Jay Reding.com

The implosion of French society continues unabated as the protest by French students has turned violent:

It was just the scene the French government had been dreading: burning cars seven blocks from the Eiffel Tower, shop windows smashed along one of the capital’s toniest streets, and columns of helmeted riot police advancing across the greensward of a prominent tourist venue.

Antoil Ethuin, 48, stood outside the shattered windows of his Bike n’ Roll rental shop Thursday, stunned by the destruction of the worst violence in two weeks of student protests in Paris and other French cities.

“My country is broken,” said Ethuin, gazing at the smoldering automobile carcasses a few yards away and the carpet of glass shards, broken dishes and computer pieces covering the sidewalk in the heart of one of the city’s most affluent neighborhoods. “I never imagined I would ever see this in Paris.”

The students are protesting a law that would allow “at-will” employment, reversing France’s deeply sclerotic labor market. Because French companies can’t fire new workers except for cause, they don’t hire student workers, and the unemployment rates in France for young workers are nearly 20% - four times that of the United States. The paradox of French culture is taking roost - while the French are rightfully proud of their centuries of cultural influence, civil society in France is breaking down on a profound level. The French welfare state and the doctrine of multiculturalism has alienated much of French society from any real sense of patriotism. Unfortunately, France isn’t alone in that regard:

The demonstrations have underscored the widening divide between the French government and its people at a time when France is losing both economic and political clout on the global stage. Street protests and general strikes, often occurring in the spring, have long been an accepted political ritual in France, and they now have become a symbol of the country’s inability to reform a stagnant economy hobbled by inflexible labor laws, high taxes and a corpulent welfare system.

It is a crisis also facing other countries across Europe as governments of the left and the right have similarly attempted to alter their costly systems of generous health, unemployment and welfare benefits; most, like that of former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, have failed in the face of widespread resistance to change.

French youths can’t get jobs because of France’s flexible labor laws   and employers won’t hire students under the current laws. These youths are protesting the very thing that would get them out of the mess they’re in - so inculcated they are into the entitlement worldview bred by the welfare state.

Europe’s problems are a warning to us - this is what happens when a society strays too far down the road to serfdom. The welfare state has worn down French society by creating a culture of boundless entitlement that is simply not sustainable - and now that French politicians are finally waking up to the situation in which they’d placed themselves, they’re finding that they can’t take it back without massive protests. The French political traditions of the manifestation and le grève have always caused the government to wave the white flag - and so they’ve become one of the major ways in which France’s entrenched special interests like the powerful CGT labor union can hold the government hostage.

It’s not too late for French society, but it is quite clear now that the kind of sweeping social and economic changes necessary to bring the French economy into the 21st Century will be met by resistance - sometimes violent. The question is, will the leadership of France have the fortitude to push these reforms through? Based on history and their current reaction, it seems like they will not, which means that things may get even worse before they stand much chance of getting better.

After Lukachenko forcibly cleared out demonstrators in Minsk, the US and EU have joined together to sanction Belarus. I doubt it will be all that effective, but at least it puts some pressure on Lukachenko’s corrupt government.

The Wall Street Journal has a blistering piece about Yale admitting Taliban spokesperson Ramatullah Hashemi as a student. It’s become quite clear that Yale’s absolutely ludicrous decision is turning into a well-deserved PR nightmare for them. The article makes this absolutely devastating charge:

A statement from Yale University, defending its decision to admit former Taliban spokesman Ramatullah Hashemi, explained that he had “escaped the wreckage of Afghanistan.” To anyone who is aware of the Taliban’s barbaric treatment of the Afghan people, such words are offensive–as if Mr. Hashemi were not himself part of the wrecking crew. It is even more disturbing to learn that, while Mr. Hashemi sailed through Yale’s admissions process, the school turned down the opportunity to enroll women who really did escape the wreckage of Afghanistan.

In 2002, Yale received a letter from Paula Nirschel, the founder of the Initiative to Educate Afghan Women. The purpose of the organization, begun in that year, was to match young women in post-Taliban Afghanistan to U.S. colleges, where they could pursue a degree. Ms. Nirschel asked Yale if it wanted to award a spot in its next entering class to an Afghan woman. Yale declined.

Yale deserves this black eye. Hashemi may bring experience to Yale - but that experience consists of murdering women for wearing cosmetics, collapsing walls on homosexuals, and being part of one of the most singularly oppressive regimes in our times. What can Hashemi truly contribute to Yale? In Comparative Religion could he espouse why all those who do not follow Islam are apostates? In Art History can he explain on the best locations to place explosives to knock down ancient statues of Buddha? In Women’s Studies can he explain about how liberating it is to never be allowed to leave the home without male escort?

