You might ask by 1 Islamic radical from Kazakhstan and 2 from Uzbekistan would be living in Brooklyn. At least you would if you were old school. Nowadays this sort of question won't get asked in the liberal media. These guys were just arrested while planning to go to Syria to fight for ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/Islamic Caliphate. The Kazakh, Saidakhmetov, was arrested in JFK International.
Sure, Saidakhmetov talked about killing Americans if he didn't manage to join the caliphate. But is that any reason to stop him? Or is it instead a reason to make sure he gets to Syria? Another one of them, Juraboev, did not intend to come back. Well that's good. Free flight out for anyone who wants to leave and does not intend to come back. Work for you?
I am being serious. Shouldn't we
let all the West's jihadists go to Syria? Granted, that's bad news for Syria's Christians. But we could help the Syrian Christians who are arming themselves to fight the Jihadists. We could give the Christians (and Alawites and Druze and Shiites while we are at it) really cool weapons (tanks, mortars, anti-tank weapons, 50 caliber machine guns) and close air support. How about carving out a Christian state somewhere in the Middle East for all the refugees from Iraq and even Egypt? Put them together in one place, heavily armed.
The interpretation of Islam embraced by the Islamic Caliphate is pretty 7th century. The Islamic State fighters created a place to attract the extremists and pull them out of the West. Lucky us. We should be grateful and make use of their efforts.
Globally, there is a migration of people toward more affluent societies (at least those societies which will let them in). There is also a migration of people to live among people of like mind. I think we should have less of the former and more of the latter. Let people get away from those of opposing views who would impose their views on those with dissenting views. Let extremists congregate together away from everyone else.
Globalization is creating absurdities in America. Why should we import Muslim religious extremists and then arrest them when they try to leave to go fight Jihad? They shouldn't have been here in the first place. What I'm wondering: How much more absurd will America become as the 21st century plays out? I see conditions developing that should create much greater absurdity in the future.
Megan McArdle argues Wal-Mart is raising its wages above minimum wage because it needs higher quality workers in order to compete in a changing competitive retail market.
So here’s a third possibility: Unlike many of the people who write about Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart understands how efficiency wages work. It is treating its workers better because this will enable the company to get better workers.
Alas, I think she's right. Why "alas"? Because it signals a further shift of demand away from the least skilled and least able workers. Already there is a 30% labor force employed participation rate gap between high school drop-outs and college graduates. Most high school drop-outs are not employed. If they aren't good enough for Wal-Mart then where does that leave them?
Online ordering is reducing the demand for retail workers. Automated delivery systems will eventually reduce it much further. I'm at a loss to see where the new big sources of demand for the left hand side of the IQ Bell Curve could come from. In 20 years time our homes will be more robotic, retail purchasing and delivery will be much more automated, and long haul trucking won't be done by humans. Fast food joints will use few human workers.
In New York City these will still be a couple thousand dollars a month. But imagine areas where land is cheaper. Millions of our growing lower classes could live in microapartments.
Some of you might be opposed to having growing lower classes. But the billionaires are not interested in what you think. Big money wants the Republican leaders to ignore their base and cave on Obama's immigration amnesty.
If GOP leaders launch an emotional public PR campaign against the Democrats’ amnesty, for example, by arguing that it is unfair to Americans, they’ll get a lot of closed-door pushback from critical donors.
This pretty much leads us to the necessity of microapartments. Tyler Cowen expects declining wages for the poor.
"It will bring more wealthy people than ever before, but also more poor people, including people who do not always have access to basic public services. Rather than balancing our budget with higher taxes or lower benefits, we will allow the real wages of many workers to fall and thus we will allow the creation of a new underclass."
A huge gap in employment rates by educational level has already opened up. It will grow. Obama's amnesty will make it grow faster and the resulting diversity will simultaneously reduce civic involvement and social capital. Below some minimum threshold of social capital a future like Brazil beckons.
He doesn't come out and say they are perverts. I think America's secular religion has become a perversion.
US President Barack Obama says the US is "not at war with Islam - we are at war with the people who have perverted Islam".
In fact, the Caliphate folks are taking Islam back to its (brutal, oppressive) roots in the 7th and 8th centuries. They are taking the Koran seriously and literally. Now, that's a problem for us, especially since we have a government that thinks immigration from all over the world is just peachy.
I do not want to deal with people who are still thinking like they are in the 7th century. But our elites think they know better than me and think we should learn to love diversity because diversity is always great.
Graeme Wood has done an excellent job researching what the IS leaders really believe about Islam.
