Jay Reding.com

The Washington Post has a wonderfuly acerbic review of the Sci-Fi channel reality program Who Wants To Be A Superhero. I’m not sure whether to applaud or be disgusted by the use of the term “coin slot”…

The Brussels Journal has a chilling article on the way in which free speech is being systematically stifled in Europe:

It is said that free societies are stronger than oppressive societies. This is probably true. However, in the West at the beginning of the 21st century, formal and informal censorship of important issues has become rampant. Without freedom of speech, democracy cannot function. The West is weak because it is no longer free…

Gerard Alexander warns against what he calls “illiberal Europe,” by which he means the dramatic expansion of laws to sanction speech that “incites hatred” against groups based on their religion, race or ethnicity. Such laws have been passed in Western European nations since the 1970s. “The real danger posed by Europe’s speech laws is not so much guilty verdicts as an insidious chilling of political debate, as people censor themselves in order to avoid legal charges and the stigma and expense they bring.”

If there’s a theme that’s been running through this blog for some time now, it’s the importance of civil society. The law, important as it is, isn’t what holds society together. Traditions, shared values, culture, all of those are the mortar that binds society into a cohesive whole. When a society loses that sense of shared culture anarchy is the result – see much of the history of the Balkans, Lebanon, or Somalia. The common thread that runs through societal problems from those here at home to those threatening to tear the Middle East apart is the degeneration of civil society.

Europe is facing a loss of its own cultural identity due to a deadly combination of massive immigration and multiculturalist nihilism. Those factors threaten to turn Europe into Eurabia – a culture barely willing to defend itself can be easily overturned by an ideology that is innately expansionist, as radicalized Islam is.

Europe’s attempt to solve this problem has involved suppressing it under a web of speech codes, and laws against “hate.” Part of that is natural – Germany bans neo-Nazi speech along with speech deemed hostile to Muslims – and given Germany’s bloody history, there’s a good reason why the German government is fearful of hateful ideologies. The problem is that such a strategy doesn’t work – there’s plenty of hate across Europe, including anti-Semitism. In fact, anti-Semitism is probably as rampant as it was before the Second World War, except now hatred of Israel gives it a veneer of respectability.

Europe’s long slide is a warning to the US – we’re next. The same factors which are plaguing Europe could easily establish themselves on our shores. The rise in speech codes, the multiculturalist ideology, a lack of assimilation, all of those problems are our problems as well as Europe. The biggest difference may be that the US doesn’t have an increasingly radicalized population on our borders as Europe does with North Africa and the Middle East. Just imagine if instead of Hispanics (who share much of our Westernized cultural background) streaming into our borders it were radicalized North Africans. Our problems would be as great as Europe’s if not even worse.

There’s nothing wrong with immigration, but unless immigration is controlled and immigrants are assimilated into society, you get situations like the banlieues of Paris in which a mass of unassimilated, unemployed, and angry youths cause continual trouble. Europe’s attempt to deal with these problems are only making them worse, and unless European politicians are willing to set multiculturalism aside and fight back against the radicalization of their Islamic immigrants, the very fabric of European society could be unraveled from the inside out.

Howard Dean couldn’t be a better spokesperson… for the GOP as his latest half-cocked rant about “divisiveness” in politics included calling Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an “anti-Semite” and accusing Katherine Harris of being a “crook” and comparing her to Stalin.

Howard Dean is easily one of the most singularly unhinged people in American politics today, he’s a walking embarrassment to the Democrats and to the nation, and the Democratic Party elected him their chairperson and chief spokesman.

I’ll give them points for honesty, but the more people who see the kind of spittle-flecked hatred that has invaded the Democratic Party the less support they’ll get…

Michael Totten has a poignant and chilling piece on the future of Lebanon. Understandably, he worries that the country could once again fly apart into sectarian war once the Israeli attacks against Hizb’Allah end:

“What will become of us?” is the question on everyone’s mind. No one can know what will happen after Israel lifts its siege and the temporary national unity flies apart into pieces. And it will fly apart into pieces. The only question is how far the pieces will fly and how hard they’ll land.

Lebanon had been the greatest success story in the Arab world just a few months ago. But behind that success, the existence of Hizb’Allah ensured that the newfound democracy in Lebanon was constantly threatened. The eviction of the Syrians was only one step, but as long as Hizb’Allah had their state-within-a-state at the same time they corrupted Lebanese government, Lebanon would always be an occupied nation.

I hope Israel crushes Hizb’Allah so that they can never harm anyone again. But Hizb’Allah is a more formidable foe than anything Israel has ever faced. They are not like the other Arab forces that have threatened Israel, and I fear the cost in lives and treasure necessary to win this war will be higher than we had all expected.

