As most of my readers are aware I have been a longtime reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog which I consider to be one of the best blogs around, consistently over a period of almost seven years. There have been very awkward moments for sure. I recall the discovery of some rusty gas grenades in a cave in Iraq which Sullivan considered sufficient enough evidence to invade and depose Saddam and, at the opposite end of the spectrum, his endorsement of John Kerry, a man who under normal circumstances would not be worthy of even the fainted praise from Sully’s corner. Yet, Sullivan has always been prone to indulge in over-excitement, something no doubt exacerbated by a medium - the blogosphere – that thrives on extremes, taking unusual positions or bringing spectacular news. Looking at my own stat counters believe me I know that measured analysis doesn’t drive big traffic numbers.

Having read The Conservative Soul it occurs to me that Sullivan had set himself the task of vindicating some of these opinion swings while casting them in a very worthwhile analysis of how fundamentalism – especially the Christian variety – is a resurgent and deeply dangerous force in times of rapid change. From that perspective I think he has succeeded, not only does the reader get an instructive crash course in fundamentalism and the inherent dangers of any form of dogmatic thinking, Sullivan convincingly argues how we can change, alter and nuance our positions over time if we manage to keep dogma at bay. It is something he has admirably done so at a time when most commentators on the right – Sullivan’s ideological home - persisted in ignoring some of the more disastrous aspects of George Bush’s tenure in the White House. And the book therefore should be required reading for those conservatives who have taken their political faith to mean relentless advocacy of a cause that deserved constructive criticism rather than mindless hyperbole in support.

The reader should also note that the rejection of science in favor of dogma is not strictly limited to religion. Only last night at the Academy Award ceremonies a jubilant Al Gore declared global warming to be a “moral issue” and thus put it outside the realm of debate, discussion and further inquiry. Remember that not too long ago we loooked at how environmentalism can be seen as a new form of religion.

The problem with the book is that however well crafted, it does not answer the basic questions raised in the subtitle about how to get back that conservative soul we seem to have lost. Sullivan is great at diagnosing the problems created by the current conservative movement – going to Mars while failing to protect US borders - and more specifically in highlighting how divided America has become in a time of war. Yet it remains unclear who will recapture that conservative soul (Democrats or Republicans?) and, more importantly, how to go about it:

“ When such a country was unexpectedly thrown into war, it could find no stable center over which to unite,. Hence the acidic nature of our current politics – and the poisonous divisions in a country that desperately needs to remain united ”

If indeed social and economic change fuels fundamentalist thinking than it is tempting to put a blue label on those that accelerate change and a red one on those that opt for dogma. That is probably an exaggeration, the reality is more fluid as we see in the case of ‘blue’ environmentalists, but we are definitely in divergent territory and the first installments of the 2008 election are far from encouraging here. If you’re Republican you will have no option but to please the socially conservative base, while any centrist tendencies on the Democratic side are it seems punishable by the hand of David Geffen. As such, I fear that the conservative soul will remain an orphan for some time to come and the book offers no real roadmap for finding it a suitable home.

What also remained somewhat murky - one of my favorite items - is how the West’s spine in dealing with external threats can be salvaged by a mentality that - for Christians and seculars alike – is more driven by the pursuit of happiness than fighting off the barbarians at the door. Sullivan is ambiguous here I think. On the one hand he enthusiastically exclaims that the ‘pursuit’ is one of the most radical political statements ever, true, but at the same time he laments (on page 224-225) how the inevitable excess of that pursuit leads to a worldliness that finds its religious rival in fundamentalism. In other words: we are either fundamentalist zealots or hedonist pleasure seekers, and both attitudes divide us and somehow make us unfit to face outside challenges. Yet the middle road, the spiritually anchored conservative doubter remains an elusive point. And with that we are in troubled waters, both in facing outside threats and in maintaining a viable, stable and free western world.

Sullivan has succeeded in revealing the fundamentalist mindset and anyone doubting that the Christian version is more benevolent than the Muslim one - a recurring theme on many right-wing blogs - should be forced to read this book. At the same time he has handed us a few building blocks to retrieve a philosophy that should help us recapture the conservatism as espoused by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It is a sad state of affairs that in a time when the legacy of these two great politicians has relegated the old left to the sidelines and we are better than ever positioned to build truly free societies, we may risk losing it all to dark and powerful forces at home and abroad. The conservative soul needs a home and Sullivan needs to write a sequel to further explore these crucial themes.

From Roger Simon.

And TNR runs a dedicated blog: Oscar Wild!

