Advertising News

President Obama will be traveling across the Atlantic again, and as judging by the pictures below in Germany, there?"s already a lot of enthusiasm about his trip:

Obama begins his trip June 3 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he?"ll meet with King Abdullah. He travels June 4 to Cairo for meetings with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his long-anticipated speech at Cairo University.

On June 5 Obama heads to Dresden, Germany, for talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel, a visit with wounded U.S. troops at a military hospital and a tour of the former Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald. He closes his trip June 6 with a trip to France to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy on D-Day.

For more, see ?SObama Seeks Enhanced Engagement with the Middle East, Europe.?

I tried to respond to Publius and Hilzoy at their place, but the comments system wouldn't let me.  So I'll have to carry the debate on here.

Why the analogy to slavery, or Hitler?  It's inflammatory, and rarely advances the debate.  Such analogies too often degenerate into "Hitler was a vegetarian too, you tofu-eating Nazi!!!*"

But in this case, I think the analogy to slavery is important, for two reasons.  First of all, it was the last time we had an extended, society-wide debate about personhood.  And second of all, as now, there were structural political reasons that it was much harder--nearly impossible--to change slavery through the existing political process.

Listening to the debates about abortion, it seems to me that really broad swathes of the pro-choice movement seem to genuinely not understand that this is a debate about personhood, which is why you get moronic statements like "If you think abortions are wrong, don't have one!"  If you think a fetus is a person, it is not useful to be told that you, personally, are not required to commit murder, as long as you leave the neighbors alone while they do it.

Conversely, if Africans are not people, then slavery is not wrong.  Or at least it's arguably not wrong--if Africans occupy some intermediate status between persons and animals**, then there is at least a legitimate argument for treating them like animals, rather than people.

The difference between our reaction to the two is that now we know Africans are people.  It seems ridiculous to think that anyone ever thought they might not be people.  They meet all the relevant criteria for personhood in twenty-first century America.

But of course, those criteria are socially constructed.  The definition of personhood (and, related, of citizenship) changes over time.  It generally expands--as we get richer, we can, or at least do, grant full personhood to wider categories.  Except in the case of fetuses.  We expanded "persons" to include fetuses in the 19th century, as we learned more about gestation.  Then in the late 1960s, for the first time I can think of, western civilization started to contract the group "persons" in order to exclude fetuses.

But that conception was not universally shared.  And rather than leave it to the political process, the Supreme Court essentially put it beyond that process.  Congress, the President, the justices themselves, have been fighting a thirty-five year guerilla war over court seats.  Presidents try to appoint candidates who will support their theory of Roe, Congress strategically blocks change, and the justices refuse to retire until they know they will be replaced by someone who supports their side.  To change the outcome, a pro-life political coalition would have to gain a supermajority in Congress for twenty years--long enough for a few liberal justices to die in office.

It is theoretically possible that this could happen, just as it was theoretically possible to come to some political accomodation over slavery.  But a combination of supreme court rulings and the peculiar federalist structure of American meant that the only way for either side to gain decisive results was violence.  At every turn, the pro-slavery forces no doubt slyly congratulated themselves on their political acumen, while also solemnly and sincerely believing that they preserved an important right.  But they made war inevitable.

If you interpret this murder as a political act, rather than that of a lone whacko, than this should be a troubling sign that the political system has failed.  So why do so many people think that the obvious answer is simply to more firmly entrench laws that are rightly intolerable to someone who thinks that a late term fetus is a person?

I am accused, in the comments of Hilzoy's post, of loving violence and terror.  Well, call me a terrorist sympathizer, but I believe that most terrorists do what they do because they, at least, genuinely believe that there is no other way to seek justice.  Indeed, they are usually right, for all that I radically dissent from both their idea of justice, and their right to seek it through violence.  But I am also humble enough to recognize that my own morality on a topic like abortion is constructed in context of two important facts: virtually all my friends are pro-choice, as is the social milieu in which I was raised, and a lack of access to abortion would significantly restrict women's autonomy.

These are not bad arguments in favor of abortion--I think modern America is more right than not about most moral questions, and the right to bodily integrity is important.  On the other hand, in the face of fetal personhood, they are not very good arguments either.  My parents significantly restrict my autonomy by continuing to be alive--if they died, I would inherit some money, which would increase my choices.  But I still shouldn't be allowed to kill them in order to collect my inheritance--a moral insight which seems to be much more obvious and fundamental, I might add, than the wrongness of slavery or the rightness of abortion.  Every society I know of forbids slaughtering your parents.

(Not that I want to, I hasten to point out.  Hi, Dad!  We're pricing out a nice GPS for father's day!)

