RSS
When radio host Jerry Klein suggested that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shape tattoo or a distinctive arm band, the phone lines jammed instantly.
The first caller to the station in Washington said that Klein must be “off his rocker.” The second congratulated him and added: “Not only do you tattoo them in the middle of their forehead but you ship them out of this country … they are here to kill us.”
Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver’s licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. “What good is identifying them?” he asked. “You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans.”
At the end of the one-hour show, rich with arguments on why visual identification of “the threat in our midst” would alleviate the public’s fears, Klein revealed that he had staged a hoax. It drew out reactions that are not uncommon in post-9/11 America.
From here, via Hit and Run.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: most people are effing idiots. One thing keeping policies like these from actually being implemented now is the bizarre quasi-religious reverence for the Constitution present in our country. In some places, the proper reaction to “that’s not constitutional” is “well, then it’s about time to change the constitution”. Somehow, luckily, the elite in America has convinced the masses that our Founding Fathers were infalliable, God-like uber-democrats. It’s enought to prevent shit like this (a crescent-shaped tattooo? C’mon now.), though it’s worth noting that, even with these guidelines, people have been able to justify a lot of obviously unconstitutional insanity (see internment, Japanese). But without Constitution-worship, would America be an even more populist (I obviously consider this word a pejorative) country than it is now? Absolutely.
This post is also an excuse to link to the catchiest song ever written about throwing Jews down wells.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
A few years ago Germaine Greer, the Australian Intellectual, suggested that we shouldn’t jail child-molesters; it would be enough to tattoo a warning on their foreheads. She was filmed discussing her idea with an old criminal. “That would work, Germaine”, he said. She beamed. “Because they’d all be lynched.”
P-ter, yes, most people are effing idiots but the reason we haven’t totally gone to hell in a handbasket is because we were ruled by elites who eventually did the right thing.
Note the bolded tenses in the above.
Well…I’m not sure how much Constitution-worship there is, other than when it is convenient for ACLU types. I mean, look at crazy-ass groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving who want people to automatically lose their careers and/or education simply for blowing a .06 BAC (going to jail and/or losing your DL for a year pretty much amounts to this). That’s not to mention their support for $30K+ fines (it’s the law in California) simply because a 20 year-old is sold a beer. I mean seriously, if you think a 20 y/o drinking a beer or a 17 year-old smoking a cigarette is worth 30 grand in penalties, you’re pretty far away from the Founders’ ideals, methinks.
I don’t think that the people at VDare who speak of “anarcho-tyranny” are that far off their rockers. At least some of those who believe in major penalties for minor offenses (parking violations, speeding tickets, underage drinking and smoking, smoking pot, “off-label” OTC and prescription drug use, etc.) are the same people who think murderers should be able to get out after 10 years. This may be a manifestation of the axiom of equality–the only difference between a serious criminal and someone who breaks picayune laws, in the anarcho-tyrannist/postmodern/axiom of equality view, is that they simply are more privileged. That is, if the upper-middle class kid who drinks a beer at 19 or drives 80mph in a 65mph zone were raised in the ghetto, he’d be out robbing, raping, and assualting people…because the upper-middle class kid and the ghetto kid are lawbreakers all the same.
Look on the bright side. Things like this will only help usher muslims into the priviledged victimology enabled cadre. And hey, it’d be the first such group that anybody could join!
For an example of the above (in my post) see this writing of the far-left, anti-white, anti-American, anti-middle class Tim Wise:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/19wise.cfm
“Since drinking under 21 is illegal, and since one might consider law-breaking indicative of oneÂ’s character, it is also worth noting that whites are 70 percent more likely than blacks to drink underage, more than twice as likely to binge drink underage, and four times as likely to binge drink regularly, according to federal data.”
Ba, humbug! Put me down as one who worships the Constitution and does believe the founding fathers were a bunch of semi-devinely inspired political genuises. Thank God most Americans feel the same way.
