I'm watching President Bush's State of the Union speech (no liveblogging here, just a comment), and I can't believe that Cindy Sheehan (just back from visiting Hugo Chavez) was so stupid as to lose a golden opportunity to mug for the camera.

WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was taken into custody by police in the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush's State of the Union address.

Police escorted Sheehan from the visitors' gallery above the House chamber after causing a disruption, said a Capitol Police official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the incident were sketchy.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., had invited Sheehan to the address as her guest.

The cameras would have been trained on her. Money can't buy that kind of attention -- especially for someone who's running for Senate!

Who the hell is running her campaign, anyway?

MORE (9:56 p.m.): Cindy Sheehan's unfurling of the banner (a violation of House rules) was confirmed by reports at CNN and CBS.

AND MORE: What did the banner say?

I don't know, but take a close look at the document Hugo is holding as he hugs Cindy.

MORE: Reports are now saying that it wasn't a banner but a T-shirt.

Capitol Police said Sheehan wore a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan that was covered until she took her seat. Officers said they warned her the display was illegal but she allegedly ignored them. She's charged with unlawful conduct.

I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.

There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:

This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?

[]

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

[]

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

[]

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.

Love and peace soon,

Cindy

MORE: Police have dropped all charges against Cindy Sheehan:

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

Is the phenomenon of pedestrians attacking vehicles becoming a fad? Not long ago, I wrote a post about a group of "at least 15" Milwaukee kids who dragged a man from his car and beat him nearly to death.

Today I find a similar story out of Illinois:

(CBS) BELLWOOD, Ill. A UPS driver was savagely beaten by middle school students while delivering packages in the western suburbs Friday.

The attack happened in Bellwood along the 3200 block of St. Charles. A teenager was arrested Monday after admitting he was involved in the incident. Another juvenile is expected to turn himself in Tuesday to appear in a line-up.

In a CBS 2 excusive, Joanie Lum talked to the man who was savagely beaten just trying to do his job.

UPS driver Thomas Murphy says he was beaten by a group of school kids on busy St. Charles Road in Bellwood, the route he has driven for 12 years.

He says a teenager walked out in front of his delivery truck Friday at about 3 p.m. When he stopped the truck, 15 to 20 youths surrounded him.

"Somebody clocked me with a pipe. I took kicks from my right. My eyes caked over. I tried to get up and defend myself as best I could," Murphy said.

He was beaten from his head to his ankles.

And, according to this site, the school isn't doing a very good job of educating them. In 2005, only 15% of Roosevelt Middle School's 8th grade students met or exceeded Illinois' Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) standards in Math.

Such poor academic performance may not be related to criminal attacks, but I think it indicates that either the schools aren't doing their job of teaching, or the kids have little interest in learning. If the latter is the case, does it really make sense to force them to attend school?

Said the driver,

"Somebody should be held accountable for these kids. They run wild like a pack of wolves, where's the parents?"

Whether it's the school, the parents, or the children who are to blame, it's a shame these children are being left behind. But there's one thing I wouldn't leave behind if I had to drive past that Illinois holding facility they call a school, and that's a gun.

Easy for me to say. The problem is, incidents like these always seem to happen in states like Illinois and Wisconsin which don't allow concealed carry.

There's hope for Wisconsin, though. The Senate just overrode the governor's veto of the recently passed concealed carry law.

UPDATE: Jeff Soyer has more on the Wisconsin veto override.

A book called "The New Gay Teenager" is causing a fuss among North Carolina parents because it was used in a school seminar and is believed to be promoting the so-called "gay agenda."

It is one thing to maintain that kids shouldn't be exposed to any discussions of homosexuality.

But the gay agenda?

From what I can see about the book, it violates a central tenet of the "Gay Agenda" because it discards the all-important doctrine of sexual identity politics:

ITHACA, N.Y. -- The so-called "gay adolescent" soon will disappear, predicts a Cornell University expert on teenage sexuality in a new book. These adolescents will still have the same desires, fantasies and attractions, he writes, but they no longer will need or want to identify themselves as gay.

"The new gay teenager is in many respects the non-gay teenager," says Ritch Savin-Williams, professor and chair of human development in Cornell's College of Human Ecology in his new book, The New Gay Teenager (Harvard University Press, 2005). Savin-Williams is an expert on issues concerning gay, lesbian and bisexual youths and is a licensed clinical psychologist who works with gay youths and their families.

Savin-Williams argues that the majority of young people who engage in gay sex consider themselves heterosexual and that the majority of youths with same-sex attractions do not call themselves gay.

Such labels as "gay" no longer work when describing young people's sexuality, he says, because some teens have same-sex crushes but don't act on them or call them "gay love affairs." Some believe they are gay for a while and then not gay for a while. Still others might consider themselves gay only in certain situations.

"Most same-sex-attracted young people engage in sexual activities with both sexes. Some are homoerotic in some sexual domains and not in others. Similarly, one can be little or greatly same-sex attracted, in varying degrees and in varying ways," says Savin-Williams. In fact, he says, between 15 and 20 percent of adolescents have some degree of same-sex orientation, yet only 3 to 4 percent embrace a gay or bisexual identity or report same-sex activities. Most young people don't link their sexuality to their identity.