UPDATE: Yes, I am pleased. And what a classy acceptance speech:

" For 50 years and more, Elizabeth Windsor has maintained her dignity, her sense of duty and her hairstyle. She's had her feet planted firmly on the ground, her hat on her head, her handbag on her arm and she has weathered many, many storms. I thank her because if it wasn't for her I most certainly would not be here. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Queen!"

Tomorrow is Academy Award night and Helen Mirren is the favorite to take home the Oscar for actress in a leading role, for The Queen of course. I have been a longtime fan of hers and looking back the Prime Suspect series comes to mind as unrefined Mirren, giving life to the stoic and dispassionate detective Jane Tennison. Out of the entire series, Prime Suspect 2 is by a wide margin the most eerie and depressing, and therefore the best.

From that second season, a gut wrenching ten minutes to get a feel for the unforgettable and somber age of Tennison:

Was sworn in by the Queen today. The new left-of-center coalition ends four turbulent years where the Dutch were governed from the right. Yet, there are no indications that the turbulence is over, so expect regular updates.

This is what I wrote about two months ago:

The irony - and my tentative prediction for 2007 - will be that things may change for the better in Iraq, but that NATO will stumble and ultimately fail in Afghanistan.

Well, someone has stumbled and failed over Afghanistan today:

Prime Minister Romano Prodi resigned on Wednesday, just nine months after winning the closest election in Italy’s modern history, when his centre-left coalition suffered a Senate defeat on foreign policy.

Prodi's last spell in power almost a decade ago was also cut short by far-left coalition allies. This time they rebelled over keeping Italian troops in Afghanistan and allowing the expansion of a U.S. military base in Italy.

This comes at a time when Canada and France are having a spat over the latter's contribution to NATO's efforts in Afghanistan. The Dutch in the meantime have sent some extra troops over, but do expect that when a new government takes over tomorrow the parliamentary scrutiny of the Afghan mission may actually get some support at ministerial levels.

NATO's demise? The absence of unity to fully resource this mission and contribute to its success is not very encouraging.

Would be safer? Better? Your must-see for today:

From 18 Doughty Street:

18DoughtyStreet.com is the initiative of Stephan Shakespeare, an internet entrepreneur, and a number of Britain’s most-read bloggers. They have come together to challenge the biases of establishment broadcasters and mainstream parties.

The EU constitution has momentum again:

The early conclusion from behind-closed-doors talks on the future of the European Union's proposed constitution is that referendums on the subject are to be avoided at all costs.

Senior diplomats from member states have begun negotiations to try to find a way forward after French and Dutch referendum rejections wrecked the EU constitution in 2005.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is hoping to set out a "road map" towards a new European treaty in June and some early ideas will be discussed in the wings of the EU's 50th anniversary celebrations in Berlin on March 25.

"Constitution Lite" as it is now called is not just a top-down Barroso move, it can equally be seen as Angela Merkel's swift entry into the existing Euro-void, although it appears she is working behind the scenes with French presidential frontrunner Nicholas Sarkozy to put this controversial issue to bed. It remains unclear what the new draft will look like, but a compromise version may not be all that 'lite' after all.

The other thing that raises a few alarm bells is the assumption that the resounding 'no' from both France and The Netherlands two years ago is interpreted as a 'no' to content rather than a rejection of the constitution in principle, and that a backroom compromise can somehow negate the will of the voters without engaging them again. This not only highlights the problems with these plebiscites in general, but also the lack of consistency in Euro-decisionmaking as well as how a revised document can make its way back to the ratifcation table without any further popular input from member states. That said, most 'no' voters have never been all that bothered by trying to debate a credible alternative so the lack of democratic input can not be blamed on the ambitious Euro-elites alone.

Yet in an odd way the French and Dutch rejections did their work and bought the critics some time: we can take comfort from the fact that we may end up with a piece of paper vetted by Europe's new conservatives. A Merkel-Sarkozy constitution is no doubt preferable to a Schroeder-Chirac version drafted by Giscard d'Estaing.

Related Post
Reanimating the Constitution

A number of readers forwarded me a link to How Not to Talk to Your Kids a lengthy but fascinating piece:

For a few decades, it’s been noted that a large percentage of all gifted students (those who score in the top 10 percent on aptitude tests) severely underestimate their own abilities. Those afflicted with this lack of perceived competence adopt lower standards for success and expect less of themselves. They underrate the importance of effort, and they overrate how much help they need from a parent.