As for the Japanese internment: don’t be so disgustingly pc. How many are aware that there were oodles Japanese Americans who left this country to fight for the land of the rising sun? There was a war to be one and no time for niceties, as Lincoln certainly would have understood. Michelle Malikin has written a book about the Japanese internment as only someone of her ethnicity could do. It’s only in hindsight, after the war has been won, that the self-righteous ACLU types rise up in their misplaced anger.
Of course I don’t support tatooing Muslims. But I do think we should begin to give consideration to the idea that the Saudi version of Islam, or the Iranian version, and quite a few other versions, do not fit the description of a “religion” as defined by the U.S. Constitution. That is a question the Supreme Court may have to decide.
Yes, there are tons of stupid laws in the United States, as there have been in every country since history began. The difference is that we have the right in this country to criticize such laws publically, organize against them, and if we’re good enough and we have enough support, change them. Same thing goes for our shifting interpretations of the Bill of Rights. Taney ruled, but the Union army over-ruled. Such is the history of our great country.
In my humble opinion, only an uneducated naif completely unschooled in the sweep of world and American history could take Peter’s point of view seriously. He’s an outstanding biologist however, and I look forward to his next post on something he knows about.
Thank God most Americans feel the same way.
that was, in fact, the sentiment I was trying to get across.
As for the Japanese internment: don’t be so disgustingly pc
the 5th-7th amendments are pretty clear about these sorts of things. when rights can be suspended is a matter of debate, but it’s pretty generally accepted that japanese internment was a heinous, populist overreaction to the threat posed by Japanese-Americans.
He’s an outstanding biologist however, and I look forward to his next post on something he knows about.
thanks 🙂
As for the Japanese internment: don’t be so disgustingly pc. How many are aware that there were oodles Japanese Americans who left this country to fight for the land of the rising sun? There was a war to be one and no time for niceties, as Lincoln certainly would have understood. Michelle Malikin has written a book about the Japanese internment as only someone of her ethnicity could do. It’s only in hindsight, after the war has been won, that the self-righteous ACLU types rise up in their misplaced anger.
don’t be so credulous. is malkin the last word? or just because you agree with her contentions? her critics aren’t just from the PC-left, there were people at volokh’s place who ripped her, and they tend to be empirical conservatives. and of course there were times for niceties, there wasn’t an internment of hawaii’s japanese. i wonder why?
Germaine Greer, the Australian Intellectual
She’s no intellectual!
As for the Japanese internment: don’t be so disgustingly pc. How many are aware that there were oodles Japanese Americans who left this country to fight for the land of the rising sun? There was a war to be one and no time for niceties, as Lincoln certainly would have understood. Michelle Malikin has written a book about the Japanese internment as only someone of her ethnicity could do. It’s only in hindsight, after the war has been won, that the self-righteous ACLU types rise up in their misplaced anger.
Oh Luke, you poor deluded racist you! How can you compare Lincoln with those obvious racists during WWII? Lincoln was fighting the good fight to eliminate slavery and free the blacks!
The Fifth Amendment isn’t quite as clear as you might like it to be on the subject – which is why the Supreme Court upheld curfews of Japanese (Hirabayashi v. U.S., 320 U.S. 81, 101-02 (1943)) and exclusion of Japanese from “military areas” that could include their homes (Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214, 217-20 (1944)) (Korematsu didn’t reach the “internment” issue, though I believe there are some who think it did. The dissenting opinions, especially Justice Roberts’s, were eloquent…so I cannot agree that objections only arose in hindsight after the war was over).
Congress has since passed 18 U.S.C. 4001(a), which was specifically designed to prevent this kind of internment of citizens (without, of course, another act of Congress).
chet snickers
and of course there were times for niceties, there wasn’t an internment of hawaii’s japanese. i wonder why?