What kind of people would object to that?

People who want sexuality linked to identity?

I am reminded of one of the first posts in this blog. I know I'm repeating myself but here's what I said in 2002 (before I really started blogging in earnest):

The Problem With Anti-Gay Bigots

...is that they want to find out what it is that other people do sexually, and then they want to claim them in some sort of brotherhood, or else disown them as unfit people to associate with. They demand the right to tell other people how to raise their children, particularly as to their definition of human sexuality. Once they identify a person as heterosexual, they encourage, even demand, a liturgy of constant self-affirmation of heterosexuality as the best measuring stick of a human being's worth. As if such peer pressure isn't bad enough in itself, one's sexual desires are now considered a litmus test of one's politics!

The Problem With Gay Bigots

...is that they want to find out what it is that other people do sexually, and then they want to claim them in some sort of brotherhood, or else disown them as unfit people to associate with. They demand the right to tell other people how to raise their children, particularly as to their definition of human sexuality. Once they identify a person as homosexual, they encourage, even demand, a liturgy of constant self-affirmation of homosexuality as the best measuring stick of a human being's worth. As if such peer pressure isn't bad enough in itself, one's sexual desires are now considered a litmus test of one's politics!

Sexual bigotry is the worst sort of identity politics, and identity politics sucks!

UPDATE: More on the North Carolina controversy surrounding "The New Gay Teenager" here. Excerpt:

Jim and Beverly Burrows say their son returned home from last year’s Governor’s School “confused” about homosexuality as a result of the seminar, and that they have had to seek family counseling.

“We feel that this was totally inappropriate for the students who were 15, 16, and 17 years old,” the Burrowses wrote to officials at the State Departament of Public Instruction. “We feel that our rights as parents have been violated by this program.”

In addition to complaining to DPI officials, the Burrowses wrote to editors at several newspapers in North Carolina. DPI officials have defended the seminar, saying it was optional for students to attend, as is the Governor’s School itself.

The seminar, “The New Gay Teenager,” was based on a book with the same name, written by homosexual Cornell University professor Ritch Savin-Williams. The book and the Governor’s School seminar discussed whether homosexual teen-agers benefit, or are harmed, by embracing labels based on their sexual orientation. The co-leaders of the seminar identified themselves as gay, Mrs. Burrows said — which is supported by documentation obtained by Carolina Journal.

The boy bought the book, and his parents returned it:

“At last I can hope that contemporary teenagers are bringing the sexual identity era to a close,” Savin-Williams wrote in the book’s preface. “I celebrate this development, because my lifetime professional dream — that homosexuality will be eliminated as a defining characteristic of adolescents, a way of cutting and isolating, of separating and discriminating — is within reach.”

The Governor’s School seminar inspired at least one of the students — the Burrowses’ son — to purchase the book, which his parents promptly returned.

I don't know how many readers remember the history of SWAT Teams, but I can remember when they started. "SWAT" is an acronym for "Special Weapons And Tactics." They are to police as Special Forces are to regular army, and they were formed in response to the various urban insurrections and guerrilla movements of the 1960s:

The first significant deployment of LAPD's SWAT unit was on 9 December 1969, in a four-hour confrontation with members of the Black Panthers. The Panthers finally surrendered, with only three Panthers and three officers being injured. By 1974, there was a general acceptance of SWAT as a resource for the city and county of Los Angeles.

On the afternoon of 17 May 1974, elements of a group which called itself the "Symbionese Liberation Army" (SLA), a group of heavily-armed leftists, barricaded themselves in a residence on East 54th Street at Compton Avenue. Coverage of the siege was broadcast to millions via television and radio and featured in the world press for days after. Negotiations were opened with the barricaded suspects on 26 separate occasions, 18 prior to the introduction of tear gas, and 10 during the ensuing confrontation. Police units did not fire until the SLA had fired several volleys of semi-automatic and fully automatic gunfire at them. In spite of the 3,772 rounds fired by the SLA, no uninvolved citizens or police officers sustained injury from gunfire.

Justin directed my attention to this Reason piece. The underlying story is a real eye-opener (if you'll forgive the pun) which ought to give pause to the growing misuse of SWAT Teams in this country.

An 37 year old optometrist (who hadn't taken hostages and who had, so far as I can tell, zero known connections to terrorism) was accused of taking money for sports bets. Yes, if he did that it's illegal; while you might be allowed to drive to Atlantic City to place bets, if you do it for someone else, that makes you a "bookie." I'm not sure how many optometrists do this sort of thing, and I don't know the man's personal story. If he did it, it might have been for the extra money; maybe for the thrill. But there's no evidence (or even allegation) that he was a violent criminal in any way. Nonetheless, the SWAT Team arrived at his home last Tuesday night, and an officer "accidentally" fired a .45 caliber Heckler & Koch into his chest.