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.
This is very worth reading in full. Our own elites have painted IS with pretty foolish stereotypes and tried to claim that IS, like terrorists, does not represent real Islam. This has blinded our elites to the nature of the problem we face with Jihadists, terrorists, and IS in particular.
As the recent beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya demonstrates, the influence of IS extends beyond its battlegrounds in Iraq and Syria. Not all Jihadists aligned with it are choosing to go to Syria to go to battle. Some decide to attack in Paris or Copenhagen. Others in other Arab countries.
In the never ending battle to stop oppression the next group up for consideration? Criminals. If you want to argue against this (probably unstoppable) movement it will probably not help any to have facts on your side. But you still might want the facts anyway. So here are some for your consideration: Recidivism Of Prisoners Released In 30 States In 2005: Patterns From 2005 To 2010
Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005—
- About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.
- Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders.
- More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year.
- Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release.
- A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.
- An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period
- Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.
Prisons are horrible places. Prison rape makes the horrible worse. Some people in prison are innocent. Others are in for minor crimes and aren't dangerous to us. But when you ponder the figures above consider that lots of people getting rearrested aren't getting arrested for the first crime that they committed once they got out. How many victims are there for each burglar, car robber, rapist, violent gangs, and arsonist before those criminals get arrested again? How many get out on bail and commit more crimes while waiting for trial?
My guess: the optimal solution for public safety is to let some inmates out of prison so the most dangerous can be held for even longer. Does the current state of research into criminology allow improved predictions on who is most likely to commit more crimes? Probably yes. See Adrian Raine's The Anatomy Of Violence for a survey of what is known about biological contributors to risk of violence and criminality. But we need a lot more research so we can more accurately identify the unredeemable.
Update: To get a sense of just how badly criminal gangs terrorize some portions of American society read this. How to get these people locked up?
We have imported a number of competing moral beliefs. How is this going to turn out? The future is going to be an adventure.
True story: A few years back, I sat across the table in a north Dallas steakhouse from a local Muslim CAIR leader who objected by my having called the teachings of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, “violent.” I responded that Qaradawi taught that it was permissible for Muslim men to beat their wives, and that homosexuals should be stoned to death. “That’s violence,” I said.
He denied it. “You call it violence,” he shot back. “We call it protecting our families.”
This comes up in an essay by Rod Dreher about how Barack Obama either assumes or at least wants us to believe that the moral beliefs of liberal humanitarianism are the same as the moral beliefs of Christianity. Rod, a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian, disagrees.
The point is that in his speech, the president seems to believe that liberal humanitarianism is the same thing as normative Christianity, and indeed normative religion. By his reckoning, a religion that “justifies the taking of innocent lives” and “oppresses” the weak and the few, and whose god “condones terror,” or justifies “oppression, violence, or hatred” cannot be true religion.
There is certainly a strong element in secular liberal thought that holds that secular liberalism is just as good and moral as religion (and by religion they mean upper class New England Protestant Christian sects). They claim to hold dear all the key moral beliefs that a Christian must embrace and therefore see themselves as superior to Christians: moral goodness without false beliefs about the supernatural.
Faced with any other religion secular upper class Western thinkers assume those other religions have to have the same moral beliefs. So when anyone from those other religions does not hold the same beliefs as upper class New England secularists are just bad followers of those other religions and not sufficiently educated.
Liberal secularists who think this way sound very foolish when faced with, say, the latest Islamic terrorist attack ("not true Islam", "hijacking of Islam by extremists", and other errant nonsense). But I think there is a strategy at work: they want to define what is legitimate and to a great deal, at least in some Western countries, they succeed by domination of the press, academia, and judicial benches. However, the West's influence on the rest of the world is in decline. So their moral assertions are losing power.
Also see Dreher's Rawlsian Opposition to Gay Marriage. My reaction to that piece is that even if the writer Dreher quotes is correct about how John Rawls reasoned it does not matter. Rawlsian thought will be revised to meet the preferences of those who defend and promote left-liberal moral thinking in the West.
Liberals will face a profound challenge to their assumptions in the coming decades. But they are still ruling the West today and their position hasn't started to weaken yet. The weakening will come from both demographic changes in Europe and from research into human nature. A further undermining of their position might come from offspring genetic engineering if a substantial fraction of parents opt for human 2.0 choices that result in unliberal dispositions.
With 100 million copies sold to thrilled women the question arises: how can a book so counter to feminist ideology do so well among women raised in a culture that attempts to suppress gender differences?