When parents praise their children’s intelligence, they believe they are providing the solution to this problem. According to a survey conducted by Columbia University, 85 percent of American parents think it’s important to tell their kids that they’re smart. In and around the New York area, according to my own (admittedly nonscientific) poll, the number is more like 100 percent. Everyone does it, habitually. The constant praise is meant to be an angel on the shoulder, ensuring that children do not sell their talents short.

But a growing body of research—and a new study from the trenches of the New York public-school system—strongly suggests it might be the other way around. Giving kids the label of “smart” does not prevent them from underperforming. It might actually be causing it.

The study has found that effort-related forms of praise work much better and actually teach a kid persistence rather than a blanket "you're intelligent". Of course, this is one of our current social ills where many parents lack the time and effort to teach and help their kids along. This then results in the never-ending praise which in turn is also leveraged to enhance the status of some kids in a group: one or two average performers in my daughter's classroom have been elevated to superstar status purely on the basis of parental anecdotal evidence of the "they're so intelligent" variety.

Anyway, this is a must-read for parents or anyone who wants to retroactively figure out how his or her performance was affected by distinct parental praise methods.

The Year of the Pig is upon us.

Here is a fascinating read of Lady Thatcher’s, now into her eighties, life today. What surprised me was the lingering bitterness over her dismissal from Downing Street:

One friend says she 'hasn't had a single really good day' since her departure from Downing Street in November 1990.

[ ... ]

Is her resentment over the way she was treated still there? 'I don't think you could ever get over what happened to her,' murmurs Lord Tebbit, who supported her against the putsch. 'It was very cruel.'

Carol Thatcher, her journalist daughter, says: 'I know how strongly she felt for years afterwards about being betrayed. I don't think she got over it, but I think she's probably come to terms with it. It was awful. Treachery festers in your DNA.'

Remarkable. You could make the very credible argument that she laid the groundwork for another seven years of conservative rule - under the admittedly less than compelling John Major - and the style and substance of Tony Blair’s tenure. The personality traits that contributed to her being Britain’s most successful post-war prime-minister are exactly the ones that inaugurated her downfall, a fact still lost on most of her ardent supporters.

Related Post
Thatcher's 80th

Next week a new Dutch left-of-center coalition government will formally be inaugurated, ending a period characterized by instability and sometimes deep political and social rifts. I am working on a longer piece trying to condense all developments into one coherent narrative, trying to figure out if the Dutch are now entering into calmer waters. Somehow I doubt it.

The changeover is best captured by the fact that the immigration portfolio loses its ministerial status and will now be handled by a deputy minister or a State Secretary as the Dutch call it. That means a farewell to controversial Rita Verdonk whose sometimes draconian policies went as far as laying the groundwork for the early departure of her fellow party member Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This highly charged portfolio will now go Nebahat Albayrak, a member of parliament for Labour and a daughter of Turkish immigrants.

Albayrak found herself in the middle of some political fireworks yesterday when questions were raised about her and other deputy minister candidate Ahmed Aboutaleb’s loyalty as dual passport holders. A motion that sought to bar both candidates from joining the new cabinet did not make it to the parliamentary floor, but the discussion underlines once more the contentious nature of immigration in the Dutch political landscape.

Albayrak in the meantime made it clear how she will deal with her portfolio by arguing that the way her predecessor handled the immigration file often lacked a “human approach”, but that she would apply the letter of the law:

“People that are allowed to stay have to integrate fast, people that have to leave, will have to leave the country fast”

And that does not appear to be all that different from Verdonk’s approach.

Following my earlier post on this, Ingrid Robeyns at Crooked Timber sheds some more light on the happiness of Dutch kids in particular. As I suspected, generous public arrangements as well as socially liberal attitudes explain quite a bit here, but it is clear that such policies do not necessarily work in any jurisdiction, ie. the Dutch cultural and physical setting somehow makes them work better. What is also noteworthy however in Robeyns’ piece is the observation that certain hierarchical structures which should in the end be to the benefit of children are under serious pressure:

“ … educational reforms in the last decades which have propagated the so-called “New Learning”, whereby children have been given more autonomy in deciding what to learn, and in learning to collect information and present information and opinions, rather than actually learning knowledge. Are French and German too difficult? Then why bother learning it, no-one forces you to do so. Why study history or geography if you can find all information in Wikipedia? In the Dutch debate, there is a consensus emerging that the educational reforms and this ‘New Learning’ have done more harm than good, and that children are increasingly lacking sufficient knowledge and skills in mathematics, sciences, and writing skills. In short, I think that these anti-hierarchical views on children’s education, whereby children are seen as equals to their parents and teachers, have harmed the children educational capital in the long run.