Very, very few people live after having a .45 fired through their chests. That's because the .45 was developed to stop berserk Moro warriors during Philippine insurrections, and its "stopping power" is legendary:

During the same time frame that John Browning was working on many of his 128 patents, a tribe of warriors, the Moro, were giving the U.S. Army a very hard time in the Philippines. To prepare for battle, the Moro would bind their limbs with leather, take narcotics, and use religious ritual to gain an altered state of consciousness, this turned them into virtual Supermen. The .38 Long Colt pistol round the U.S. soldiers had simply would not stop the Moro. Of note is the fact that the Krag rifles the U.S. issued were also barely more than useless.

Remembering the experience with the Moros and after extensive testing on animals and human cadavers, Col. John T. Thompson (inventor of the Thompson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, of the Army Ordnance Board, determined that the Army needed a .45 caliber cartridge to provide adequate stopping power.

Though most Fairfax officers are issued 9mm handguns, tactical unit officers sometimes are issued more powerful weapons. Police confirmed yesterday that Culosi, who graduated from Bishop O'Connell High School and the University of Virginia, was shot with a .45-caliber pistol made by Heckler & Koch, a larger weapon that authorities said would not have a trigger that could be easily tripped.

"It's a very safe gun," said David Yates, a local firearms trainer and range safety officer. "Very high quality. Not a hair trigger. Very reliable. Very accurate."

Yates said there were two possible reasons why Culosi was shot: "Ignorance and carelessness." And because police said the officer was highly trained, he couldn't have been ignorant of gun-safety procedures, Yates said.

"We're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight," Yates said. "But it's not an accident."

But are SWAT Teams really just "people" in the ordinary sense? Are they the same as ordinary police? There is something ruthless, warlike, and robotically impersonal about SWAT Teams. I think they are necessary, but their use in ordinary warrant situations like this invites tragedy.

In any event, the most the family of this optometrist can hope to do is get some money from the city, and maybe the latter will be persuaded to discipline the officer. But I seriously doubt that they'll examine whether it was proper to essentially "send in the special forces" against a healing arts practitioner accused of a victimless, nonviolent crime.

That won't stop it from happening again, because as Radley Balko points out, it's now "all-SWAT-all-the-time":

The phrase "police state" is often overused. It's almost a cliche. But if the Fairfax police department is serving every warrant with cops decked out in battle gear, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a more appropriate term.

And you'd be hard-pressed to argue against the fact that Fairfax's all-SWAT-all-the-time policy is the reason Culosi is dead. Had a couple of detectives served the search warrant, in the presence of a couple of troopers, he'd still be alive.

Let's also not lose sight of what precipitated this raid. Gambling. Fairfax cops sent a SWAT team after a bookie like Culosi (I'm not yet convinced he was a big-time bookie, but let's assume) out of some paternalistic notion that the government is obligated to protect its citizens from wagering away their rent money.

Meanwhile, in 2004 alone, the Virginia lottery spent $21 million on "advertising and marketing" aimed at persuading its citizens to gamble.

Odd form of paternalism, isn't it?

AFTERTHOUGHT: It occurs to me that this might all come down to money. If the Fairfax SWAT Teams are a separate item in the city's police budget, then the Police Department might have an economic motivation to "use them or lose them," because bureaucracy tends to invite budget cuts whenever an entity fails to use its resources. Which might mean that the fewer incidents of hostage taking and terrorism there are in Fairfax County, the less money that's needed for the SWAT Team. . .

(If a few citizens have to die, why, that's a small price to pay.)

With all the fuss over the Danish cartoons, it occurred to me that readers of this blog might want to see them. And thanks to Right on the Left Coast, you can! Here's a web site which has all of them.

By American standards, they're quite mild.

Here's an example:

Hmmm....

I'm already feeling guilty.

I'm thinking that maybe the title of this post is a bit harsh.

Tell you what; I'll be sure to apologize as soon as that cartoon appears in the Philadelphia Inquirer!

UPDATE (1/31/06): While they don't appear in hard copy, today's Inquirer is directing readers interested in seeing the cartoons to this link.

Frankly, I'm stunned. Tongue-tied! Speechless!

But since the Inky has linked to the cartoons, I'm linking b-b-b-back in the most apologetic manner p-p-p-possible . . .

MORE: In an unrelated matter, AOL is being accused of "blasphemy" for using the expression "I AM."

Are you concerned?

Am I serious?

(Am I allowed to say "I AM"?)

MORE: Here's the image of the, er, blasphemy in question:

Isn't it obvious that the above was meant to offend God?

AND MORE: The Commissar is reprinting the cartoons, and urging all bloggers to do the same.

MORE: The debate is heating up, and Denmark has picked up a few allies:

Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.

Seven publications in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all carried some of the drawings.

Their publication in Denmark led Arab nations to protest. Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet.

The owner of one of the papers to reprint - France Soir - has now sacked its managing editor over the matter.

The cartoons have sparked diplomatic sanctions and death threats in some Arab nations, while media watchdogs have defended publication of the images in the name of press freedom.

Reporters Without Borders said the reaction in the Arab world "betrays a lack of understanding" of press freedom as "an essential accomplishment of democracy."

More here on growing European support for free speech. (Via InstaPundit.)

UPDATE: Postrel to Islam: grow up. (HT Justin.)