One answer is that there’s a hunger that’s not being satisfied: Namely, for men who are unabashedly masculine, who aren’t afraid to take control, and to lead. That is, there’s a longing (even a lusting) for men who aren’t afraid of what’s classically been called “headship.” To this end, while Fifty Shades subverts Christian sexual morality, it subverts the modern crusade for “genderlessness” all the more.
Fifty Shades is about a meek young female hungering for a dominant, high status, handsome alpha male who turns out to be into bondage and total domination of his woman. This of course thrills her. This so strikes a cord with women around the world that its author has made a fortune from her books.
Will Xi Jinping's campaign against corruption in China go so far that it will remove the financial incentive to be a communist party member, to protect the communist party from attempts to replace it? Corruption reduces (how much?) China growth potential. But is corruption necessary for the survival of the government? An interview of Harvard history prof Roderick MacFarquhar makes for interesting reading: Q. and A.: Roderick MacFarquhar on Xi Jinping’s High-Risk Campaign to Save the Communist Party
You say a successful campaign against corruption. But the point about a successful campaign against corruption is that it’s all very well to get a few tigers, have cheers from the multitude because you’ve brought these people down. But it’s the fleas who are the real danger. The peasants and the workers are afflicted by local cadres. Petty corruption. Some of which results in ecological damage to the neighborhood and therefore health problems for themselves and their kids. Those are the people that are really the threat to the population at large, and if he goes after them, who’s going to work for the party? Who’s going to be the new cadres?
MacFarquhar makes a number of astute observations. For example, nationalism whipped up against foreigners can lead to expectations that, if not met, will anger the people who were made to feel emotionally worked up. They can then turn against the government. So nationalism is a risky tool to use, especially for a government that has legitimacy problems. On the other hand, since the communist party isn't very communist it is lacking in an ideology to give it legitimacy and to inspire loyalty. How to keep party members and the populace supporting the party?
How can a place as big as China change from the current party to a democracy without chaos and violence in the transition? China doesn't have local or regional democracy to serve as a training ground for leaders to gain skills and demonstrate abilities. How could leaders be chosen for national office in the first national elections? What pool of political personalities could run aside from existing high level party members?
I do not understand China well enough to have any guess about how it will be governed 10 or 20 years hence. Can the communist party survive for decades to come? Will it allow some limited form of democracy? Can it do that without losing control?
China now has the largest economy in the world. Its stability matters more every passing year. Imagine what would happen to the world economy of revolutionary upset in China disrupted factory work and trade. The whole world could fall into recession or worse.
Gregory Clark, outlining arguments from his book The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility (The Princeton Economic History of the Western World), says there is "a general social competence of families and that that competence really changes slowly across generations".
Clark's findings make decades of inequality studies by economists look silly. Their confirmation bias blinded them and they wasted a lot of time and pushed a lot of bad policies as a result.
When we know all the genetic variations that contribute to social competence and economic success it should be possible to do a much better job measuring the efficacy of societal institutions (schools, regulatory policies, courts, markets) in enabling people to achieve their genetic potential. Quite a few policies are based on very wrong (tabula rasa) assumptions about human potential. We could have less stupid policies we stopped pretending outcomes are purely based on social environment.
In the West the resistance to a realistic view of humanity will last for many years beyond the point where advances in genetics and neurobiology disprove most tenets of secular faiths. But I expect many East Asian governments will rather eagerly apply actionable results from sciences of human nature and their societies will reap big benefits as a result. Rulers in Singapore, Taipei, Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul in particular will make more realistic policies based on science.
Out of the East Asian governments I expect Singapore is the one that will benefit the most. Singapore already has an immigration policy aimed at attracting professionals and a government willing to do more realistic social engineering (as compared to Marxist social engineering). Imagine what Singapore might do with genetic tests on prospective immigrants: only let in those whose genetic profiles for social behaviors and intellect will create an extremely prosperous society.
Singapore might end up serving as a model for some other small sovereign jurisdictions. Any small government willing to set up laws to let in only those with the most social competence and creative potential could create conditions for a far more successful than any currently existing. Such a transformation is easier to do to a smaller society because it is easier to find enough high functioning people to create a new majority for a smaller society than for a larger one. A society with too many bad starting conditions (a large existing population, bad location, harsh weather, high crime, etc) will not be able to do this transformation. I think we will witness a global sort where the most talented and able people concentrate in some smaller countries with highly selective immigration laws.
Also see Gregory Clark's previous book, A Farewell To Alms, which outlines the selective pressures for both genotypes and norms and beliefs that cause higher economic success.
