RUTHFULLY YOURS

Events in Thailand give the lie to conventional wisdom that rapid economic development leads inevitably to political progress and stability, were such evidence still required.

Thailand has made remarkable economic progress in the last half century, climbing into the ranks of middle income countries. Hit by the 1996-97 East Asian Financial Crisis and then later by the 2007-08 worldwide financial debacle, its gross national product nevertheless has more than doubled since 1995. Income disparities – both between the Bangkok capital megatropolis of 5.4 million and the countryside and among individuals – is high but the latter is trending downward. Only 15% of its 70 million people live below the poverty line, mostly in rural areas Access to pure drinking water and sanitation is universal. Maternal and infant mortality have dropped dramatically. Unemployment had been less than 1% until this latest coup. Foreign investors have piled in, notably making Thailand the center for automobile manufacturing and assembly in Southeast Asia.

Nor can the explanation for Thailand’s political troubles be blamed, as it is so often in Africa and Asia, on a colonial past. The British and French were content in the 19th century race for empire to permit the Thais to live in a backwater, a kind of neutral zone between the expanding the British Indian Empire [including Burma and Malaya next door] and French Indochina including Laos, Thailand’s Siamese twin. [An obscure footnote to history: London’s notorious “22 demands” made on a defeated, tacit Japanese ally immediately after World War II, were rejected when local U.S. Office of Strategic Services veterans fabricated Washington support for the Thais.]

Breakdowns in the constitutional monarchy peacefully established in a bloodless revolution in 1932 have repeatedly brought the military to power. [This is the twelfth takeover in 80 years.] These, too, have generally been peaceful, often with the approval of the elite and the King. Some observers even saw these military usurpations as a breakthrough for its largely rural cadre against the growing domination of emigrant Overseas Chinese merchants in Bangkok with their strong familial ties. That contrasted strongly with what cultural anthropologists have characterized as the loose traditional Thai family structure.

Ta-Nehisi Coates has done a public service with his essay “The Case for Reparations,” and the service he has done is to show that there is not much of a case for reparations. Mr. Coates’s beautifully written monograph is intelligent and sometimes moving, and the moral and political case he makes is not to be discounted lightly, but it is not a persuasive case for converting the liberal Anglo-American tradition of justice into a system of racial apportionment. Mr. Coates and those who share his views would no doubt observe that the Anglo-American practice, despite its liberal rhetoric, was a system of racial apportionment, and a brutal one at that, for centuries, with real-world consequences that continue to be large facts of American life to this day — and they would be correct. But the remedy Mr. Coates proposes would not satisfy the criterion of justice, nor is it likely that it would reduce or even substantially eliminate the very large socioeconomic differences that distinguish the black experience of American life from the white experience of it.

The most valuable aspect of Mr. Coates’s essay is as a corrective to the tendency to treat the systematic political and economic repression of black Americans as though it were a matter of distant history and a question that had been for the most part settled at Gettysburg, with a few necessary legislative reforms in the following century. The process of extirpating effective racism did not end in 1868 or in 1964; even assuming a zero racial handicap on a forward-going basis, we would expect it to take decades before the average economic differences between blacks and whites were to disappear. (If, indeed, we should expect them to disappear at all.) And the economic disadvantages imposed on African Americans did not end with slavery. Mr. Coates recounts, among other abuses, how black workers leaving the South for such communities as Chicago’s North Lawndale were systematically excluded from the formal banking system, in no small part by federal housing policy that denied FHA mortgage insurance to neighborhoods into which blacks had moved or were moving, leaving black would-be homeowners with few options other than the “on contract” purchase, essentially a rent-to-own scheme that was rife with abuse and dishonesty.

Upwardly mobile blacks were fleeced by similar schemes for many years, and blacks remain to a disproportionate extent outside the traditional financial institutions — for instance, a quarter of unmarried black men have no bank account, and fewer than half of black households invest in stocks or similar financial instruments. The relatively hard time blacks have dealing with financial institutions has some truly perverse outcomes: Whites have more college degrees but less student-loan debt; white women are more likely to be homeowners than are black women, but they have smaller mortgages; blacks are less likely to be approved for credit cards, and they have more credit-card debt. While the median black household income is about a third lower than the median white household income, blacks’ median net worth is radically lower: about 5 percent of the median white net worth. The median net worth for a single white woman in her prime earning years is about $43,000; the median net worth for a black woman in her prime earning years is about $5.

UKIP’s recent electoral performance is a watershed moment.

On Thursday, Britain held local and European elections. The BBC’s political editor has described the results as an “earthquake” in British politics. Charging out of the wilderness, the U.K. Independence party (UKIP), which is anti-EU, has stabbed the heart of the U.K. political establishment.

Before Thursday, UKIP had only one councilor (the U.K. term for an elected official in local government). Now, that number stands at 157. The European returns won’t be released until Sunday, but polls suggest that in those elections UKIP will claim first place.