UPDATE (02/04/06): Notwithstanding claims about the MSM to the contrary, today's Philadelphia Inquirer ran the following as hard copy:

INTERNATIONAL UPDATE: My apologies for any margin problems in the text which follows. I did the best I could with the html from the Support Denmark website.

MORE INTERNATIONAL NEWS: An Egyptian Newspaper published the cartoons in October with not a word of protest. (Via Pajamas Media and Solomonia.)

It's tough not to conclude that the current event is largely manufactured outrage.

UPDATE: On Saturday, February 11, the Philadelphia Inquirer was picketed for reprinting the above cartoon, in a nonviolent protest by hundreds of local Muslims:

Hundreds of Muslims chanted and carried banners and signs outside the Inquirer-Daily News Building yesterday, protesting The Inquirer's decision to reprint a caricature of the prophet Muhammad.

Many said they thought that the paper had defamed their religion by publishing an image that has angered Muslims across the world and resulted in mass protests and the burning of Western embassies. Many Muslims consider any depiction of Muhammad to be sacrilegious.

"We feel very strongly The Inquirer could have covered the news without printing this inflammatory cartoon," said Zia Haq, 43, of Collegeville.

The cartoon, one of several originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September, depicts Islam's chief prophet with a lit bomb stuck in his turban. It ran in The Inquirer on Feb. 4 with a story about the dilemma faced by the media over reprinting the cartoon. The image was accompanied by a note, which said, in part, "The Inquirer intends no disrespect to the religious beliefs of any of its readers."

Most U.S. newspapers have opted not to publish the images.

Inquirer editor Amanda Bennett, publisher Joe Natoli, and deputy managing editor Carl Lavin meandered through the crowd yesterday, introducing themselves and thanking people for coming. "I think this is really an opportunity to build some bridges," Bennett said.

Bennett has said that the cartoon was reprinted to provide readers with "a perspective of what the controversy's about."

With more speech, not less.

It's a lesson in why speech needs to be kept free.

UPDATE: The Philadelphia Inquirer is running a poll asking the following question:

Do you think it was appropriate to publish one of the cartoons from the Danish newspaper?

Philadelphians (especially feminists) can relax a little. Hamas is not so bad after all. Why, the Hamas victory can even be said to be the result of a gender gap:

JABALIYA, Gaza Strip - The girls and women who came to congratulate Hamas' top female candidate, Jamila Shanti, after her party's landslide victory in last week's Palestinian parliamentary election wore veils and robes in the tradition of fundamentalist Islam.

They brought Shanti a floral wreath. She gave them sweets wrapped in paper decorated with Koranic verses about how to lead a virtuous life.

Plastic chairs were arrayed under a leaky lean-to that barely kept out the rain as three dozen voices chanted: "God is great," sang the praises of Hamas leaders killed in Israeli airstrikes, and extolled the virtues of jihad, Hamas' holy war, which has included scores of suicide bombings in which hundreds of Israelis have been killed.

In this scene of sisterly radicalism, say the Hamas party faithful, lies one of the seeds of the group's sweeping electoral success: a targeted effort to get their women to the polls.

"Palestinian society is more than 52 percent women. It is said that women are going to draw the future map of Palestine," said Shanti, 48, a Gaza University professor of philosophy and psychology.

While just 46 percent of the overall vote was cast by women in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, it was disproportionately weighted in favor of Hamas, said Birzeit University pollster Nader Said, citing post-election analyses.

"Women tend to vote Hamas more than men," which is one of the factors behind the crushing defeat of the ruling Fatah party that had dominated Palestinian politics for decades, Said said.

By Western standards, the enforced separation of men and women at Hamas rallies, the shrouding of women in head-to-toe abayas and the slitted veils that some women wear, revealing just their eyes, would seem to mitigate against sexual equality.

As a lawmaker-elect, Shanti said, she wants to "correct the misunderstanding" that Islamic women are second-class citizens behind their veils in a purely patriarchial society.

"It means they are respected," she said. "But as women, we have some special issues."

Among the top issues she cited are helping the families of prisoners and deceased fighters she called martyrs; helping women university graduates to find work; helping women who are themselves in prison; helping people with disabilities; and helping women who live in the border areas, like herself, to rebuild homes destroyed in the fighting.

Ironically, women in hardline Islamic societies do have "special issues" -- brought on by the most brutal oppression imaginable directed at them. When I see radical Islam presented as the feminist choice, it makes me feel like presenting arguments from the other side.

While I don't consider it the normal responsibility of this blog to do this, I feel particularly obligated right now, because there's something downright creepy about this soft line towards religious oppression by a progressive, top ten, MSM newspaper in a major city.

Examples of religious oppression of Palestinian women are not limited to the veil. In recent months, there was a spate of so-called "honor killings" -- including the brutal murder by Hamas of an engaged woman whose only crime was riding with her husband:

During a particularly brutal spate of honor killings in early 2005, five Palestinian women were murdered in four separate incidences over a short period of time. Faten Habash spent six weeks in hospital after she threw herself from her family's fourth floor apartment window. Upon her return home, her father bludgeoned her to death with an iron bar.