Indeed, excessive individualism combined with its inherent anarchical tendencies has started to produce that we may consider a ‘rudderless’ generation. Sure, in the short term this may produce children that are unusually well and happy in their overall being, but in the long run it may lead to some very disgruntled citizens whose social compass and lack of proper learning will add an additional cost to society. And that as I have explained at lengths before is one of the key issues facing most western societies.

Also, for the demographically inclined, it is important to note that despite the lavish taxpayer funded arrangements that support families with children, the Dutch birth rate remains remarkably low.

John Chappell of the Iberian Notes blog has written a very worthwhile primer for the Madrid commuter train bombing trial which has started today. Note how the terrorist attacks of March 11, 2004 have caused deep rifts in the Spanish political landscape and how they remain unhealed to this day.

Yes, the debate over global warming is over according to this FAQ at Global Warming 101. Now, I am more than happy to listen to the climate change message and also more than willing to support measures that will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. However being told that "the debate is over" is a little too rich for me, especially if the site in question is one that came recommended by our local school distirct. The debate it seems to me is in full swing, take a look for instance at this which I found via Kate McMillan:

I want to lobby for decency, modesty, honesty, integrity and balance in climate research. I hope and pray we lose our obsession with climate forecasting. Climate simulations are best seen as sensitivity experiments, not as tools for policy makers. I said it in 1990 and I am saying it now: the constraints imposed by the planetary ecosystem require continuous adjustment and permanent adaptation. Predictive skills are of secondary importance.

And there are more calls for moderation and a rational approach.

In Canada meanwhile, moderation is not on the menu, but at least it is generating some worthwhile politcal theater. The opposition parties yesterday managed to pass a controversial piece of legislation:

The bill, which is expected to receive the swift approval of the Senate, gives the government 60 days to table a detailed plan for meeting the Kyoto targets.

It also compels the government to set fines or jail terms for businesses and industries that over-pollute.

The Conservatives have rejected the Kyoto targets – a six per cent drop from 1990 levels – calling them unattainable and dangerous to the economy.

Note that many experts and even trade unions - who are usually in sync with the left-of-center opposition - have highlighted the folly of trying to adhere to Kyoto standards using the aggressive timetable of this new law. Once enacted, the incumbent conservatives will no doubt ignore this controversial piece of legislation, possibly triggering a vote of no-confidence and a subsequent election with climate change as the defining campaign issue. The opposition may at this point not be as confident to let things go that far, but I would certainly look forward to a discussion where Canadians are given the option of investing billions more in healthcare or sending them to Russia in return for carbon credits. The debate it seems has only just started.

At NRO and the discrepancy between questions from al-Jazeera and Voice of America. Truly stunning.

From Ingrid Robeyns, via Jeff Weintraub:

This morning a neighbour asked me whether I wouldn’t be interested in enrolling my son for such a pre-playgroup. But, she added, it’s only for mothers, fathers are not allowed. Apparently the justification is that otherwise mothers from certain ethnic minorities, where gender segregation is an important issue, would not attend with their children.

As a father who spends a considerable amount of time with his children and who also happens to have fairly outspoken views on cultural and moral relativism, I do not think I need to comment this time around.

Unicef has produced a report considering children's well being in 21 industrial nations. The results are remarkable, Dutch kids topped the list, but the Brits have been embarrassed by taking the bottom slot:

It is predicted that by 2010 there will be more children living in a step-family than in their biological family.

According to today's report, the UK lags in other areas too such as the number of children living in relative poverty, vaccination rates, and the time spent talking, or eating with a parent or parents.

It also has high rates of obesity, drunkenness, bullying, early sexual intercourse, cannabis-taking and teenage pregnancy.

Britain was rated higher for education, but languished in the bottom third for each of the other measures, giving it an overall placing at the bottom, along with the US.

Of course, we can take these findings with the usual grain of salt and qualify them as an attempt by the UN to favor statist economies over free-market entities, but that would be too simple and somewhat disingenuous. So, let’s for a second assume that this is not the case and that the various indicators used by Unicef can be measured objectively and create certain averages by which countries can compensate for scoring low in one area but high in another. Now, take a look at the list:

1. Netherlands 2. Sweden 3. Denmark 4. Finland 5. Spain 6. Switzerland 7. Norway 8. Italy 9. Republic of Ireland 10. Belgium 11. Germany 12. Canada 13. Greece 14. Poland 15. Czech Republic 16. France 17. Portugal 18. Austria 19. Hungary 20. United States 21. United Kingdom

Apart from the obvious conclusion that this report offers some great talking points to Gordon Brown, what explains these rankings?

