hard to believe Lott meant something else. But it's harder to believe he didn't. Everyone who spoke at the party knew his words were being aired on C-SPAN. To believe Lott meant to praise segregation is to believe he meant to end his career. The first part is correct. The last sentence attributes far more rationality and foresight to Lott than he deserves. If he indeed had given the matter as much thought as Saletan argues, he would have realised that it would be "hard to believe" that he was not praising segregation, and he would never had uttered the words in the first place. Either way, the statement was stupid. Once we agree about the lack of foresight, we can also agree that Saletan's second argument does not hold water, either. The most likely explanation, then, is that Lott said what he meant, in an unguarded moment. Lott has apologised four times, and I am all for forgiveness. But one can forgive Lott for saying what he did, without meaning that a person whose record has been scarily racist should be Senate majority leader in the world's remaining superpower. Many Americans have, understanably, expressed concern that extremists like Heider and Le Pen have had such a large following in some European countries. Well, back atcha. 4:03:12 AM    comment []

Mile High Club not that exclusive "Almost 10% of air travellers claim to have joined the "mile high club" by making love in a plane, according to a survey." (Ananova) And quite a few of them are liars, as anyone having experienced the conditions on economy class should know. 3:17:07 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.01.03; 04:00:15.