Two days later, Maher Shakirat attacked his three sisters. The eldest, Rudaina, was eight months pregnant and had been admonished by her husband after he claimed she'd had an affair. Maher forced his sisters to drink bleach before strangling them. The youngest, Leila, escaped but had serious internal injuries from the effect of the bleach.

Rafayda Qaoud shared a bedroom in her Ramallah home with her two brothers. After they raped and impregnated her, she gave birth to a baby boy who was adopted by another family. Her mother then gave Rafayda a razor blade and ordered her to slash her own wrists. When she refused to commit suicide, her mother pulled a plastic bag tightly over her head, sliced open her daughter's wrists and beat her with a stick until she was dead.

Palestinian feminist Abu Dayyeh Shamas claims that: "Men feel they have lost their dignity and that they can somehow restore it by upholding the family's honour. We've noticed recent cases are much more violent in nature; attempts to kill, rape, incest. There is an incredible amount of incest." One women's group reported over 400 cases of incest in the West Bank alone in 2002.

Anthropologist James Emery explained in 2003, how "among Palestinians, all sexual encounters, including rape and incest, are blamed on the woman." Men are always presumed innocent and the responsibility falls on the woman or girl to protect her honor at all costs. When 17-year-old Afaf Younes ran away from her father after he allegedly sexually assaulted her, she was caught and sent home to him. He then shot and killed her to protect his honor.

And when a four-year-old toddler was raped by a 25 year-old man in 2002, her Palestinian family left her to bleed to death because her rape had dishonored the family.

Emery described a Palestinian merchant explaining this cultural view of femininity as "A woman shamed is like rotting flesh, if it is not cut away, it will consume the body. What I mean is the whole family will be tainted if she is not killed."

Recently in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas has defined a new role for itself in guarding the morality of young Muslim women. A group of men who identified itself as a Hamas "morality squad" attacked 19-year-old Yousra al-Azam after she had sat at the beach with her husband-to-be and another couple. She was shot in the head and died in the street as her murderers beat her with batons. The growing influence of Hamas with its fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law is concerning women's groups, which fear it will gain power and moral legitimacy in the coming elections.

It appears that Palestinian women do indeed have "special issues."

Another writer, in examining the growth of female suicide bombers, argues that sexual shame is a major driving force behind them:

A suicidal self-sacrifice for the cause, carried out by a lady, must also exercise a powerful appeal to emulation on the part of men who are still doubting whether to go through with it. And it fits in easily enough, says Mia Bloom, with the codes of conduct and honor that prevail in the societies concerned.

She recalls the case of Reem Riashi, the mother of two children and the first woman of Hamas to sacrifice herself, forced to this extreme by both her husband and her lover, as a definitive solution to the scandal of her adultery.

Bloom considers it likely that many suicidal women have undergone rape or some sort of humiliation in their childhood or adolescence: "Everywhere sexual violence against women, and the social stigma associated with rape in patriarchal societies, seems to be a common motive for women who put an end to their lives" (Mother, daughter, sister, bomber, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Nov-Dec. 2005).

In this way women may indeed be said to be playing a role in the style of politics that goes on in the societies they live in, but they do so in their own way, which is almost always strictly under the thumb of male domination.

If being a victim of rape is dishonorable under hardline Islamic rule, it's easy to see why Islamic women would claim they have "special issues." Considering what it must be like to live under such cultural tyranny, it's hard not to feel very sorry for them.

But to those of us living in the "decadent" West, there's nothing dishonorable about having been the victim of a heinous crime like rape. Nor is there anything honorable about killing women for having been raped or for being unveiled.

Or do "decadent" "Western" concepts of honor no longer matter?

While there seems to be a disagreement over the meaning of the word, I think it's decadent if they don't.

Probably aglow in contemplation of the recent election, the Palestinians now want the Danes out of their territory:

Dozens of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades members held a demonstration against Denmark Sunday at the main square in the West Bank town of Nablus, shouted anti-Danish slogans and threatened to harm Danish targets located in the West Bank and Gaza.

Sunday's demonstration is the last in a string of Muslim rallies to protest the recent publication of a series of caricatures mocking Muslim prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

The caricatures, including one that depicts Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, stirred outrage among the Muslim community in Denmark that soon crossed borders and spread to other countries as well.

During the demonstration in Nablus, participants threatened to harm Danish interests in the territories and called on all Danish representatives and activists operating in the area to leave immediately. Members of the organization also urged Danish citizens planning to enter the territories to refrain from doing so in order to avoid being hurt.

Protesters also demanded the Palestinian public to suspend all ties with Denmark, in light of what they described as a "serious insult to Muslim sentiments."

An al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades senior member told Ynet that "the Danish campaign against the prophet Muhammad constitutes part of the crusade the western world conducts against Islam."

Not so fast, Mr. Al Aksa. Historically, the only crusades in which Denmark was known to have participated were the Northern Crusades. These Baltic conversion missions were not directed against Islam, but against Pagans in nearby Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland. (And this interesting essay looks for evidence of Scandinavian involvement with the better known Crusades in the Mideast -- known as the Holy Land -- but finds none.)

Nevertheless, the evil, crusading Danes have to go, and the al-Aksa activists claim this has no relationship to the recent election:

The activist stressed the demonstration was not related to recent political developments in the territories and to Hamas' win in the elections.