Taken together, the British and European elections represent a watershed moment in British politics. Where the Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat parties once dominated British political life, UKIP has introduced a fourth face to the nation’s discourse. Three particular lessons should be taken from UKIP’s victory.

Voter anger over EU interference in U.K. law
The European judiciary has long drawn British anger — and for good reason. Take the case of Abu Hamza. Earlier this week, a federal jury convicted him on numerous terrorism charges. Still, while the English courts had approved Abu Hamza’s extradition to America with little hesitation, the EU Court of Human Rights obstructed that process for over two years. As I’ve noted before, the EU judiciary is an enemy of robust counterterrorism. But it’s not just EU counterterrorism that has infuriated U.K. voters. Unlike English law, which relies on the principle of precedent, EU law is shaped largely by judges constantly reinterpreting it to advance EU federal authority.

Supporting the EU judicial agenda, EU bureaucrats also work tirelessly to impose leftist regulations on British society. This arrogance has not gone unnoticed or, as UKIP’s fortunes illustrate, unanswered.

Languishing in Omdurman Federal Women’s Prison in Khartoum, Sudan, Dr. Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag and her 20 month-old son, Martin Wani, await their fate. While the liberal selfies of the world move on with their political correctness, social networking, and mindless entertainment, three fragile lives are about to be extinguished for the unthinkable high crimes of being Christian.

And where, pray tell, are Barack and Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, liberal Dreamers and all the other Muslim apologists in this country? Aside from the U.S. government expressing that it is “deeply disturbed,” our quasi leadership’s silence is absolutely deafening. Martin and the baby are – after all – U.S. citizens, locked in a cage in a dungeon full of infection and terror.

Make no mistake, Obama and his minions spring into action to defend Islam whenever necessary. But American lives, Christianity, or traditional values – well that’s another story all together.

The President’s own actions demonstrate where his loyalties lie, and they clearly aren’t with America or its Constitution. In 2012, imprisoned Muslim terrorists at the American Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cleverly passed secrets back and forth using the interior pages of the Qurans from the prison library. When it was discovered, American troops appropriately burned the books. After the burning, Muslim leaders seized the opportunity to strike out at America, rioting and massacring 41 people. Of course, they ignored the obvious – that their own Muslims had already defaced the Qurans by writing in them. American soldiers were gunned down by “friendly” Muslims on the base, and four lost their lives.

Like everything Daniel Pipes writes, his column this week about the prospects of Islamism is interesting and admirably honest. If every public intellectual were as willing as Daniel to check his premises regularly and modify them when new facts call them into question, our discourse would be a lot more civil and edifying.

His column is about “Islamism,” which is the ideology I (among others) call “Islamic supremacism” — a.k.a “radical” or “extremist” Islam, or even “sharia-ism” in the recent coinage of my friend Joy Brighton . . . all of us, it should be conceded, grappling for the pitch-perfect term that (we hope) justifies sidestepping the gnawing question whether Islam itself inevitably breeds aggressive Muslim groups even if it is otherwise widely construed, or at least practiced, benignly.

Daniel has previously rejected the possibility that Islamism, which is innately dictatorial, could evolve into something that approximates pluralistic democracy. He now surveys recent developments and concludes it is conceivable — not likely, but conceivable — that Islamism could evolve and improve.

To me, the developments Daniel cites are just glimmers here and there along a mostly discouraging trajectory. I will make three points, more in reaction than in direct response to his observations.

1. Only our own lower expectations of what liberal democracy is make it possible to speculate that Islamism could become borderline democratic. While Daniel mines some hopeful signs that Islamism — or at least branches of it — could be progressing away from unyielding authoritarianism, the parallel phenomenon (which is not the subject of his column) is that Western democracy is regressing away from a culture of individual liberty protected by limited government. If it now seems conceivable that Islamism could democratize, it can only be owing to modern democracy’s accommodation of more centralized and intrusive government.

2. The only conclusion of Daniel’s that I have a real quarrel with is his assertion that

Islamism has significantly evolved over the past 13 years. As recently as 2001, its adherents were synonymous with criminals, terrorists, and revolutionaries.

I think this conflates Islamism with our perception of Islamism. Personally, I don’t believe Islamism has materially changed at all. Instead, beginning about 21 years ago with the bombing of the World Trade Center, there was a vigorous effort on the part of progressive policy-makers and thinkers — an effort that still persists — to convince the public that the only “radical” Muslims were violent jihadists (who were incongruously portrayed as both “extremist” Muslims and practitioners of a “false Islam”). All other Muslims, we were told, were “moderates,” no matter how immoderate their beliefs. There was very little public understanding of sharia — the Islamic societal framework and legal system — and of the fact that imposing its implementation is the rationale for both jihadist terror and the non-violent agitations of Islamist groups.