I am aware that I have constructed my beliefs about personhood in the face of these things--like any good undergrad, I know the answer I need to reason to in order to ensure both social comfort and maximum personal freedom.  I like to think that I am too rigorous a thinker to be seduced by such ephemera.  But I am also aware that a lot of very fine thinkers were seduced into reasoning that Africans weren't people.  Whatever evidence they thought they had, we're pretty sure how they arrived at their conclusions:   African personhood would have caused enormous personal and social upheaval.  Thousands of their friends and family would have personally suffered enormously without their slave wealth.  Ergo, slaves weren't people!

And if I look at my own reasoning, well, frankly, it's not even reasoning.  I've never sat down and thought, "how do I know that Africans are human beings?"  I know.  And I'm enough of a Chestertonian to be okay with that way of knowing.  But presumably if I'd been raised in 1840 Alabama, I'd know just as certainly that they weren't.

Perhaps I find the certainty of the pro-choice side so disturbing because it feels a lot like the certainty of the warbloggers in the run up to the Iraq invasion.  As some of Hilzoy's commenters point out, I was myself too caught up in it, which makes me cautious of getting caught up again.  The pro-choicers seem to be acting as if people who shoot abortion doctors are some weird species of moral alien, whose actions can only be understood in Satantic terms, and who cannot and should not be negotiated with, because they only understand raw displays of power.  Yet it seems to me that if I were in a society that believed fervently in the personhood of a fetus, I would very possibly agree, and view Tiller's murderer the way I'd view someone who, say, assassinated Mengele.

I realize that this opens many other questions, like "What does it mean to have access to the political process?" and what constitutes personhood.  But I remain stuck with a fundemantal problem:  I can understand their moral logic.  When someone whose moral logic I can understand, even endorse  (without endorsing the underlying judgement about the personhood of the fetus) is driven by that moral logic to kill, I think there may be a problem that society needs to solve.  When more than one kills for the same cause, I assume that there's a structural problem in the political process that needs to be fixed.  I'm not saying the violence is okay--I think Tiller's murderer needs to go to jail.  But like many contributors to Obsidian Wings, I can understand the structural forces that contribute to Palestinian terrorism without believing the terrorism is legitimate.  Unlike them, apparently, I don't find it all that hard to transfer that understanding to the fringes of our own democratic system.

*  Sadly, I'm not even joking--see my old vegan threads
** Go ahead.  I triple-dog-dare you to quote me out of context

You can see the gulf in the world that Obama is trying to bridge when you compare the shock that some in Washington feel when they see Obama actually trying to stop illegal West Bank settlements and the latest poll from Egypt:

Eli Saslow, the young Washington Post reporter best known for his giddy promotion of Obama?"s "glistening pectorals," touted Obama as a "powerful new ally" against "Islamophobia" on the front of Wednesday?"s Style section. The protagonist of Saslow?"s story, Aida Mansoor of Hartford, Connecticut, tries to educate an apparently (and painfully) bigoted America about Islam. This is where Obama comes to the rescue:

Her attempts at cross-cultural connection can sometimes feel futile, Mansoor says, but her energy this year has been fortified by a powerful new ally: President Obama, a Christian who has promised unprecedented outreach to the Muslim world. More than 85 percent of Muslims in the United States approve of Obama's performance as president, according to a recent Gallup poll, which is his strongest endorsement from any religious group.

"What he says could go a long way toward dispelling the myths," Mansoor says. "For a long time, Muslims have been the bad guys in this country. There is so much hate and misunderstanding, and he might be able to help the world overcome some of it."

Before Obama hosts his global diversity seminar, Mansoor begins her local equivalent.

The assumption behind the Post story is that America has a long way to go to be properly "educated" that Islam is a peaceful religion. The headline was "As the Myths Abound, So Does Islamic Outreach." Will knowledge defeat ignorance? The Post's headline inside isn't optimistic: "Explaining Islam to? Americans: It's Not Any Easier These Days."

The Post doesn?"t ask: is it possible that Muslims can exaggerate the harshness and everyday commonality of "Islamophobia" among Americans? Saslow brings his story right around to how the 2008 election displayed "the worst of Islamophobia" in the United States:

After Abdul-Karim [Mansoor?"s imam] finishes his introductory lecture at the library, Mansoor plays a series of media clips compiled during the past year. The 2008 presidential election, Mansoor says, revealed the worst of Islamophobia in the United States. "Anytime you turned on the TV, they were saying, 'You know, maybe Obama is a Muslim,' " she tells the class. "Well, first of all, he's not a Muslim. But more important: So what if he was? What's wrong with that?"

