Maybe

Maybe it’s a start. Regarding the terrorist attack on the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo in Paris that was carried out by Islamic terrorists, President Barack Obama issued this statement:

I strongly condemn the horrific shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris that has reportedly killed 12 people. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrorist attack and the people of France at this difficult time. France is America’s oldest ally, and has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorists who threaten our shared security and the world. Time and again, the French people have stood up for the universal values that generations of our people have defended. France, and the great city of Paris where this outrageous attack took place, offer the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers. We are in touch with French officials and I have directed my Administration to provide any assistance needed to help bring these terrorists to justice.

Missing from this, though, is any reference to the terrorists as being Muslims or any oblique reference to that by noting that among the things those Islamic terrorists shouted during their rampage, was “We’ve avenged the honor of the prophet!” and the usual Islamic terrorist shout of “Allahu Akbar!”

Still, also missing from the statement is Obama’s usual moral equivalence temporizing by suggesting that Charlie Hebdo shouldn’t have provoked the Muslims in the first place.

Hey, it’s a new year. Maybe Obama is…changing. Condemn me for an optimist.

Separately,CharlieHebdo

Terrorists in the Courtroom

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said late Tuesday that the state of Palestine will join the International Criminal Court on April 1, a high-stakes move that will enable the Palestinians to pursue war-crimes charges against Israel.

That’s what the AP is reporting (I’ll elide the AP’s cynicism in referring to this organization as a “state”).

Keep in mind, which Ban seems to have chosen not to do, that the terrorist gang based in Gaza, Hamas, merged with the Palestinian Authority into a Unity Government to “govern” both Gaza and areas of the West Bank under the PA flag. Shortly after that merger, the PA last summer launched its 50-day terror war against Israel.

Now, courtesy of Ban and the UN, we’ll have terrorists in the ICC, not as the defendants they should be, but as parties whose opinions actually are taken seriously.

It’s one more reason not to take the International Court seriously.

The Lexicon of the Left

Daniel Hannan has one. Below are some definitions (with an occasional edit to bring it to the American Left).

RIGHT-WING: Baddie. Vladimir Putin, a lifelong KGB man who regrets the break-up of the USSR, is invading neighboring countries. This is a bad thing, so he must be “right-wing.” The mullahs in Iran abolished the monarchy, nationalized industry, and drove most of the middle classes into exile. But they’re also nasty, so they, too, must be “right-wing.” A crazed gunman goes into a school and…. [O]h, you get the picture. [Ed: Republicans oppose the Left; this is a Bad Thing, and so “right-wing.” Conservatives want to shrink government. This is a Very Bad Thing, and so “far right-wing.”]

DIVERSITY: People who look different but think the same way. Diversity applies to race, sex, disability, and sexual orientation. It emphatically does not apply to opinion. Indeed, when it comes to political views, it has taken on more or less the opposite of its Oldspeak meaning. [Ed: It’s good to have diversity from the presence of blacks and women. But when these worthies are Republicans or Conservatives, it’s a Doubly Very Bad Thing. These folks aren’t “right-wing;” they’re traitors to their race and/or gender.]

GREED: Wanting to keep your own money.

NEED: Wanting to be given someone else’s.

COMPASSION: A politician arranging the transfer.

DISCRIMINATION: Being unpleasant to women or black people. Literally, of course, discrimination simply means discernment. It is something we practice every time we decide between alternatives. But its political undertones have spilled over into every usage of the word, so that discrimination, in any context, becomes discreditable. A firm that discriminates in favor of properly qualified applicants, or a university that insists on good exam results, cannot wholly escape the sense that it is doing something shameful. [Ed: Hurting the feelings of a fellow student or of one’s professor.]

POVERTY: Inequality. Poverty is officially defined in the UK as having an income less than 60% of the mean. A few people get rich and, even if you’re better off in absolute terms, you’re suddenly “poor.” Funnily enough, the recent recession, which saw incomes drop at every level, caused a fall in “poverty” by this definition, but Lefties were more upset than ever. There really is no pleasing some people. [Ed: See the Federal Poverty Guideline. American poverty, far from being an intellectual characteristic of our Left, starts (depending on the favored program) anywhere from 100% to 200% above the Guideline.]

PREJUDICE: Hating other people. In its literal sense, prejudice simply means pre-judging a new situation on the basis of past experience. If you see an expensively dressed man, your prejudice tells you that he is likely to be well off. If a politician rings your doorbell, your prejudice tells you that he is probably after your vote. As Edmund Burke argued in his Reflections, life would become intolerable if we had to think everything through from first principles. But the anathematization of the word also touches its original meaning. If your common sense tells you that longer sentences would cut crime, or that there is a limit to how much immigration a country can absorb, it’s because you are prejudiced. [Ed: Prejudice—hating other people—is a contextual thing, though. It’s OK to hate Republicans.]