Alexander Etkind sees Russia's invasion of parts of Ukraine as Russia’s Preemptive Counter-Revolution.
Today, corruption is the norm, and show trials, though still occurring, do not happen on Stalin’s industrial scale. Putin and his circle are mainly concerned with survival and enrichment. He fears Ukraine’s 2014 uprising as a “revolutionary plague” only because it might erupt in Moscow’s own squares. Putin’s desire to preempt such an outcome explains the Kremlin’s brutal response.
I recall reading an argument once that Britain's war against Napoleon's France might have prevented a domestic uprising by mobilizing lots of young men to go fight in Europe and by making people unite against the foreign enemy. Does the invasion of Crimea and the fighting in eastern Ukraine help Putin label his opponents as tools of the West? Does the fighting change attitudes in Russia in a way that cuts opposition to how he rules?
I think Etkind is on firmer ground to describe Russia as suffering from clientelism.
Putin’s regime is simply a Russian version of clientelism, with wealth and economic opportunity distributed on the basis of political fealty. The system’s crimes have been evident for years, and it is tragic that no international power has been able to punish it.
I gave up having high hopes for post-communist Russia back when Yeltsin was a drunken and not very effective ruler during the collapse period. Far too few of the Russian people see it as their role to try police the behavior of the state. Russia lacks the mediating layer of private organizations that could restrain the state and keep it more honest.
There is some good news from Russia though. Mark Adomanis says alcohol consumption is declining and a rising fraction of young people see drinking as a loser thing to do.
Why did Mitt drop out of the race? I'll take a guess: Jeb Bush gets more billionaire support than Mitt Romney. Jeb's message is agreeable to the elite (very pro-immigration) and disagreeable to the rank-and-file (anti-immigration, especially against masses of high school drop-outs). Naturally that means Jeb's candidacy is going forward with lots of bucks flowing in.
It was not a given that Mr. Bush would receive a warm enough reception from the G.O.P. elite to dissuade Mr. Romney. Yes, Mr. Bush is a scion of the establishment and the potential inheritor of a vast network tied to his brother and father. But he also hadn’t been elected since 2002; his surname is potentially a disadvantage in the general election; and his message — focused on issues like immigration and education — has been somewhat out of touch with the mainstream of his party.
Since Jeb Bush is unappealing to the Republican base I figure support for him helps Hillary Clinton. The prospect of the two of those two as the nominees is pretty repelling.
What I want to know: Have the billionaires already decided who should be the next US President? If so, couldn't they just tell us and save us the trouble of having to pretend we have a voice in the result? The press could spend their time reporting on something else instead. Then again, that'd just get them into other mischief, say more hoaxes about frat boys behaving badly. Are election stories better or worse than the likely Mitt alternatives?
Grocery shelves are bare. People spend most of a day waiting in line to buy at the few grocery stores that stock chicken. This is the product of democratic government and the characteristics of the majority of the Venezuelan people. Massive fail. When you are too stupid you can't help but be part of the problem.
“I’ve always been a Chavista,” said Ms. Noriega, using a term for a loyal Chávez supporter. But “the other day, I found a Chávez T-shirt I’d kept, and I threw it on the ground and stamped on it, and then I used it to clean the floor. I was so angry. I don’t know if this is his fault or not, but he died and left us here, and things have been going from bad to worse.”
She has no idea what it takes to make an economy function and why markets are needed to provide incentives. She voted for Hugo Chavez and can't figure out whether Chavez and Maduro are responsible (with her) in trashing the Venezuelan economy.
The majority of people in Venezuela are not capable of responsibly discharging their duty in elections. The economic conditions in Venezuela are the result of a democratic process (albeit with opposition politicians thrown in jail). A Breitbart piece is pretty funny: Crisis Prompts Venezuela to Consider Raising Gas Prices Above $0.002/Gal. With 65% per year inflation (and rising) the government is selling gasoline for less than a penny a gallon while grocery shelves are bare! Prospects for allowing more market signals are dim.
Why do I oppose open borders? Because the majorities in many countries can not responsibly participate in democratic elections and can't understand what it takes to make an economy function. What we should have instead: a massive sort where the irresponsible, dumb, deluded, and foolish go to their own countries while the competent, responsible, conscientious and bright cluster together in a different set of countries.