"This is a demonstration for Islam and against the enemies of Islam. We are not interested in seeing Danish nationals here, and we are currently debating how to act against them within our borders," he added.

Meanwhile, the International Islamic Council on Saturday called on all Muslims to make sure their protest against Denmark takes only peaceful means.

"We ask all members of the Islamic nations to express their views in a calm and civilized manner, and to avoid getting carried away and make mistakes unbecoming of Muhammad's way," the organization said in a statement.

Notably, Saudi Arabia has already recalled its ambassador from Copenhagen last week, claiming Denmark has not done enough to appease offended worshippers.

The cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posen has remained unapologetic, saying he put out the call in response to a worrying trend he had observed in the Western media: self-censorship. The paper has received bomb threats and the editors and the cartoonists have received death threats from adherents of the Religion of Peace but all have stood their ground.

With great bravery, so has Denmark’s prime minister, Anders Rasmussen, who declined a requested meeting with the ambassadors from 11 Muslim countries, saying he has no control over Denmark’s press “and nor do I want such”.

This was last September and the Muslims aren’t letting this issue go away. They’ve already lodged a somewhat florid protest at the UN, where they got the sympathy of a tranzi ear or two. But their aim is an abject apology from Denmark for breaking an Islamic taboo - or else. They grow more threatening and the courageous Anders Rasmussen calmly declines to change his mind, saying publishing cartoons is not against Danish law, which is the law that applies in Denmark.

Why are our cowardly leaders letting the steadfast Mr Rasmussen and the newspaper’s editors take the heat alone? Why has not one American Congressman raised the issue in Congress? No one would expect an unequivocal response from the British prime minister, but is there not one British MP brave enough to support Mr Rasmussen and the Danish people who are, after all, defending the liberty of all of us? Is there not one newspaper editor – even a tabloid – with the strength of conviction to support the Danes? Now Danish livelihoods are being threatened for failing to condemn this infraction against Islamic law, with boycotts of their products.

Is there not one damn’ politician in the entire Anglosphere who will take a stand with Mr Rasmussen? What about John Howard, then? The newly elected Harper? God help us, where is Jesse Jackson?

So far, the sole support has come from Norway....

I'm glad Scandinavians have started a Crusade for free speech. The world could use more of it.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: While I don't know how closely the al-Aksa Brigade works with Hamas, I read here that "Hamas finances, trains and sends Fatah`s Al Aksa Martyrs and Popular Committee militants to attack." I also think it's worth remembering that Hamas is largely Saudi funded.

UPDATE: A commenter below notes that Norway is a mixed bag because they recognize the Hamas government. But actually, it's worse than I thought, as Norway's left-wing foreign minister has gone so far as to apologize for Norwegian newspaper cartoons which had expressed solidarity with Denmark's:

Let it be clear that the Norwegian government condemns every expression or act which expresses contempt for people on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. Norway has always supported the fight of the UN against religious intolerance and racism, and believes that this fight is important in order to avoid suspicion and conflict. Tolerance, mutual respect and dialogue are the basis values of Norwegian society and of our foreign policy.

Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of Norwegian society. This includes tolerance for opinions that not everyone shares. At the same time our laws and our international obligations enforce restrictions for incitement to hatred or hateful expressions.

Opposition politicians reacted to this message with indignation. Jon Lilletun, the spokesman on foreign policy for the Christian-democrat Kristelig Folkeparti, points out that it is not the ministry’s task to express an opinion on the content of the cartoons. Carl I. Hagen, the leader of the Progress Party, fears that freedom of expression is being swept under the carpet.

Magazinet published the cartoons in support of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which after publishing the drawings last September has been threatened with revenge by Muslim extremists. According to Islam it is blasphemy to depict Muhammad. The Danish government has consistently refused to give in to demands from Islamic countries that it apologize for the publication of the cartoons and introduce censorship.

As we noted before it is striking to see how Norwegian politics differs from Danish politics. The Norwegian Foreign Minister’s e-mail was meant to be confidential and not to be disclosed to the Norwegian public, “because,” as the Foreign Ministry wrote, “that would look rather stupid in the Norwegian press.” Apparently Muslims abroad are more deserving of respect than one’s own citizens. (Italics in original.)

Definitely a mixed bag.

Sounds like the voters in Norway need to make some changes. (No wonder their government is keeping the apology secret.)

UPDATE: Don't miss this post by Daily Pundit's Lastango. The political situation in Norway is more appalling than I thought.

MORE: Protests over the cartoon have escalated to the point of beatings as well as gunmen seizing an EU office:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - The controversy over Danish caricatures of Prophet Muhammad escalated Monday as gunmen seized an EU office in Gaza and Muslims appealed for a trade boycott of Danish products. Denmark called for its citizens in the Middle East to exercise vigilance.

Denmark-based Arla Foods, which has been the target of a widespread boycott in the Middle East, reported that two of its employees in Saudi Arabia were beaten by angry customers. Aid groups, meanwhile, pulled workers out of Gaza, citing the threat of hostilities.