From Wikipedia on the Japanese American Internment we see:
Although there was a strong push from mainland Congressmen (Hawaii was only a US territory at the time, and did not have a voting representative or senator in Congress) to remove and intern all Japanese Americans and Japanese immigrants from Hawaii, it never happened. In fact, only about 2,500 were interned, either in two camps on Oahu or in one of the mainland internment camps.[citation needed]
The vast majority of Japanese Americans and their immigrant parents in Hawaii were not interned because the Government had already declared martial law in Hawaii and this allowed it to significantly reduce the risk of espionage and sabotage by residents of Japanese ancestry. Also, since these individuals comprised over 35% of the territory’s population, it was not economically prudent to remove them. They were laborers in the sugar cane and pineapple fields and canneries, as well as merchants, restaurant owners, etc. In fact, scholarly research has shown that government and military officials realized that removing and interning all people of Japanese ancestry from Hawaii would ruin the territory’s economy. This was a major factor in their decision that no mass removal and internment be instituted.[citation needed]
So, perhaps there were good reasons why not that do not apply to the continental USA.
So, perhaps there were good reasons why not that do not apply to the continental USA.
i know the reasons. the reasons show that the threat wasn’t as dire as “oodles” of japanese traitors might imply….
It’s easy to spot a Muslim – just find the Middle Eastern looking people getting fat during Ramadan. (No wonder the Pope is mad. He’s scared the Catholics might lose the monopoly on ceremonial hypocrisy).
This terror war is all about looks anyway. Nobody really cares what strangers think – just don’t look too different.
…does believe the founding fathers were a bunch of semi-devinely inspired political genuises.
Agreed, minus the “devinely” part. Although not accurately followed for the most part, the Constitution serves as a sort of anchor, and keeps the ship from drifting around too much. Or at least drifting less than it would without the anchor…
There was a war to be one and no time for niceties,
True. Internment was pretty barbaric, however, starting a war was a lot more barbaric.
Absent the Constitution, perhaps internment would have been extermination instead.
…do not fit the description of a “religion” as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution doesn’t define “religion.”
Who says that Jim Crow for Muslims is a bad idea? We had Jim Crow for almost a century here, dejure in the South, and Defacto in the North. It worked reasonably well for protecting mainstream white society from the problems associated with the black community.
It may not be “fair” in some sense to penalize law abiding Muslims for the behavior of the terrorists, but it’s up to the Muslims to clean up their own community. We shouldn’t subject ourselves to greater danger, not to mention airport indignities, in the name of PC multiculturalism.
We could have avoided 9-11 entirely if Muslims were only allowed to fly on their own segregated planes, or sit in a segregated section of the plane under guard. We don’t owe them anything. They always have the choice of not coming to the US.
Here’s a professor with a unique solution to the white problem
most people are effing idiots
At least a certain percentage (most?) of gnxp writers don’t understand how talk radio shows screen calls to prove whatever “effing” point they’re trying to make. It’s one of the ways you can “frame” something.
Re: Jews down a well. More framing: One article described the fact that Cohen’s act was over 1 hour long, was obviously stand-up, and pretty much everybody, including a Jewish manager who worked at the place, got the joke. Did you see that in Borat?
most people are effing idiots
Rewrite: most people don’t think past what the media is telling them.
But without Constitution-worship, would America be an even more populist (I obviously consider this word a pejorative) country than it is now?
Shall I go through a list showing how a Buchananite platform might contrast with actual American policy? Shall I? Shall I? No, I think I’ll just skip it, since most educated people here already know what I mean. America is capitalist here, socialist there, imperialist throughout the world, isolationalist culturally, officially multicultural, yes, yes. Populist? Please. Maybe in Bakersfield.
bizarre quasi-religious reverence for the Constitution present in our country
Bizarre in what way? Are you referring to the fact that the constitutional convention was subverted by delegates whose mandate was to improve the articles of confederation? Do you consider it a coup de d’etat? Are you referring to the fact that the constitution defined its own means of ratification, rather than using the existing process? Or do you consider it bizarre that people would revere (correction: respect) anything that didn’t come out of their ass? Like your little diatribe did.
[dude, it’s fine to disagree, but fucking check yourself. show some civility and restaint in someone else’s house, OK? otherwise don’t be a smart-ass! of course, perhaps you run a blog where you display your fine prose and incisive analysis so that we can see how a real player deals, right? oh, i don’t see a link, you’re a talker, not a fucking doer. word of advice to people who want to comment on our blog, be respectful or don’t waste our time. you might be smarter than us, but at least have a blog so we can check out what you have to say. we don’t have screeners here. anyway, if this pisses you off, just fuck off and don’t fucking EVER comment here again, get it? while i’m at it, work to be civil from now on luke and don’t be so contemptuous. i’ve given you slack for a while cuz of your illness, but step up from now on and comport yourself like the long time reader you are, check the petulance at the door. people disagree with you, and they aren’t always idiots, deal. -razib]
On the whole muslim question….simply give them an IQ test when they come in, if they score under 100…dont let them in.
