Now Let's All Forget About Robert Byrd

Robert Byrd was one of those Democrats with a bit of an odd past that Republicans like to bring up when they need something shady sounding to smear Democrats in general. Like Ted Kennedy, who, whenever he did something that Republicans didn't like -- which covered practically everything he did -- would be reminded of that time he got into a car accident at Chappaquiddick that ended up killing the girl in his passenger seat (even though you never hear an elected Democrat bring up the fact that Laura Bush killed a guy -- that's right, Laura Bush killed a guy), Robert Byrd could never live down his membership in the KKK, his opposition to desegregation, and the fact that he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Also he was getting really old and every speech he made sounded increasingly senile and non-sensical. While he may very well have helped out with some decent legislation here and there, he was kind of an embarrassment, and now that he's dead I'm relieved that I'll no longer have to hear Republicans whine disingenuously about his personal history.

Protests and Coherence

News coverage of the G20 meeting in Toronto, like that of most coverage of protests by the mainstream media, has been condescending and dismissive. And although I'd like to say that there's a plain, commonsense message that the protesters are trying to get across that is just being ignored or suppressed, the truth is that there really is no one simple point that this multitude of people is trying to convey. The protesters are made up of representatives of a number of different interests. While all of the protesters are presumably opposed to the G20 and their policies in some fashion, among the various interests being represented there may be a few that are not only inconsistent with those of the other protesters, but possibly even a number that contradict each other. I don't doubt that there may even be a number of tinfoil hat, Alex Jones, anti-New World Order types who are protesting what they think is a global elite trying to wipe out half the world's population by promoting the homosexual agenda, and doing so in the same general vicinity as people advocating greater recognition of gay rights.

Among the issues the protesters wish addressed are debt amnesty, rights of indigenous peoples, corporate globalization, workers' rights, women's rights, and environmental degradation. It's essentially a grab bag of concerns held by those suspicious of anyone who has more money and power than they do. That's not to say that there's anything necessarily wrong with being suspicious of the wealthy and powerful, and it's not that these aren't legitimate issues. The problem is that when so many groups come together at once you can't expect the media to be able to get a complete message across. The best they can do is pull a few quotes from random people in the crowd which will rarely be fairly representative of the positions of all the people that those giving quotes intend to speak for. These protests produce little more than an inarticulate cacophony.

Geert Wilders

This guy has gotten a lot of attention lately, as has Dutch politics in general since Theo Van Gogh was murdered. The fascination, it seems to me, is partly inspired by the fact that the Netherlands is known for its tolerance, but they have a growing nationalist movement lead by people like Wilders who calls for a recognition that the Netherlands are based on "Judeo-Christian values". That does not sound like the position of a prominent European leader, but rather of an American southern Baptist.

This is unfortunate and a little scary. Scary, not because we are seeing people who wish to resist some Muslims in Europe who wish explicitly to Islamize the West, but because the people leading that resistance are no longer libertines like Pim Fortuyn, or or religious skeptics like Ayan Hirsi Ali, but, increasingly, it seems, people like Wilders.

On the Flotilla

The first thing I have to say is that it is a bit silly to expect Israel to not have (or to have but not enforce) its blockade against Gaza. Sure, the anger of the people of Gaza is in many ways understandable, but nothing justifies taking their frustrations out on civilians living on the Israeli side of the border, even if the people their rockets are hitting are supporters of the blockade. Despite what some Palestinian apologists argue I do believe there is such a thing as an Israeli civilian, and Israel should be permitted to do something to protect its civilians. Much of what Israel does in service of this goal is excessive, but I think there is a decent case to be made for the blockade.

Secondly, the people on these boats would have scored more points in public sympathy if they had allowed the Israelis to arrest them without a fight. Muslims have done this in the past, and it's gotten results. Palestinians, in many ways, have the upper hand. They're the ones who are the underdogs. They're the ones who seem to have the greatest public sympathy in much of the West. If they were to take a few lumps from Israel without retaliation, they could gather enough sympathy to put significantly greater pressure on Israel.

That being said, arresting people in international waters and killing nine people armed only with knives chairs and metal rods does nothing but strengthen the perception that the IDF are a bunch of trigger happy sociopaths. I see no reason why these ships had to have been boarded. If the IDF had found these boats near the Gaza coast, they could have turned them back at that point and prevented them from landing. I know, those ships were carrying nothing but wheelchairs, food and medicine, but the IDF had no way of knowing that without inspecting them.

The Real Value of Multiculturalism

It is ironic how much those who advocate multiculturalism and acceptance of foreign cultures in the West would also be appalled were they to go to Mumbai and see a Wal-Mart. This gives them away. They are not so attracted to multiculturalism as they are repulsed by the dominant culture in which they were raised. The word "multiculturalism" gives the impression that its proponents advocate the free mixing of various cultural elements -- that the more different kinds of culture there are in one place, the better. In practice, however, they seem more interested in diluting the Western culture that they see as vapid.

Westerners bored and disillusioned with the superficiality of Western culture. They see depth and meaning in most other cultures. Sometimes it's really there. It's not hard for a culture to have more meaning than Western culture does. But a lot of the time it's just a different kind of superficiality. And whenever they do spot that superficiality, they blame it on Western influence.

Ironically enough, multiculturalism is a predominantly Western value. Slavoj Zizek once pointed out that one of Western civilization's greatest achievements was to question the value of Western culture. You don't hear about movements in non-Western civilizations to be tolerant of immigrants and the cultural practices they import. There may be the occasional marginalized activist, but not movements as large as what you see in the West.

Western multiculturalism occasionally goes in unhealthy directions, giving undue deference to alien traditions merely because they are alien. Cosmopolitanism is great when it helps us realize where our own culture can improve, but is foolish when it compounds unhealthy practices onto other unhealthy practices, degrading all cultures involved.

Fluff

Quite regularly I go online looking for something interesting. Often I have nothing specific in mind, but I guess I'm mainly looking for something to excite me. I'm not looking for something to entertain me. I'm looking for something about which I can form an opinion, or better yet, make me want to learn more about something, or create something in response. These things I rarely find.

There are lots of things to complain about, but complaining doesn't feel particularly productive. Like what I'm doing now. This isn't filling me with much of a feeling of accomplishment.

Picking a Culture

I heard someone once ask, “Why would you limit yourself to one culture, to identify with that solely and exclude all other cultural influences?” The fact that value has a lot to do with exclusivity aside, picking just one and sticking to it relieves you of the burden of having to pick any others. One does not have to choose between cultural practices and traditions when one adopts a particular lifestyle. One can devote oneself exclusively to the traditions and rituals of the chosen culture. Now this is seen by contemporary liberals as kind of icky, because so many people have historically been forced to conform to a particular cultural tradition when a mix and match approach of various cultural elements is what is best for them. There are still many people, however, who identify with one monolithic cultural canon and wish to stick with it. Often these people are simply ignorant of what other cultures have to offer, but there do exist people who devote themselves to one culture because they identify with it more than they do any other set of practices, rather than because they don't know any better.