RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

In the U.S. high school seniors can choose to remain ignorant two ways. One, go to a prestige college for about $60,000 a year, not counting books, boarding and tee shirts with profane logos, or they can go to State Universities, and for less money graduate with the same level of ignorance and bias but no prestige. rsk
The higher education sector is long overdue for massive reform. Its ability to absorb vast quantities of money and give very little in return – except for an enormous increase in the number of people with PhDs driving taxis in our major cities — is surely a starting point for closer examination

I was driving home past UWA today and saw some signs posted outside its main entrance by its waggish young students: ‘For Sale’, and other droll utterances. I wasn’t able to catch much of the ABC’s coverage of this and other demonstrations, but I gathered from the general tone of breathless indignation that Joe Hockey had gone round to every single university in the country, wearing a striped T-shirt and a mask and carrying a bag labelled ‘Swag’, and deprived those hard-working young students, labouring away at those fine institutions, of their rightful dosh.

What a shame that this was allowed to happen (note to everyone concerned: the budget hasn’t been passed yet, so none of this has actually happened). I mean, what this country is just crying out for is more hefty girls in laddered tights and hennaed hair, with no apparent skills beyond making cheap placards and sitting down heavily in the one place. I’m not quite sure what degrees these people are completing, but my hunch is that they won’t be our future commerce experts, or physicists, or engineers.

(There was a certain – shall we say – heteronormativity to these demonstrators; a certain whiteness of complexion, and a certain softness of belly which gave them a distinct uniformity. It was not a uniformity suggestive of merit, enterprise, diligence, accountability and a bright future. It was rather a uniformity suggestive of daycare centres and a world where Playdough is one of the five food groups. But I digress.)

Time was when the charge of racism packed a genuine punch, but that was before the word’s meaning was turned on its head by mis-use, over-use and those who insist, in the vile tradition of Nazism and the Klan, that race and ancestry are the key determinants of who and what we are.

Back in February, The Australian published a news item detailing how an Aboriginal community leader in the Pitjantjatjarra lands of north-west South Australia was alleged to have called a senior administrator and other staff members “white c***s” and “white pieces of sh**” for not following his orders. One suspects this might not have been a new experience. Indeed, I have even been so described myself on occasions, for example in conversations like:

“Got a cigarette?”

“Sorry mate, I don’t smoke.”

“Racist white c***.”

What you will observe is that the term “racist” being used exactly in the same way as the word “c***”. It no longer has any real meaning, except as an expression of abuse intended to promote offence. If we were to be entirely honest, the practical definition of both words would be something like: ‘A person who stands in the way of what I want.’

These days, the word “racist” appears to be used most commonly in accord with that definition, so most would fail to be offended by having that term flung at them. Incidentally, since most people do not invoke race as the primary and defining attribute of their identities, the term “white” can hardly be considered offensive. On the mining sites where I have worked one meets people of all races, nationalities, religions, and ethnicities, but almost universally people tend to identify themselves by their occupations and professions, not their ancestry.

Prince Charles, Putin and Hitler: Dangerous references Nazi Germany was not a traditional, expansionist power. Its expansionism was directly tied up with a genocidal, totalitarian ideology. Putin is bad, but he’s not like Adolf Hitler

It is all over the British media. Prince Charles, on a visit to Halifax, in the Canadian Maritime province of Nova Scotia, has stirred controversy by comparing Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler over Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea. That, at least, according to the Daily Mail.

“And now Putin is doing just about the same as Hitler,’ the Prince of Wales is alleged to have said. It’s not being denied, so having let it run in the public domain for this long, we are entitled to assume that the quotation is accurate.

Back in Britain, opinions range from suggesting the Prince had missed a good opportunity to keep quiet and stay above the political fray, domestic and international, to the view that he’s entitled to his opinion.

Either way, it was a silly and irresponsible remark which serves as a timely reminder of the dangers of trivialising who Hitler was and what he stood for.

To be fair to Prince Charles, he is not alone in making this comparison. Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others have made reference to Hitler’s use of German minorities outside Germany’s borders — in the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia for example — and compared that with Putin’s use of Russian minorities in places such as Ukraine, Georgia, and also (without military aggression as yet) in the Baltic states.

It’s a seductive comparison, but it is deeply flawed.

For one thing, we should be smart enough to have other historical (and contemporary) reference points for bad things that happen in the world without resorting to the use of incendiary references to Adolf Hitler, unless it is absolutely necessary and unless it is accurate, which it isn’t in this case.

You can’t claim that liberals and other statists aren’t industrious. They are tirelessly diligent in their quest to find more ways to infringe upon or abridge our freedoms.
Many of our freedoms are embodied in the Bill of Rights, and have been regularly targeted for amendment or excision, from gun ownership, to freedom of assembly (or association), to freedom of speech vis-à-vis criticizing Islam and campaign finance law restrictions. No right today is sacrosanct or beyond the government’s wish to curtail or abolish.
Only just recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in the wake of his defeat at the Cliven Bundy Ranch in Nevada, introduced a bill to abridge political speech. Breitbart’s Big Government reported on May 18th:
On May 15, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on June 3 on amending the U.S. Constitution to limit political speech. If ultimately adopted, it would mark the first time in American history that a constitutional amendment rescinded a freedom listed as among the fundamental rights of the American people.
The proposed amendment was introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-CO) as S.J.R. 19 and if ratified would become the Twenty-Eighth Amendment. It provides in part that “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect [to] the Federal elections … [and] State elections.” The proposed amendment includes a provision that “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” So Breitbart News, The New York Times, and the mainstream media would be able to say whatever they want, but citizens and citizen groups such as the National Rifle Association could not.
It seems like Harry Reid and his cronies have been reading retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, which I reviewed in “Justice Stevens’s Liberty-Destroying Amendments,” in three parts, the relevant Part here. Stevens recommended adding another amendment that would accomplish Reid’s purposes and vitiate any freedom of speech protections. I wrote:
Stevens writes that there is nothing to fear from his proposed amendment:
“A constitutional amendment authorizing Congress and the states to place “reasonable” limitations on campaign expenditures would allow corporations to make public announcements of their views but would prohibit them from engaging in the kind of repetitive and excessive advocacy that the candidates typically employ. It would also repudiate both the holding and the reasoning in the Citizens United case, giving corporations an unlimited right to spend their shareholders’ money in election campaigns.” (p. 78)
Do the shareholders want a corporation to spend their money advocating issues? To Stevens, their wishes are irrelevant. Do individuals who encounter “repetitive and excessive” advocacy mind such encounters? That’s irrelevant, too. Of course, those on the opposite side of an issue might mind it, but, like Muslims who object to critical things being said and written about Islam, they can just ignore it. Speech, written, oral, or visually, after all, is not a form of physical aggression or force. But Stevens doesn’t want the champions of big government and incremental socialism to be subjected to limitations on “hate speech” that he wishes to impose on financed counter-arguments. Democrats should be free to repeat their “excessive” and “repetitive” messages over and over again. It’s the other guy who must be shut up. Stevens’s suggested amendment, which requires force or the threat of force, reads:
“Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.” (p. 79