Are free market economies putting pressure on children’s overall well-being? Possibly, the UK and the USA are not doing very well here, but Canada and Ireland who both ranked in the top-10 of the world’s freest economies are doing much better, although they’re not as high on this list as one might expect.

Religion? Take a look at the first ten: the Catholics and Protestants are distributed fairly evenly, although the first four are largely protestant.

Social tolerance? High divorce rates? The Dutch and Swedes have been pioneers in this department so that does not necessarily support the notion that the break-up of families and alternative lifestyles contribute to children that are less happy. What is worthwhile to note though is that Ireland, Italy and Spain – all catholic – who have the some of the lowest divorce rates on the planet, end up doing well in this ranking.

Cultural confidence? The least likely of all I would say, as it would ensure that the self-assured Brits and Americans would do much better than say the Dutch or the Belgians. This however is an anecdotal measure that is based largely on my own observations.

Maybe smaller countries are scoring better here, compare the numbers 1-10 to 11-20, but that again is not a very satisfactory measure in my mind, as it doesn’t really explain anything.

Yet, there are four northern European countries that top the list who each are known for being economically strong with relatively free markets, have predominantly protestant origins, are socially tolerant, and whose economies have been able to support lavish welfare arrangement without a crippling economic effect. The US has protestant origins and so has Britain, are economically successful, have less generous entitlements handed out by the state and are less liberal on the social front. A pattern? A possible explanation? This is a tough one, feedback is welcome.

UPDATE: Of course, the Dutch "no nonsense" style is an important factor here as one reader says:

I'd like to think my family's attitude towards discipline, during my upbringing, approached Dutch norms of the times: "Firm, but fair." In other words, a variation on the "Here's the line; you'll be warned if you cross it and there will be consequences if you do it again." approach.

Seems to have worked very well with our daughter, who was raised in a purely North American environment. Empathetic, respectful, pensive, reflective, great sense of humour, loyal, an A student. In any event, she herself has on more than one occasion told us how much she appreciated that simple attitude.

It's a comment we often hear from other parents and teachers who observe our kids.

As a reminder, you can continue to vote in the PJM Presidential Straw Poll on your left. There haven't been that many ballots cast so far, but there seems to be more unity on the Republican side than on the Democratic side: Rudy Giuliani is a clear favorite.

There has not been a formal Obama-like announcement from Rudy, but it appears that his current momentum has positioned him nicely to do just that in the next few weeks. Or has he already done so?

Not only was it part of my early childhood education - before I was into politics and markets it was stars and planets - it was also intuitive. Now here is the science to demonstrate the sun's role in global warming.

Another thought provoking piece from 2006 Nobel Laureate Edmund S. Phelps in the WSJ, arguing that differences in economic dynamism are not just instititutional, but to a large extent cultural:

The values that might impact dynamism are of special interest here. Relatively few in the Big Three report that they want jobs offering opportunities for achievement (42% in France and 54% in Italy, versus an average of 73% in Canada and the U.S.); chances for initiative in the job (38% in France and 47% in Italy, as against an average of 53% in Canada and the U.S.), and even interesting work (59% in France and Italy, versus an average of 71.5% in Canada and the U.K). Relatively few are keen on taking responsibility, or freedom (57% in Germany and 58% in France as against 61% in the U.S. and 65% in Canada), and relatively few are happy about taking orders (Italy 1.03, of a possible 3.0, and Germany 1.13, as against 1.34 in Canada and 1.47 in the U.S.).

Phelps should dig further and may care to bring in religion and history as Italy, France and to some extent Germany are all Catholic and all came late to empire building as opposed to the nations that rejected papal primacy and set out to conquer the world. Max Weber was one of the first sociologists to pioneer this theme. Of course, these factors have been overcome by time and dynamic capitalism as Phelps describes it has now made successful inroads in Catholic underperformers such as Ireland and for instance Poland.

The Dutch, together with the Brits and Nordic countries are very different from their big continental brothers, but I would still suspect that their entrepreneurialism comes in below the levels measured in North America. That however is probably more a function of institutions rather than values.

There is a saying that every people deserve the government they get and I think that principle would equally apply to constitutions. The Dutch firmly rejected the Euro-constitution, but failed to debate the next steps or come up with a credible alternative. Both the politcal parties and the voters decided to further ignore the issue and did so at their peril. That inherent weakness was not lost on the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso who visited The Hague last week and made it very clear what the next steps should be:

"The Dutch government signed the constitutional treaty and must also do everything it can to have it ratified by parliament," Mr Barroso told journalists on the eve of his visit.