TAX CUTS: Squalid public services. For some reason, talk of tax cuts makes us think not of our tax returns but of our local amenities. It’s not so much that we believe that there is a direct link between spending and performance; it’s just that the phrase “tax cuts” automatically conjures up a series of images in our minds: leaky school roofs, bodies lying on trolleys in corridors, and pin-striped Tory spivs selling off school playing fields to their friends in the City…. [Ed: because it’s the Left’s absolute right to spend our money for us; we’re just too stupid to be trusted with that. So we’re taxed.]

FREE SPEECH: Support for racists. We have been told so often that “free speech can never be used as an excuse for racism” that the two things have become conflated in our minds. Arguing for the first automatically opens you to the accusation of supporting the second. If you think that I exaggerate, cast your mind back to the case of the pensioner in Liverpool who was charged with “racially aggravated criminal damage” after scrawling “Free speech for England” on a condemned wall. [Ed: This, too, is contextual. What the Left says is free speech; what Republicans or Conservatives say is Hate Speech.]

CONSERVATIVE: Neanderthal. Like “right-wing” (q.v.), but with the added bonus that it can be applied to both sides in the same conflict. Islamist “conservatives” want to impose headscarves while Western “conservatives” want to ban them. Hardline Israeli settlers and hardline Hamas terrorists are both “conservatives.” And so on. [Ed: Also: not Left.]

Student Free Speech

Sohrab Ahmari had an op-ed in a recent Wall Street Journal describing the travails of a Brandeis University (of their cowardice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali infamy) student because he committed the horrible crime of speaking his piece regarding Israel and a fellow…student’s…attitude to that country.

RTWT; it’s an excellent piece in its own right.

My takeaway, and Ahmari’s, is that, in order for a student to protect his own free speech rights—much less to recover any school to its duty of fostering open inquiry and debate, no matter where that debate might lead or how uncomfortable the outcome might be for students, faculty, or administration—it’s necessary to engage a lawyer and pursue the matter in open court (or in the Brandeis student’s case, convince the school that that’s where the rest of the free speech discussion will occur).

That’s expensive, and not all students will be able to afford that. A few things about this, though.

One is that the cost of generating publicity can range from cheap to free. Continue speaking out, writing letters to editors—to newspapers outside the school, also—talking to reporters and to any radio and TV station talk show who’ll listen: keep the injustice in the eye of the school’s public. The school—Brandeis, for instance—may well threaten to expel such a misbehaving student? OK. Is such a school worth the student’s time and money—especially a high-priced private school like Brandeis? Is the student really going to get a decent education at such an arbitrarily restrictive school?

Another is to demonstrate the absurdity of the “free” speech and hurt feelings rules. Conservative students should invoke the same rules, loudly, vociferously, and determinedly every time they come under fire for the things they say.

The last is go ahead and do the lawyer and lawsuit bit. There are organizations like FIRE that often are in a position to help, and there are occasional lawyers will to take on such cases at a discount or even pro bono. Even if forced to pay full freight, though, where possible, bring the suit, and bring it hard.

The Brandeis student’s case didn’t come to fruition because the student whose feewings had got hurted dropped his university beef when he realized he’d have to defend his feelings in open court. That helped the victim student, but it helped only him.

In general, I don’t think it’s useful to settle with such schools. If those administrators had any integrity, the (threat of) lawsuits to protect free speech wouldn’t be necessary in the first place, and so such administrators cannot be trusted to honor any settlements that their mouths might speak or their pens sign. Bring the suits. Don’t give quarter; those administrators aren’t offering any. Burn such dishonesty to the ground, and scatter the ashes.

An Idle Thought of my Own

…on the subject of language, triggered by John H. McWhorter’s piece in a recent Wall Street Journal. He wrote about the likelihood of English being the sole planetary language in 100 years. He suggests it’s very unlikely that English—or any other language—will become the sole language any time soon, and for a variety of reasons.

He never got into why that might be a good thing, though. He did mention

If all humans had always spoken a single language, would anyone wish we were instead separated now by thousands of different ones?

Which is what triggered my idle thought.

It’s good that we’ve never had a single language; it’s good that we developed a variety of civilizations from a plethora of languages.

Language is thought. Language is both how we express our ideas and how we develop ideas in the first place: the one feeds back into and informs the other. Differing modes of thinking produce differing modes of problem recognition and of solution. There’s no doubt in my pea brain that we’ve made, as a species, the technological, political, and social progress that we have because of our varying languages and their varying problem handling sets. A single language would have slowed us down a lot more, and it would have left us with blind spots and problems unrecognized and recognized problems unsolved that we have, in fact, worked through or are in the process of working through.

We need lots of unrelated languages, because we need the broad range of thinking. We’ll stagnate as a species when we are reduced to a single language.