The height of the hypocrisy here far dwarfs any ivory tower.

I was once under the naïve impression that academia was about the free exchange of ideas in a climate that supports human rights and tolerance. But clearly that isn’t so for a shockingly large swath of academia. Instead it appears to be about cocooning oneself into a comfortably twisted ideology in which The Other – no matter how great an affront they present to the values of civilization – is held up as a model, and the very civilization which allowed the academy to flourish is frequently treated with contempt. By admitting Hashemi, Yale gives credence to a regime that slaughtered its own people and kept them in a state of perpetual fear.

This is something where all Yale students, from College Republicans to the Women’s Studies majors should find common cause. Why not make Mr. Hashemi feel more at home by having “Taliban Days” at Yale? How about a few fictional executions for co-eds who dare show a patch of skin on the soccer field? How about having the campus chapter of GLAAD be fictionally stoned to death in the middle of the quad? After all, if those are the values that Yale is willing to give tacit support to, why not celebrate them?

The audacity to call Mr. Hashemi someone who survived the wreckage of Afghanistan when there are Afghani women who deserve a chance to receive a world-class education and who suffered under the likes of Mr. Hashemi and his thoroughly repugnant government. Apparently when it comes between choosing between the truly oppressed and their oppressors, the Ivy Leage is too blind to tell the difference.

A University of Minnesota study has found that atheists are the least trusted minority group in American society:

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry…

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The results of this study are somewhat surprising, but not terrifically so. America has always been a deeply religious nation, founded in large part by groups trying to establish religious freedom. Especially in the South, religion and culture are tightly interwoven, and religiosity is strong across demographic groups regardless of socioeconomic status or race. Public religiosity has been a part of American society throughout it’s history from the Great Awakening of the early 19th Century to the “Cross of Gold” speech of William Jennings Bryan, to Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” address. The strict separation of church and state has never been a dominant principle in American politics or culture.

Politically, this is another sign of the way in which the Democratic Party is losing Middle America. By becoming a party that has a well-deserved reputation as being a secularist, elitist party, the Democrats are pushing against the fiber of American society. The Democrats are losing voters who may be with them on economic issues because Democratic politicians are viewed as hostile to the values of the American family. The Democrats have increasingly embraced the secularist side of American life while displaying either an ignorance of, or an outright hositility to, religion in America. Given that many atheists are no less sanctimonious than the swarthiest televangelist - and sometimes even more so, it’s hardly surprising that they and their allies aren’t exactly finding many friends in American culture.

The New York Times gets caught with its pants down again, this time using the story of a scam artist in a piece on the victims of Hurricane Katrina - despite the fact that a simple search of public records would have revealed that the person never lived in Mississippi and had a prior conviction for fraud. Then again, quality journalism has not been a particularly notable feature of the NYT in quite some time…

Conservative MP for Surrey Heath Michael Gove argues that the Scientology cult needs a good shaming. After tonight’s hysterically funny episode of South Park (one of the most inspired in the series’ run) they just got a good dose of that.

Scientology’s use of legal threats and high-powered celebrities can’t protect it from public ridicule. At the same time, this seemingly silly little row also exposes the way in which religion is being used to strangehold free speech:

The whole climate in which religion is discussed has chilled notably in the past few months. After the Danish cartoon controversy, the momentum is with those people who use their particular, narrow faith to silence other voices. If you doubt that’s so, just ask why no British newspaper felt that it could reproduce those cartoons. And reflect on why the British and American governments had to apologise for the offence caused. What were governments doing saying sorry for the independent actions of free citizens? Bending before a very ill wind.

When the House of Commons debated the Religious Hatred Bill, the argument was made that criminalising what one said about faith would have a chilling effect on debate overall. And, even without the law having been passed, one section of our community has succeeded in just that aim.

I’m sure that Trapped in the Closet is wildly offensive. I certainly hope so, anyway. Because the one thing that Scientologists need more than anything else is ridicule. A religion founded by a science-fiction writer in the 1950s which invites its followers to believe in an inter-galactic tyrant called Xenu and offers them the chance to control time itself by becoming “Operating Thetans” deserves nothing less.

The double standards of political correctness in which religions (religions that aren’t Christianity) are absolutely sacrosanct from criticism or ridicule must end. In a free society, religious beliefs are as much a part of the public sphere as anything else, and while making light of religion may not always be in the best taste, it is part of accepting a free society.

All I will say is this: Best. South Park. Ever.