Sometimes, I am not cynical enough. When I wrote about Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's publicity stunt (supplying discount oil to "help America's poor") earlier, I wasn't quite getting the entire picture, and I overlooked a key player. Today's Inquirer, however, was nice enough to supply a clear picture -- showing five faces beaming in "celebration" of the Chavez propaganda coup. The caption:

Celebrating the heating oil shipment in West Oak Lane were (from left) home owner Geraldine Shields, Felix Rodriguez of Citgo, U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d, and Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez.

As a small crowd waved U.S. and Venezuelan flags, a clutch of politicians and officials gathered on Shields' lawn to celebrate the deal, brokered by U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa) and a nonprofit energy cooperative.

Standing with Citgo chief executive officer Felix Rodriguez and Venezuela's ambassador to the United States, Bernardo Alvarez, Fattah called the program "a humanitarian gesture of extraordinary magnitude."

As part of the event, an oil truck rumbled up to Shields' house, and out stepped former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D., Mass). He is now president of Citizens Energy Corp., the nonprofit group financing the shipment.

What's going on?

If this report is correct (on a similar Chavez stunt in Massachusetts), former Congressman Kennedy has ample financial reason to celebrate:

The CEC [Citizens Energy Corp.] operates as a non-profit corporation but despite Kennedy’s personal wealth, which is reported to be in the millions of dollars, he receives compensation from his charitable endeavor of $400,000 a year based on CEC financial reports from 2003 (the last year upon which such reports were available).

The primary purpose of this deal is not to help the poor of Massachusetts but to create a much needed public relations coup for the tyrannical Chavez, thereby undermining public support for the Bush Administration’s efforts to, peacefully, bring about much needed reforms in Venezuela. Furthermore, it is clear that the executives of CEC, with their six- figure compensation packages, will benefit directly from the ability to purchase oil at below-market rates, from a nation that has directly supported terrorism and is presently working to destabilize democracy in South America.

Hugo Chavez has supported communist terrorists in Colombia, opposed free-trade agreements with neighboring countries, and referred to Saddam Hussein as "my brother". After the United States was attacked on September 11th, Chavez demonstrated his sympathy by stating, "The United States brought the attacks upon itself, for their arrogant imperialist foreign policy." Chavez has also been accused by a high ranking military defector from Venezuela, of transferring one million dollars to Osama bin Laden. As a direct result of this financial aid to Al Qaeda, the citizen’s action organization "Judicial Watch" has filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit against Hugo Chavez on behalf of the victims and survivors of September 11. The lawsuit alleges that Chavez provided material financial support and other assistance to the Al Qaeda terror network. In addition, Al Qaeda is reportedly to be presently operating a training camp on the Venezuelan island of Margarita.

Ironically, the vast financial power that Chavez welds, and uses, to support international terrorism abroad and political oppression within comes directly from his business dealings with United States oil traders such as Joe Kennedy. While Kennedy may be a small player in enriching Chavez and his anti-United States agenda, the people of the United States have become unwitting supporters of Chavez at the gas pumps.

I'll let Tim Worstall have the last word on the Kennedy-Chavez op:

A nice piece of political theatre for Chavez, of course. But that’s however many millions of $ that the poor Venezuelans are giving to the vastly richer Americans. Not really, on the face of it, a clever thing to do.

Joe Kennedy, the chairman of Citizens Energy, one of the organisations that will distribute the oil,

Ah, knew there had to be a Kennedy in something this stupid.

How can I be so cynical? After all, aren't these dictators and millionaires only trying help the poor?

Aurelia Blake is a teacher who does more than merely teach.

A story in today's Inquirer features a photo (not available online) of middle school children lying next to each other head to head and shoulder to shoulder in a "reenactment" of a slave ship. Underneath the picture is the following caption:

Mario Cosey keeps eyes wide open as he and schoolmates reenact the confining conditions of a slave ship. About 320 students in grades 7 through 12 took part in the exercise at McKinney Middle School in Yellow Springs, Ohio. Aurelia Blake, the teacher who headed the project, taped down the dimensions of a slave ship on the gym floor and packed the students within the lines to help them understand how slaves were transported to the Americas.

In the massed crowd of more than 100,000 people — some observers estimated 150,000, even 200,000 — were 42 teenagers from Yellow Springs, students at Yellow Springs High School and McKinney Middle School. They ranged in age from 13 to 18.

They were awesome. Wearing bright yellow “no war” headbands and displaying bright yellow signs and banners, accompanied by giant walking puppets 15 feet tall, the Yellow Springs kids drew special attention — praise, applause and gratitude — for their vivid commitment to the cause of peace. “Yellow Springs High School, Ohio,” their signs and banners proclaimed. “STOP THE WAR.”

One of the signs offered a corrective lesson to President Bush: “Act Like It’s A Globe, Not An Empire!”

In a poignant reference to the 9/11 Twin Towers tragedy, a black-edged sign declared: “Our Grief Is Not A Cry for War.”

Ashlee Cooper and Matt Wallace, also a senior, organized the peace rally trip as their senior project at Yellow Springs High School. Aurelia Blake, Matt’s mother and a teacher at the school, helped conceive the project and bring it to fruition.