[ … ]

Mr Barroso believes it would be unwise to resubmit an amended agreement to voters in a referendum, as this would probably lead to a second rejection … ”

Barroso’s arrogance in this matter is stunning as it manages to go well beyond the usual EU-attitude that argues that you should run enough referenda until you get the result you want. According to the EU chief the Dutch can do without any further direct consultations with the electorate and ratify the document without further ado.

The new center-left coalition which will be inaugurated in the next week or so has also avoided a clear stance and decided to refer the entire constitutional matter to the Council of State, a governmental advisory body. Barroso’s performance is an indication from which direction the wind is currently blowing and it would not be all that surprising to see the Dutch cave in, step by step. A mix of inaction and a need to re-establish some of their lost status and influence in Brussels may yet do the trick.

As you may recall one of my favorite books is former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten's East and West. Patten was not a welcome guest in Beijing during his years in Asia and the reason was quite simply that he managed to stand up to Beijing, regardless of the consequences:

Patten's most provocative chapter is on China. He contends that the West should treat it like any other country and refuse to kowtow to a regime that is ''at the end of an era.'' There is no correlation between bending to Beijing and benefiting economically, he says.

It is a lesson that is hardly ever practiced, so deep is the fear to miss out on the economic frenzy that is China. Yet, in breaking with his predecessor's record of leaving Canadian citizens to their own devices in foreign prisons and in taking Patten's clear advice to heart, Stephen Harper has created another unusual benchmark. And note that Harper is pursuing the human rights of someone that can hardly be classified as an average Canadian: Huseyin Celi holds dual citizenship and is, according to the Chinese, a terror suspect.

Smart and sound.

Another dispatch from Michael Yon, here. Yon as we all know is one of the independent reporters, but there is also extraordinary news and comment to be had from the more established wirters. In particular John Burns from the NYT who talked to Hugh Hewitt earlier this weekend and outlined the dangers of a hasty withdrawal from Iraq:

My friend said to me, if the United Nations is correct in saying that 3,700 Iraqi civilians died in October, and that’s a morgue’s count. It may be an underestimate, we don’t know. But he said if it’s correct that 3,700 people died in October across Iraq, think about this. You take the American troops away in this situation, leaving Shiite death squads to move into Adamiya in force without any kind of protection, he said it won’t be 3,700 dead in a month, it’ll be 3,700 dead in the night in Adamiya. Now that may be an exaggeration, but it reflects the kind of fears that are quite widespread, amongst Sunnis in particular, but also to some extent amongst Shiites in Iraq, about the consequences of an American troop withdrawal.

The moral obligation to protect innocent lives - the one squandered in Rwanda and to some extent in the former Yugoslavia - is hardly ever the focus of the debate over Iraq. To me, it is one of the core pieces as Burns' example makes clear.

It's been five years. Watch The Journalist and the Jihadi tonight at 8 PM at CNN.

There are of course not just political explanations for the environmental frenzy that is currently sweeping the western world. There is, argues Joseph Brean in the National Post a good argument to cast environmentalism as the new religion, complete with hymns, a messiah and an end of days catastrophe. And of course with a propensity to spawn fundamentalist currents.

It’s funny that the article talks about “the sinful guilt of throwing a plastic bottle in the garbage”. For years now that has been an issue which has sparked some debate in the Dorsman household where I, in my zeal to clean-up the kitchen, forget to properly recycle plastic items. Irene has always taken me to task for that sort of 'errant' behaviour and in response the term ‘eco-fascism’ long ago became staple of our daily conversation here.

Thankfully, there are green experts who are able to pierce the absurd dogmatism that we are now forced to accept as both science and the road to our ultimate salvation:

Dr. Orrell is no climate-change denier. He calls himself green. But he understands the unjustified faith that arises from the psychological need to make predictions.

“The track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone’s still really interested in it. It’s sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can’t make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can’t make long-term predictions of the climate,” Dr. Orrell said in an interview. After all, he said, scientists cannot even write the equation of a cloud, let alone make a workable model of the climate.

Read the Green Fervour in its entirety and get ready for the next wave of fundamentalism.

Last Friday, I watched Glenn Beck's show and his guest was the inimitable Irshad Manji - Muslim reformer and author of The Trouble with Islam Today. These interviews always have a few memorable moments and I found this exchange between Beck and Manji both perplexing and revealing:

BECK: OK. Real quickly, we have about a minute. What -- who is standing with you as a woman`s organization? Who -- what National Organization of Women is coming up and saying I`m with you?

MANJI: You know there isn`t one.

BECK: Why?