I really doubt its the religion, its the people. After all christianity was pretty f-cked up once too.
We could have avoided 9-11 entirely if Muslims were only allowed to fly on their own segregated planes, or sit in a segregated section of the plane under guard.
Now the problen is just that you need to know which folks are the muslims. Since quotas (like for segregated planes) lead to higher prices – basic economic theory – few muslims will volunteer to pay the extra money to sign up for the exclusive seat on the muslim plane, even if “allowed to fly on segregated planes”.
So you can’t make it voluntary – are we back to the armbands and tattoos?
Of course, we’ll have to make sure no-one born a muslim can convert to christianity – that would just be an easy way to poke a hole in “homeland security” big enough to fly a passenger jet through. And if you are – what – 1/8th muslim you are on “the list” and can never get off it?
Is it just me who sees how ridiculous all this insecurity, fear, and paranoia is.
Who says that Jim Crow for Muslims is a bad idea? We had Jim Crow for almost a century here, dejure in the South, and Defacto in the North. It worked reasonably well for protecting mainstream white society from the problems associated with the black community.
nobody else here thinks that Jim Crow was a good thing, right? if there were ‘problems associated with the black community,’ Jim Crow laws perpetuated, exacerbated, or straight up caused them. i’d hate to be accused of being too PC, but come on… how far is justifying Jim Crow from justifying slavery and how far is that from barbarism?
n/m. i just googled leo felton.
Razib, the leading post is pure condemnation. Short version: “Only the constitution protects us…and what idiots the people are for believing in _that_ piece of shit”. So I respond. So what?
n/m. i just googled leo felton.
lol.
So I respond. So what?
the comment boards don’t exist to offer the unvarnished opinion of readers of this blog on the posts. they exist to further discussion and inform. if you have a caustic reaction set up a blogspot blog and respond, don’t fill up the comment boxes with your irritation. granted, the post itself might seem inflammatory, but ‘peter’ is a poster, not a commenter, and he posts quite a bit on a variety of topics, some of it quite erudite and edifying. he puts a lot of his own capital into the system. i expect commenters to do likewise. if you were a nobody i would have deleted your comment and left a nasty-gram in its place, i don’t tolerate abusive behavior toward posters here. you don’t need to read their shit, you don’t pay them and you don’t know them. as it is, i gave you a warning, if you want to respond, do so in a constructive fashion, not ‘fisk’ style. if you don’t like this post, keep your opinion to yourself, we write this blog for a very narrow circle anyhow (the posters and a small number of commenters) and the input of readers isn’t welcome in regards to content. this our hobby, not your subscription.
if your attitude is ‘so what,’ you shouldn’t posted your comment in the first place. but like i said, if you don’t like the rules no one is forcing you to read the blog, click the comments, read the comments, and post a comment.
Re: Jews down a well. More framing: One article described the fact that Cohen’s act was over 1 hour long, was obviously stand-up, and pretty much everybody, including a Jewish manager who worked at the place, got the joke. Did you see that in Borat?
chill, dude. are you denying that song is the catchiest song ever written about throwing jews down a well? also, note that wasn’t from borat.
Bizarre in what way?
in that in other countries I’ve lived in, the constitution changes much more than the constitution here, and the people who wrote it are not considered God-like, as the “founding fathers” are. I think maybe you missed my point: I like the ideals put forth in the constitution, and I’m glad people respect it. That is, I’m glad people are convinced that it is essentially infalliable, even though it was written by humans (and thus is, by definition, falliable) because it keeps us from implementing policies like the ones described in the quote. But it’s a little unclear (amusing? bizarre?) why the constitution should be considered so perfect. Most people don’t think it through– the end of an argument can be “that’s unconstitutional”.