“This insistence on treating veterans as objects of pity plays out in our national dialogue as well, whether it is Bill Maher saying on his April 4 HBO show, “Anytime you send anyone to war, they come back a little crazy,” or a Washington Times article about PTSD claiming that, “Roughly 2.6 million veterans who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD-type symptoms.” That is roughly the total number of veterans who served, which suggests that the reporter thought there might be a 100% saturation rate of PTSD among veterans.”
Mr. Klay served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 2005 to 2009, including a tour of duty in Iraq from January 2007 to February 2008. He is the author of “Redeployment,” a short-story collection recently published by the Penguin Press.

A couple of years ago, I spoke at a storytelling competition about some Marines I’d known during our deployment in Iraq and my feelings on getting out of the Corps. After I left the stage, an older woman in the crowd came up to me and, without asking, started rubbing my back. Startled, I looked over at her. “It was very brave of you to tell that story,” she said.

“Oh, thank you,” I said, a little confused by what was happening. “I’m OK.”

She smiled sympathetically but didn’t stop. I wasn’t sure what to do, so I turned to watch the next performer—and she remained behind me, rubbing me down as if I was a startled horse in a thunderstorm.

It was my first really jarring experience with an increasingly common reaction to my war stories: pity. I never thought anyone would pity me because of my time in the Marine Corps. I’d grown up in the era of the Persian Gulf War, when the U.S. military shook off its post-Vietnam malaise with a startlingly decisive victory and Americans eagerly consumed stories about the Greatest Generation and the Good War through books like “Citizen Soldiers” by Stephen Ambrose and movies like “Saving Private Ryan.” Joining the military was an admirable decision that earned you respect.

Early on in the Iraq war, after I accepted my commission in 2005, most people did at the very least seem impressed—You ever fire those huge machine guns? Think you could kick those dudes’ asses? Did you kill anyone? I’d find myself in a bar back home on leave listening to some guy a few years out of college explaining apologetically that, “I was totally gonna join the military, you know, but…” The usual stereotype projected onto me was that of a battle-hardened hero, which I’m not.

THIS IS A BIG PARTISAN ISSUE IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS….REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS AND CHALLENGERS ARE FOR THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WITHOUT LIMITING “ENVIRONMENTAL” AMENDMENTS WITH ALMOST NO EXCEPTIONS. THE DEMS- INCUMBENTS AND CHALLENGERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 17 NOTABLE SUPPORTERS, ARE ALL AGAINST THE PIPELINE WITHOUT THOSE LIMITING AMENDMENTS, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SHELVED A DECISION…..RSK

Some energy analysts figure the White House’s continuing refusal to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline may become less relevant as oil companies develop other ways to ship their product. But the surge in oil shipments by rail is creating new public health risks while raising the cost of food production.

Today the Journal reports that after a series of accidents, cities and towns along railroad routes aren’t sure they have the capacity to fight potential oil fires. But disclosing more data about the shipments carries its own risks—such as better-informed terrorists. According to the Journal, “An emergency order from the U.S. Transportation Department in June will start requiring railroads to alert states about oil trains originating in North Dakota. But the rules, which follow accidents involving oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale in such unlikely locations as Lynchburg, Va., and Aliceville, Ala., already are coming under criticism. Some critics say the new rules are inadequate, while others worry that any disclosures will increase the likelihood of sabotage.”

Is oil shipment by rail clearly more dangerous than via pipeline? As our contributor Terry Anderson recently noted, “President Obama’s own State Department answered the comparison question plainly in February.” Its report “estimates that the Keystone XL carrying 830,000 barrels a day would likely result in 0.46 accidents annually, spilling 518 barrels a year. Under the most optimistic rail-transport scenario for a similar amount of oil, 383 annual spills would occur, spilling 1,335 barrels a year. The report is even harsher on railroads when it comes to human injuries and fatalities. It estimates that tank cars will generate ‘an estimated 49 additional injuries and six additional fatalities’ every year, compared with one additional injury and no fatalities annually for the pipeline.”

Command Sgt. Maj. Veronica LaBeaud of the 199th Brigade Support Battalion, 256th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, is more than just another Soldier. She is an inspiration.

After serving 32 years in the military, LaBeaud recently became not only the first African-American female command sergeant major in the Louisiana Army National Guard, but the first-ever female to earn this high rank in the 256th when she was promoted in a ceremony at Camp Beauregard in December.

LaBeaud took time to personally thank numerous family, friends, and colleagues for helping her achieve this accomplishment. “I still have a whole lot to do, and I promise I’m going to make everyone proud,” she said. “All the barriers they talk about, whether its race or gender, it’s not about that – it’s about working hard and going after it.”