MANJI: Fear. Fear of offending. So many people today in America come up to me to say, "Irshad, I wish I could support your call to reconcile Islam with human rights, but if I do, you know I`ll be called a racist for sticking my nose in somebody`s else`s business."

During the interview Beck laments that we live in a 'PC World' making it difficult for the viewpoints of someone like Manji to be aired. Well, a lot of progress has been made as having commentators like Beck and Manji discussing Muslim fundamentalism and reform on a CNN outlet would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. So yes, there are notable changes in breaking the mold of political correctness in the mainstream media. At the same time, it is both dispiriting and disquieting to note that someone like Irshad Manji will have to wage her fight for reform and justice without any support women’s organizations.

As I said in my longer piece about global warming earlier today, the marketing effort behind it is phenomenal:

A series of concerts "bigger than Live Aid" is being planned for July, in a bid to put the subject of climate change before an audience of a global audience of 2bn.

The event, scheduled for July 7, will feature co-ordinated film, music and television events in seven cities including London, Washington DC, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town and Kyoto, with major broadcasters and media owners aiming to extend the reach of public awareness of global warming.

It is understood that former US vice-president Al Gore, whose movie An Inconvenient Truth brought climate change to cinema audiences last year, will announce the event tomorrow in London.

Live Aid tried to raise awareness about one particular issue and encourage individuals to take action. If the outcome from an environmental Live Aid is that rather than compelling governments to implement draconian measures and elaborate schemes, all the power to it.

The plans however may envision something bigger than Live Aid, it can and will never be better because of this:

" Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, the most glittering reign must come to an end someday "

A brilliant actor passes away at 72.

More here.

His masterpiece and a must-see for any art lover, political buff or Anglophile is of course To Play the King. In tribute, I'll be watching it tonight, once more.

One reader asked me this week how global warming made it to the center of the political agenda and why it has become such an incredible success story, despite the real questions being raised about the science underpinning it all.

One of the things that occurred to me during my evening with one of Al Gore’s ambassadors who are spreading the word about the Climate Project is that the general public doesn’t really understand climate change. While global warming is a fact, the underlying causes are so complex and wide ranging that it is relatively easy to massage the phenomenon into one seemingly coherent message, package it and sell it to the masses. You can do that successfully, provided you’re first to market and the “global-warming-Kyoto-is-the-solution” product has been around for over decade and its critics are way behind the curve in presenting a cogent and above all compelling counter case. And while many on the right still rejoice over Al Gore’s defeat in 2000, one has to wonder where climate change would be on the agenda today had the former veep captured the White House that year. So a lot can be attributed to timing and marketing.

It is also important to note that following socialism’s collapse in the 1990s there was no longer a defining issue that separated the left and right. There was debate, discussion over many things but an ideological split was largely absent. And while conservatives were quick to jump on terror, jihadist violence was not an entirely natural fit for the left. The environment was a far better match and a highly necessary one: the emergence of green parties all over the western world heralded the end of the unified electoral power of the left and it is no coincidence that it is Al Gore who has worked so hard to go green. After all, it was Ralph Nader that cost him the 2000 election, not George Bush.

It is also important to note that an environmental platform has not been tested electorally. Americans will no doubt cast their next ballot with Iraq and budget reforms in mind and the question is really if Canadians believe that carbon credits are to be the defining piece of their lives next time they’re asked to vote. I certainly do not think that will be the case. Gore’s ambassador, a devout Green Party man was not that confident in his own politics and expressed the hope that Stephen Harper as a conservative would be the man to do the unthinkable and deliver a package of environmental reforms. And my neighbor, an equally green man, did not hesitate to state during question time that all change is cultural and that there was no way he was going to trade in his truck for a low-carbon micro-hybrid. Add to that some of the confusing comments from one lady in the room about regulating ‘animal gas emissions’ and I think it is fair to say that however well marketed and positioned, global warming is too fragmented and an insufficiently unifying issue politically to enable realignments that change the electoral landscape. For now, it has momentum, the question is if it will last.

More likely is that that various parties of the right and left will – forced by the excellent marketing power behind it all – will frame policies that are palatable to the public and industry at large and that will be financable. The evening with the Gore ambassador did in the end not raise my concerns over an alarmist and dogmatic movement, it actually revealed global warming for what it really is: open to interpretation, ready for compromise and not nearly as dramatic as some would have us believe.

NOTE: And what better example of global warming’s ambiguity than to let a powerful voice from the left inform us on the consequences of implementing Kyoto:

Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Autoworkers Workers, does not expect any government to try to implement Kyoto according to current deadlines.