I like diana’s quote from above: “yes, most people are effing idiots but the reason we haven’t totally gone to hell in a handbasket is because we were ruled by elites who eventually did the right thing.” And I’ll add a bit more: we also haven’t gone to hell in a handbasket because the people haven’t (yet?) started attacking the constitution as an imposition of elite values on the real world. As Luke Lea said, thank god.
As for the Japanese internment: don’t be so disgustingly pc. How many are aware that there were oodles Japanese Americans who left this country to fight for the land of the rising sun? There was a war to be one and no time for niceties, as Lincoln certainly would have understood.
There was a war to be won. Right. This was the justification for forcing U.S. citizens of Japanese ethnicity to sell their property/businesses at a loss? To me, it looks like another historical instance of a covetous racial majority expropriating wealth from a prosperous minority (cf. Jews in Germany, Indians in Uganda, Chinese in Indonesia). Even in the 1940s, observers of the education system noted that Japanese children tended to perform better than their classmates.
White supremacists (e.g. Stormfront) are somewhat correct when they say that the Pacific War between the English-speaking world and Japan was a race-war. The Japanese were brutally honest about the racial dimension of their war effort. In the United States, the war effort was dressed up as a struggle for national security, liberation of conquered peoples, democracy versus totalitarianism, etc. – but war propaganda revealed the underlying racial hatred. What else could explain the willingness to commit democide against the Japanese people?
America is capitalist here, socialist there, imperialist throughout the world, isolationalist culturally, officially multicultural, yes, yes. Populist? Please. Maybe in Bakersfield.
you don’t see a populist streak in American politics? how about the muslims controlling our ports thing? a wall with mexico? a constitutional amendment against gay marriage? the politically safe position (democratic in the first case, republican in the last two) on all those issues could definitely be considered populist. venezuela we aren’t, but there’s no denying populism as an integral part of our politics.
populism and elitism control different sectors. free trade = good, though most hate it. no prayer in schools or creationism in the classroom though both are non-controversial at the grassroots. on the other hand we need to strike a pose for god and against vices.
you don’t see a populist streak A bit. But policians mainly hand out popular tokens–the gay marriage nonsense being a good bone for the Christians on one hand, and gays on the other, for example. Now, when money is involved….
How are Arib Israeli’s identified in Israel?
I belive they have an ID card indicating their ethnicity, no?
DAveg, not since 2005. Now the nationality line is blacked out with asterisks. STrangely, the ID cards do tell you if the bearer is Jewish, however – because Jews have their DOB in Hebrew as well as english. In a sense, Israeli Jews are again marked out, unlike anyone else. If I were in charge, I’d have mandated that everyones DOB be in hebrew too.
Interesting that something so considered so outrageous here was SOP in Israel until 2005.
In a sense, Israeli Jews are again marked out, unlike anyone else.
Came out of the womb spinning, no doubt.
I think it is safer to see that in this case is the lack of the mark that is the more important identifier. Who cares what they are. They are not jews, so they don’t belong, is the message.
P-ter, you might be interested in the article “Our Perfect Constitution” – 56 N.Y.U. Law Review 353 (1981) (I didn’t find an online link to the article – the law.nyu.edu online archive doens’t go back that far – but your local academic law library should have it. Justice Scalia occasionally cites it – against the proposition that “unconstitutional” is just another synonym for “a wrong or bad idea.” As here: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC1.html ).
I am as delighted as you are that slavery has been self-evidently wrong for 230-odd years, and the persecution of minorities for some period less than that, at least in some places…but the raw material for regression to the older way is out there. We’re still in the middle of a big experiment, to see what happens when minorities, even culturally isolated ones with vocally hostile members, can say what they please free of group persecution, and take part in elections. I do hope it works out.
free trade = bye bye u.s. dollar
On the whole muslim question….simply give them an IQ test when they come in, if they score under 100…dont let them in.
This is absolutely absurd…
According to Peter Bergen in his study of 70 or so Islamic terrorists, 53% of them have college degrees or have attended college. Marc Sageman has found that many have advanced degrees, and that 60% or so of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists have professional or semi-professional occupations. A large percentage of Islamic terrorists became radicalized while residing in the West, not prior to going there.