Lt. Col. Jason Mahfouz, battalion commander of the 199th BSB, said the recent reversal of the policy that prohibited women from serving on the front lines in combat units made the appointment very fitting.

“I am proud the BSB has this distinction. I know she’ll inspire young enlisted females to rise to the rank and responsibility,” said Mahfouz. “It will open up a lot of opportunities for young Soldiers because it illustrates that all Soldiers have unlimited opportunities if they work hard to achieve their goals.”

Command Sgt. Maj. Dennis Sapp, senior enlisted advisor for the 256th IBCT, added, “It’s a new beginning by having LaBeaud serve in the 256th. She’s a go-getter – a Soldier’s person. She loves to communicate with Soldiers and never forgets where she came from. She brings something different to the table.”

Making the day particularly special for LaBeaud was that her daughter, Melanique LaBeaud, an audiology doctoral student at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Fla., could attend.

“I’m so proud of her,” Melanique said. “She’s been an inspiration to me my entire life. She set the bar high. Today proves it all paid off.”

The New Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary is ready to add their big data to auto-tune your connectivity to media and the digital divide (or something).

Some “wordy” history? Noah Webster published his first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, back in 1806. From then, dissatisfied with the breadth of what he had conceived, he embarked on decades of intensive work to expand his groundbreaking creation into a more comprehensive reference, An American Dictionary of the English Language. No mean slouch, according to his own account, he learned 26 languages (including my favorite, Aramaic) to unearth etymologies and tease out root sources of many of the words we use now without a second thought.

Webster completed his dictionary during his year in Paris in 1825, and after study at Cambridge. The expanded result now held 70,000 words, of which some 12,000 had never before appeared in a dictionary.

After Webster’s death in 1843, George and Charles Merriam got publishing and revision rights to the 1840 edition. They published a revision in 1847, which added new sections to the retained main text, and a second – illustrated — update in 1859. Building on their success, in 1864, G & C Merriam put out a greatly expanded edition, the first to change Webster’s material, overhauling his work but retaining most of his definitions and of course the well-respected title. Revisions followed that were described as being “unabridged.” By 1884, the iconic dictionary offered definitions of 118,000 words, famously “3000 more than any other English dictionary.” We’ve always been addicted to maximalisms in language as well as sports and sports cars. More words! Bigger wrappers. Larger bosoms.

A year earlier, when “Webster’s” had by then gone into public domain, the name was changed to “Merriam-Webster, Incorporated” with the publication of Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

Getting beyond the standard dictionary’s own etiology, those of us in the language dodge take frequent recourse to the reference buttons as well as the hard-copy (yes, Virginia, they still sit on our library and office shelves), an updated M-W is a thing of beauty — as well as of necessity. For gamers, note how annoying it is in online games like Bookworm to type in a common word like “blog” and find that the game’s dictionary has no knowledge of this dog-eared term in use for almost 20 years. Or the medical heart device used for decades, the stent, which is similarly nonexistent in the minds of the callow youth’s who encode those so-called game dictionaries.

So what’s the big whoop now?

Chatting With ‘A Climate Heretic’

Doing science by consensus is not science at all, says the climatologist all the alarmists love to hate. Not that the enmity bothers Judith Curry too much — and certainly not as much as the debasement of impartial inquiry by which the warmist establishment keeps all those lovely grants coming .

When climatologist Judith Curry visited Melbourne last week she took the time to chat with Quadrant Online contributor Tony Thomas. The professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology is something of a stormy petrel in the climate-change community, as she has broken ranks with alarmist colleagues to question the articles and ethics of the warmist faith. This has made her less than popular in certain circles, even inspiring Scientific American, house journal of the catastropharians, to brand her “a heretic” who has “turned on her colleagues.”

Such criticism leaves Curry unmoved. If anyone needs counselling, she says, then it is those academics who continue to preach the planet’s sweaty doom despite the fact that no warming has been observed for almost two decades.

The edited transcript of Curry’s conversation with Thomas is below:

TONY THOMAS: If the skeptic/orthodox spectrum is a range from 1 (intense skeptic) to 10 (intensely IPCC orthodox), where on the scale would you put yourself

(a) as at 2009

(b) as at 2014,

and why has there been a shift (if any)?
JUDITH CURRY: In early 2009, I would have rated myself as 7; at this point I would rate myself as a 3. Climategate and the weak response of the IPCC and other scientists triggered a massive re-examination of my support of the IPCC, and made me look at the science much more sceptically.

THOMAS: The US debate has been galvanised in recent weeks by strong statements against CO2 emissions by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. What is your view of the case they made out, and your thoughts about why the statements are now being made?
CURRY: I am mystified as to why President Obama and John Kerry are making such strong (and indefensible) statements about climate change. Particularly with regards to extreme weather events, their case is very weak. Especially at this time, given that much of the rest of the world is pulling back against commitments to reduce emissions and combat climate change.