Mansoor turns out the lights and starts the projector, which the class takes as a cue to relax.... One of the census employees closes his eyes as Mansoor plays the first sound bite, from a broadcast of Michael Savage's radio show:

"We have a right to know if [Obama's] a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings," Savage says.

Then comes a clip of Sen. John McCain at one of his campaign rallies, responding to a woman who asked whether Obama was Arab: "No ma'am," McCain says. "He's a decent family man, citizen."

Eventually, Mansoor finishes with a video of an experiment conducted by a television station. The clerk at a bagel shop pretends to refuse service to a Muslim woman, and the camera focuses on other customers' responses. Three customers congratulate the clerk for taking a stand against "un-American terrorists." Several others leave the store in protest. One man, moved to tears, tells the clerk, "Every person deserves to be treated with respect, dignity."

Mansoor stops the tape and turns on the lights. She's crying. The attendees set down their pens and cellphones. They're watching now.

"This always brings tears to my eyes when I see it," Mansoor says. "This is what we face every day. Every day. Maybe it gives you a little bit of an idea what it must feel like. What are your reactions?"

Nobody speaks....

Finally, Lillian Ruiz, the human-relations director, raises her hand.

"I think we need to stand up like we did in the 1950s," Ruiz said. "You watch things like this and it makes you want to just fight back and do something, because it's so sad. Obviously, discrimination is still very alive."

"Yes," Mansoor says. "Yes. Thank you."

That's how the article ends. America's stuck in the 1950s, and Muslims are the new blacks.

Here?"s where the whole story turns on fiction: Saslow is writing about a February 26, 2008 episode of ABC?"s Primetime: What Would You Do? in which actors playing an obnoxiously bigoted clerk and an offended Muslim woman try to nudge unsuspecting members of the public into action. The "Islamophobia" is exaggerated for ratings and to make a liberal point against discriminatory attitudes. ABC?"s John Quinones, the host of these "thought experiments," explained:

QUINONES: The young woman in our experiment is an actor. But for this woman, discrimination is all too real. Nohayia Javed [ph] helped us design our experiment. Although born in Chicago, she says she's constantly characterized by fellow Americans as the enemy.

JAVED: They always start off with, 'You're a terrorist. Osama-lover. Towel-head. Camel jockey." On and on.

Fellow Americans "always start" with terrorist accusations? They?"re "constantly" attacking Muslims with harsh ridicule? At what point do ABC and The Washington Post acknowledge this kind of harassment might not be a constant occurrence?

In that 2008 segment, Quinones acknowledged "At the end of the day, 13 people stood up for the Muslim woman, while six sided with the clerk. But the majority of the bystanders, 22, did or said absolutely nothing." Because twice as many expressed offense, Quinones placed all the blame on the bystanders, so that the vast majority looked like they needed an Islamic training seminar.

PS: Here's what gets left out of the sympathetic story: does Islamic outreach always ring true? A newspaper account of another Aida Mansoor event in Connecticut features Muslim convert Ingrid Mattson uncorking this whopper:

The most common misconception about Islam is that it is oppressive to women. Muslim women, like women all over the world have often had to struggle to enjoy their natural rights, but Islam is most often seen by them as a source of strength in advocating for their rights.

So John Cole has pretty much addressed this, but last week Jonathan Chait criticized me and others for referring to Jeffrey Rosen's piece on Sonia Sotomayor as "gossip".

"Gossip" is an effective label for those who wish to denigrate Rosen's reporting or the reputation of TNR, but it's an inaccurate one. Gossip is unverified information. Gossip is something you hear all the time--say, Senator X mistreats his staff. No serious publication can pass off gossip as reporting. However, if you actually speak with the principals firsthand--you interview staffers for Senator X who report that he mistreats them--then what you have is reporting. That's what Jeff did. He spoke first-hand with several of Sotomayor's former clerks, who provided a mixed picture. Unsurprisingly, they declined to put their names on the record, but that's utterly standard for people who are speaking in unflattering terms about people they worked with or for.

Chait is one of my favorite writers on the interwebs, but this is less than persuasive. A big publication printing gossip doesn't change the definition of gossip. The issue isn't that the information was "unverified" as in, no one told Rosen these things, it's that it was objectively unverifiable, as in, assertions about Sotomayor's intelligence are unprovable. Rosen, as a well-respected legal expert, could have made that argument himself in some form, but he didn't, possibly because he wanted to present it as an "unbiased" observation. But since the source is anonymous, there's no way to judge the individual's motivations or perspective. There's reason to give people anonymity under certain circumstances to relay unpleasant information about a colleague or a superior, but not when that information can't be verified. Anonymous, unverifiable information is gossip.