Counterpunch writers (see one of them on Veneuzela) should definitely be sent to countries where everyone thinks socialism makes sense. Put all the socialists together. Take all the capitalists out of those countries. Why should socialists have to have internal sabotage caused by black market capitalists? We'll them them make purer socialist systems by removing all capitalists and letting the capitalists settle in capitalistic countries.
Ross Douthat thinks we are trapped in a relationship with Saudi Arabia and therefore our high government officials won't speak the truth about the nature of its government.
Along the other path, anyone outside Western officialdom was free to tell the fuller truth: that Abdullah presided over one of the world’s most wicked nonpariah states, whose domestic policies are almost cartoonishly repressive and whose international influence has been strikingly malign. His dynasty is founded on gangsterish control over a precious natural resource, sustained by an unholy alliance with a most cruel interpretation of Islam and protected by the United States and its allies out of fear of worse alternatives if it fell.
While I fully agree with Ross it is worth pointing out that this "most cruel interpretation of Islam" is believed by many millions of people. Our problem is not just with the government of Saudi Arabia or the Islamic Caliphate (which agree with each other on many topics) but with the religion Islam as most of its adherents see it. We are in a clash of civilizations with Islam which our elites deny. Every time another group of Jihadists carry out a terrorist attack our leaders in America and Europe sickeningly sing together "nothing to do with Islam, the religion of peace" (which puts British government minister Theresa May in perverse agreement with the Sydney chocolate store hostage taker).
So if there’s a path to greater Muslim assimilation and inclusion, it’s more likely to be pioneered in France. If Islamic radicalism is going to gain ground or mutate into something more pervasive and dangerous, it’s also more likely to happen in France’s sphere of influence than elsewhere. And if Europe’s much-feared far right is going to complete its journey from the fringe to the mainstream, it will probably happen first in Paris.
The criminality we are talking about is the kind that is making life unbearable for the population: burglaries, thefts of all sorts, assaults, violent thefts without firearms, etc. In these specific cases, 7 out of 10 of these crimes are committed by people who in one way or another have an immigrant background, either directly (first generation on French territory, with or without a residence permit) or indirectly (second generation). (Chevrier and Raufer, 2014)
Since immigrants made the difference that got Francois Hollande elected the French are in a weak position to stop the deterioration of security unless more native French turn against the left's view of immigration and oppression.
PARIS — France’s top court ruled on Friday that it was legal for the French government to strip a French-Moroccan man of his citizenship, reinforcing the country’s right to employ the antiterrorism tool as it tries to tighten its security after deadly terrorist attacks.
The Clash of Civilizations is going to deepen. We could witness a slow move toward loyalty oaths to a state with legal requirements to embrace sets of values as conditions of citizenship, even for those born in a country. Already 30 countries (mostly Muslim) require heads of state to be of a specific religion. Jihadist demands might spark a backlash among Western secularists large enough to set in motion a drive to require explicit embrace of secular values.
What's holding back this sort of thing: inability to reach a consensus on which values should be existing moral values disagreements within a state between native factions. Whose value code would be mandated? Left and right wing secularists are split on many subjects. Religious non-Muslims are split as well. But with an assortment of secular dogmas already strongly promoted by elites I think more legal codification of these dogmas could be in the the cards.
The President of Yemen has resigned Houthi rebels have taken his palace. Civil war seems likely. Partition is a possible outcome. As long time readers may have noticed, I find partition to be an excellent outcome when two groups are incompatible. It is like divorce and just as necessary. Ibrahim Sharqieh, deputy director of the Brookings Doha Center, thinks US drone attacks on al Qaeda in Yemen have helped the Shia faction make gains against the Yemeni government. The US needs the (almost now overthrown) Yemeni government for support to launch drone attacks on al Qaeda.
This situation has led to creating so many odd and weird situations where you would find for example, the U.S. and the Houthis are in the same camp fighting al-Qaeda. And that's exactly what happened almost a month ago in the city of Rada' where the Houthis who raised the slogan of death to America were fighting along with the U.S. drones, one from the air and one from the ground. So this has created and led to a complex situation and for the first time, we are seeing signs and signals about a possible civil war especially if the Houthis continue to escalate and alienate the other political parties in Yemen.
Yemen is between 40% and 45% Shia. There's no way Shiite rule in Yemen will be accepted by the Sunni majority. On the other hand, the Shiites aren't going to accept Sunni rule either. Perhaps they shouldn't live in the same country? The Shia Houthi rebels hate al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the United States.
The official added that if the Houthis ends up in full control of the government they will demand a halt to the drone campaign.
“They hate al Qaeda," said the official, referring to the Houthis. "But they also hate the United States.”