"It would be devastating for the whole community, anybody that signed on," he said. "It's not even a remote possibility. No prime minister in any one of the parties in the House of Commons is going to bring in any kind of regulation that says we have to do that. It would be suicidal for our economy.

Never thought I would approvingly quote a union leader, but I guess it underlines my argument.

Just got a note from Bruce Bawer mentioning that his book While Europe Slept finally gets noticed by the NYT. Well, it took a controversy over the book's nomination for the National Book Critics Circle award to get it, but there you are. Apparently the debate within the nominating committee wasn't all that pretty, but I like this part of the NYT's piece however:

Mr. Bawer’s book jacket is covered with admiring blurbs from well-known conservatives, but he does not fit the typical red-state mold. An openly gay cultural critic from New York who has lived in Europe since 1998, Mr. Bawer has published books like “Stealing Jesus,” a harsh critique of Christian fundamentalism. “Some people think it’s terrific for writers to expose the offenses and perils of religious fundamentalism — just as long as it’s Christian fundamentalism,” he wrote on his blog.

Imagine someone who is critical of radical Islam not fitting the pre-fabricated stereotype.

If you haven't already, buy Bruce's book, it is the only book on the market today that has a quote from yours truly in it.

Watch the videos here and here.

It's weird in a sense to see the Hirsi Ali avalanche and the excited media reactions to it, but for the Dutch and those who have been following her amazing journey it is hardly new. What also strikes me as noteworthy is the fairly superficial way in which Hirsi Ali is questioned by various media outlets, it is all about her departure from Islam and her present security situation. There is a lot more that warrants some critical examination from the press - and I mean this in a positive way - so that North American audiences can get a better handle on what Hirsi Ali actually experienced in both her native and adopted homelands. There is lots in the Peaktalk vaults about this, the entire collection is here, but given the appetite everyone has for this subject I would like to highlight in particular:

The questions that were raised in the Dutch press about the likelihood that security arrangements around Hirsi Ali were in actual fact being used to put her in political isolation.

Her farewell speech after resigning from Dutch parliament.

The political hit job by some media and rival politicians which triggered her inevitable departure from The Netherlands;

Her relationship with Theo van Gogh and how attempts to wage a debate over Islam in The Netherlands encountered many roadblocks.

Ayaan's dismissal from The Netherlands was most likely prompted first by the disgraceful way in which some of her neighbors managed to evict her from her appartment by successfully suing the flat's owners.

And the note that propelled AEI's rising star to international fame: Al-Zarqawi on Clogs.

That's original content from this site, but you may also want to take a look at Christopher Hitchens' Holland's Shameful Treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her meeting with George Will where the term 'Europe, the invertebrate' was coined.

It's been a while since we visited the risk aversion department, but it is one of my favorite topics. The latest is from Britain:

Teachers who refuse to let children take risks are undermining the economy, a former director general of the Confederation of British Industry says today.

In a savage attack on the health and safety culture in schools, Sir Digby Jones says that a generation of "cotton wool kids" are applying for jobs without any leadership or entrepreneurial skills.

He blames a raft of politically-correct policies imposed by head teachers, including sports days which have been banned to stop children being stigmatised as "losers" if they come last.

[ ... ]

"If we never took a risk our children would not learn to walk, climb stairs, ride a bicycle or swim; business would not develop innovative new products, move into new markets and create wealth for all; scientists would not experiment and discover; we would not have great art, literature, music and architecture," says Sir Digby.

It reminds me of the snowball ban from a few years ago. It should be clear that we can't just blame the schools here, many parents these days have an extraordinary tendency to opt for creating catatonic kids by combining risk aversion with low intensity activities. Not good. My daughters at ages six and four can swim, fight and are able to complete lengthy hikes and they love it. The school here however does do a pretty good 'bear awareness' campaign which I consider to be a very sensible form of 'risk preparation'.

Ian Buruma tries to unveil Tariq Ramadan, to some the face of moderate Islam in Europe, to others a radical waging war against the free west. Not sure if Buruma unravels it all, but it is a worthwhile read.

UPDATE: Frum is more certain:

Tariq Ramadan, however, is not that person. He is doing precisely the opposite: seizing on European Enlightenment liberalism and exploiting it for his own very different ends.

Yes - there is lots to talk about and thanks for all the questions and suggested links. Give me a few days to peruse it all. Tomorrow I will attend a briefing from one of the Climate Change Messengers who will present the basic message of Al Gore's documentary and I expect that it will be followed by a debate. The plan is to weave it all together in one large post later this week. Stay tuned.