Basing immigration policy solely upon IQ is silly, and the idea that smart people don’t conduct terrorism is absolutely idiotic.
That’s not to say that IQ should not play a role in determining entrance; it should play a substantial role, but let’s not be absurd about it. IQ is not everything.
Here’s some info on Sageman’s research.
Pter,
Thanks for the endorsement but heed the warning about the tense:
“we were ruled by elites who eventually did the right thing.”
Were, Pter. Not now. Alas. Look at the elites. Look at the doofus-in-chief, still raving about staying the course!
The most effectual of the WASP elites have retreated behind their gates.
In support of Arcane’s point – http://www.policyreview.org/139/rosenthal.html
“The Khosrokhavar interviews [of French Jihadist prisoners] burst numerous clichĂ©s about the jihadists and the sources of their militancy. Lest anyone still cling to the illusion that the root cause of Islamic terror is poverty and economic inequality, for instance, the interviews massively reinforce the findings of the already substantial body of research on Arab Islamists showing that jihadists are largely recruited from relatively more privileged social strata in their countries of origin. As a rule, the inmates interviewed are highly educated, well-traveled, and multilingual. One ‘Ousman’ interrupts his interview to grill Khosrokhavar about the geographical distribution of his sample population. If the sample is not well distributed, he warns, ‘it?s not valid, it?s not scientific’ ? before adding encouragingly, ‘you are the pioneers for this type of study.’…The inmates? more or less openly avowed enthusiasm for jihad is clearly not the product of a spontaneous reaction to desperate circumstances, but rather the outcome of an often highly intellectualized process of reflection.”
[idiocy deleted]
Wake up! Smell the Roses! Do you even listen to what you are saying in all your intellectual white-boy maunderings on this web site? Why do you refuse to face the only natural, real consequences of your scientific materialism?
[idiocy deleted]
[dumbass, who you calling a white-boy? this website was founded and pushed forward by two non-whites. don’t comment here anymore, you just “don’t get it.” there are plenty of net-nazi sites for you to enjoy]
Say, how about all us nice civilized folks on this blog get together and beat the shit out of — speaking figuratively here — the Guland.
Point being that in the competition for life the nice guys can finish first, and have been, many of them, for some timel here in the good old U.S. of A.
Life is a mystery, or paradox anyway, in that it increases order in a universe that is constantly running the other way (second law of thermodynamics or whatever.).
Likewise, the forces of civilized people who are socially caring to some degree, are managing to overcome the egotistical blond beasts a simple-minded Darwanism would predict to win, and who have in fact been quite on top throughout most of the last several thousand years (to give the devil his due). Life is a miracle. So is liberal democracy.
Thanks, btw, P-tr for not taking personal offense. That was big of you, and I was way over the top and out of line polemically speaking. I’ll try to mind my manners better razib.
One last late commenting case anybody is still following this thread: A commenter above mentioned he agreed the founding fathers were in some sense inspired, but didn’t care for the idea that they were in some sense devinely inspired. I would like to point out that it is possile to be devinely (or semi-devinely, which is what I actually wrote) inspired without necessarily implying the existence of God, or even necessarily a belief in the existence of God. It is possible to be inspired merely by one’s idea of God, particularly if it happens to be a particularly exalted and beautiful idea, as was true in the case of figures like Franklin, Jefferson, and Lincoln, free-thinkers all, and philosophical atheists too in their youth, with the possible exception of Jefferson. These guys were all soaked in the literature of the Bible, not only in their growing up, but until their dying days.
In other words, you can be inspired by a beautiful idea, hich is not to say that you cannot also be inspired by an ugly idea, as witness Islamic extremism today, or any number of intollerant versions of Judaism and Christianity. But history show that the beautiful versions tend to win out over the ugly ones, probably because of their wider human appeal, which wins allies in greater numbers, at least over the long-run.
This is why philosophical atheism doesn’t bother me very much except when it becomes aggressive; it is mostly a young man’s thing, and quite properly so. Been there myself.