Lebanon may indeed fall back into civil war, taking the hope of Lebanese democracy with it. I would hope that the memories of what had happened the last time would prevent that from happening, but the way things are playing out now, the ancient animosities just under the surface of Lebanon’s brittle civil society are now once again overwhelming all else.

Lebanon was briefly the model for a new Middle East, a place where Christian, Druze, Shi’a, and everyone else could live in peace and tolerance. Even if Lebanon falls into civil war, it is critical that dream not die.

The Museum of Sex (motto: now closed for headache) is displaying this bust of Hillary Clinton as some kind of statement about female sexuality and political power.

To me, it looks like what would happen if Emperor Palpatine were given a sex change and a Wonderbra…

Forbes has an interesting article on how the economics of American society make it financially difficult to get married:

Marriage has a way of making people grow up and think about the future. Nights out with friends and crawling stores for clothes are replaced by eating in together and saving for a house. But while that priority shift eventually creates more stable finances, in the short term, it puts a squeeze on your wallet.

On a month-to-month basis, marriage just doesn’t pay. At least not far beyond the honeymoon phase, after which the happy couple invariably decides to leverage their new status into better living quarters, nicer cars and more “mature” spending priorities like insurance and church donations.

Despite the end of the marriage penalty in the tax structure, the economics of marriage still aren’t all that good. Marriage is good for society. Healthy families are important in developing a healthy civil society and a strong democracy. Yet our current system of economics tends to create a disincentive towards family-building. Ultimately, it becomes a vicious cycle: the breakdown of the American family erodes society and causes more societal problems, which cause a further drain on national resources which then causes an increased demand for services and higher taxes which then makes it less beneficial to start a family. From a viewpoint of societal engineering, it makes sense for a society to want to promote stable marriages and strong familes – yet the economics just aren’t there.

That’s why (as loathe as I am to say it), Hillary Clinton’s “American Dream” schtick could be the right political message for the Democrats. Rightly or wrongly, the American middle class feel squeezed out. The rise in gas prices only cements that notion, and while the reality of the economy is that we’re much better off than we’ve been since the “boom” years of the 1990s, the perception is at odds with the reality. Even though unemployment is low, outsourcing is largely a phantom menace, and job growth is steady, people have been fed a steady diet of scaremongering and after so long those messages begin to stick. Clinton is just doing what the Clintons are good at doing: reading the political tea leaves.

Ultimately most of society’s problems are less about economics and more about personal choices, but that doesn’t mean that economics aren’t a factor at all. One of the strongest assets the GOP has is being known as the pro-family party, while the Democrats are viewed as being hostile to traditional family values. However, if the Democrats start getting smart about playing into the fears of the American middle class, that could threaten the GOP’s chances in 2006 and 2008. (Of course, given the way in which moderates are treated by the coastal, secular left, that may not be much of a threat afterall.)

If it doesn’t make economic sense to get married, stay married, and have children, then fewer people will do those things, and society as a whole will lose out. There are some costs associated with marriage that can’t be legislated away - a house will always be a significant investment, saving for retirement will always require sacrifices, and raising a child will always involve massive expenditures of energy, time, and money. However, if we value the American family, we need to do more to make raising a family a more economically attractive choice. The GOP needs to speak to the needs and fears of the middle class to keep their majority, and right now many in the middle class are wondering if our political leadership really cares about their situation. Letting those doubts fester isn’t sound politics, nor is it sound policy.

UPDATE: Hotline has a breakdown of some of Clinton’s “American Dream” initiatives. Some of it is typically giveaways that will cost more than Clinton says they will, but a lot of it could resonate with fiscal conservatives – like cutting wasteful programs, restoring PAYGO rules, and reducing corporate subsidies. Then again, it’s also packed with budget-busting and employment-killed rules about mandating that every business provide health care to its employees, which is a phenomenally bad idea. Still, there’s enough meat there that GOP strategists should be worried.

Unsurprisingly, the talks in Rome on a Lebanese cease-fire have failed.

Realistically, the only acceptable outcome to this situation should be the destruction of Hizb’Allah as a military force in the region. Given the way in which Syria and Iran have armed and trained them, it will take Israel a significant amount of time to finish them off. Any alternative that leaves Hizb’Allah armed and dangerous is simply unacceptable, and any cease-fire that does not lead to the suppression of Hizb’Allah will only create the conditions for future conflicts down the road.

The only solution to this conflict is for Hizb’Allah to be disarmed, and their Syrian and Iranian masters prevented from further supporting their proxy war against Israel. Anything else will only prolong the conflict and provide and illusion of peace. The Middle East has already been deeply scarred by such superficial measures – Secretary Rice is correct to reject an immediate cease-fire, and the interests of the entire free world lie with the destruction of Hizb’Allah.