Most oddly, Chait suggests I, along with others have some sort of agenda against the New Republic. I can only speak for myself, but in my many posts on Sotomayor and Rosen, I didn't say anything about the New Republic except that to identify the publication Rosen had been writing in.?

-- A. Serwer

In February, I found myself bobbing around the Caribbean for a week with about 70 supporters of the National Citizens Coalition and half a dozen other talking heads.

One of the other chattering types was my National Post colleague, David Frum. Over post-dinner drinks one evening, David and a clutch of guests started talking about airlines. Much to the guests' chagrin, David gave a very spirited defence of Air Canada, claiming it was either the finest or one of the finest airlines in the world.

Only in Canada (or at least among a gaggle of Canadians cruising a tropical sea) could a discussion of which carrier provided the most legroom in economy class or the best buy-on-board treats or the most on-time departures become a symbol for a broader political debate.

To this day, conservatives -- especially Western conservatives -- dislike Air Canada. Our enmity comes from the way the former state airline was forced on us in the bad old days of airline regulation. You say you want to fly to Ottawa, Mr. Hick. Well, you'll do it when we tell you and pay what we tell you. And you'll fly through Toronto both ways, even though there's no special need to. And when you get home, you'll pay added income tax to subsidize keeping our head office in Montreal to encourage Quebecers to vote Liberal.

All of this was compounded, too, by the way the shelter of regulation bred sneering indifference for customers among Air Canada's staff. The eye-rolling sigh of the ticket agent at an extra-heavy bag. The perceptible harrumph of the gate agent when posed a simple question. The tongue-click of the flight attendant asked for a drink refill.

We were giddy, then, when we got the chance to fly WestJet instead. Not only was it a point of regional pride, there were leather seats, cheap fares and the flight attendants were like the cool-kid waiters at your favourite hip-casual restaurant. They liked the fact you were on board. You weren't an impediment to them enjoying their day.

And they joked about having to play a recording in French of every announcement they made live in English. (Yeah! Rage against the bilingual machine!)

But come closer now. This is just between you and me: David was right. Air Canada is a pretty good airline.

Having had to make several cross-continent junkets this year on American air carriers, Air Canada looks like limousine service by comparison. U. S. airlines offer buses with wings. They leave late, a lot. They manage to turn a four-hour flight into a 12-hour ordeal by routing you from Edmonton to Las Vegas, Las Vegas to Charlotte, Charlotte to Atlanta or Charleston or Fort Lauderdale. And there's no food on board, not even for purchase and not even if they make you so late there's no chance for even a fast food dinner before your connecting flight.

Meanwhile, on a recent 10-hour, transatlantic flight with my family, Air Canada had an exceptional service crew, fantastic seat-back entertainment choices, a couple of decent meals and even ice cream midflight.

I am still a dedicated WestJet customer, but I would fly Air Canada without hesitation.

Still, that's not why I want Air Canada to survive. As a consumer, I want the competition so prices are kept in check. In fact, there is nothing that says that competition has to be Air Canada. Some successor airline or airlines would do. Open Skies -- a policy in which any airline, Canadian or foreign, could fly all-Canadian routes -- would suffice, too.

Heck, I don't even trust wonderful, funky, casual-Fridays-seven-days-a-week WestJet to stay lean and innovative in the absence of other choices for passengers' dollars.

As a taxpayer, I don't like Air Canada, or WestJet or any other airline enough to bail them out and keep them in the skies. Making you and me give billions to air carriers through our taxes so we can save a couple hundred dollars on our next ticket to Montreal makes no sense.

Still, if there are going to be other options for my flying dollars, I think Frum is right: Air Canada is a good one. And I never expected to say that.

National Post

You can see the gulf in the world that Obama is trying to bridge when you compare the shock that some in Washington feel when they see Obama actually trying to stop illegal West Bank settlements and the latest poll from Egypt:

Walter Shapiro: "Dodd, who is one of the last of the old-style Ted Kennedy liberals in the Senate, still has the potential to eke out another term. Connecticut is such a Democratic state that its last orthodox Republican senator was (it is worth waiting for) Prescott Bush, the father of one president and the grandfather of another. (To be technical, erratic liberal Lowell Weicker was also a GOP senator, but certainly not an orthodox one.) Attorney General Richard Blumenthal -- the one powerhouse Democratic statewide official who could theoretically challenge Dodd in a primary -- is apparently prepared to wait and hope that Joe Lieberman (remember him?) does not run for re-election in 2012."