They chartered two busses, one for students and the other for adults from the community.

While I have to admire her leadership and organizational skills, my problem with Ms. Blake is that I think her teaching style is heavyhanded, and borders on out and out indoctrination. Were I a taxpaying parent in Yellow Springs, Ohio, I might not like the idea of my child being made to lie on the floor to reenact stuff that was done hundreds of years ago -- by and to people long dead.

What is the context? Is it merely to educate? How does making people lie down on the floor do that in any way? Slaves were whipped, sold at auction, and even castrated. Should these things also be reenacted? Why? To "teach" students that slavery was wrong?

There's something about making a kid do stuff like that which crosses a certain line, and I'm not sure why. It just strikes me as invasive of the students' personal dignity and going beyond education. It's as if they're deliberately playing with children's emotions.

I notice that one of Ms. Blake's courses teaches American Slavery and the Holocaust side by side, the central idea being that the two are moral equivalents:

....introduce students to the history of American Slavery and the Holocaust, two profound atrocities in the history of Western culture, through reading literary text.

Maybe I'm wrong.

But I suppose it would be too much to demand a reenactment of Stalin's or Mao's gulags. Or Cambodia's Killing Fields.

According to both ABC News and WorldNetDaily, Hamas seeks to impose Sharia (Islamic Law) on territory held by the Palestinian Authority.

Here's what a Hamas spokesman told WND:

"We are holding emergency meetings to decide our next course of action," chief Palestinian negotiation minister Saeb Erekat told WND. "I don't think Fatah is going to join. This is not our way [to be in the minority]."

At least 13 people were injured in the clashes outside the Ramallah parliament, and light damage was done to the building, security sources in Ramallah said.

"The Hamas members were dancing with their flags, and they announced Sharia law will soon rule in the Palestinian territories," said a source.

Today's clashes were the latest in a series of reports indicating Hamas is seeking to impose Taliban-like Islamic rule on the Palestinians.

A Hamas-run council in the West Bank recently barred an open-air music and dance festival, declaring it was against Islam.

"This is not acceptable," festival head Eman Hamouri told reporters at the time, accusing Hamas of trying to force its values on others. "We condemn this and we have sought the help of the Palestinian parliament to discuss this serious issue."

In response to the incident, al-Zahar told WND: "I hardly understand the point of view of the West concerning these issues. The West brought all this freedom to its people but it is that freedom that has brought about the death of morality in the West. It's what led to phenomena like homosexuality, homeless and AIDS."

Perhaps I'm out of line trying to apply logic to statements by a spokesman for Hamas, but I hate to see democracy being used to destroy freedom.

There's more:

Israeli officials say Hamas in the Gaza Strip has established hard-line Islamic courts and created the Hamas Anti-Corruption Group, which is described as a kind of "morality police" operating within Hamas' organization.

Hamas has denied the existence of the anti-corruption group, but the group recently carried out a high-profile "honor killing" widely covered by the Palestinian media.

Last April, Yusra al-Azzami, a young female university student from Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, was caught by Hamas, together with another female, riding in a vehicle with two men. The Hamas members, reportedly officers of the Anti-Corruption Group, suspected the vehicle occupants of "immoral behavior" and shot at the car, killing al-Azzami and wounding the other occupants.

Considering the callused attitude of Hamas towards its own people, I don't doubt that they'd be more than willing to assist Iran in carrying out its promise to use nuclear weapons against Israel, and even if millions of Palestinians were killed in the process, that would be considered a good thing, because "the Jews" would be destroyed. That's because in the game of martyrdom, the innocent have nothing to fear, because they're headed for Paradise.

Is sitting around and waiting for it to happen the best way to preempt such stuff?

I honestly don't know what to make of the decision by Venezuela's quasi dictator Hugo Chavez to intervene in Philadelphia's domestic affairs, but he has, under the auspices of "helping the poor":

Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo Chavez, who has been a persistent antagonist to President Bush, is providing relief to some poor families in the Philadelphia region squeezed by the high price of home-heating oil.

A subsidiary of the Venezuelan national oil company will ship five million gallons of heating oil for distribution at a steep discount to as many as 25,000 low-income families in the Philadelphia region next month under a deal brokered by U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.) and a nonprofit energy cooperative.

Citgo, the Houston arm of Petroleos de Venezuela, will mark down the per-gallon cost of the heating oil by 40 percent. Organizers said the cheap oil was intended for poor families who have exhausted their grants from the federal-state Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Earlier this month, 7,602 households that use oil in the city and in Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware and Chester Counties had run out of LIHEAP aid, according to state figures.

"We think we've captured all the families who will need assistance" with such a large shipment, Fattah said. He credited his relationships with U.S. Rep. William Delahunt (D., Mass.), who arranged a similar deal for Boston, and former U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D., Mass.), who is president of Citizens Energy Corp., the nonprofit financing the shipment.

Citgo has also worked with Citizens Energy to supply cheap oil to New York City, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Indian reservations in Maine.

It started last fall as a public relations masterstroke by Chavez, who has led a leftist resurgence in South America. He has cast himself as David to the American Goliath, calling President Bush a "genocidal madman" and accusing the United States of plotting to assassinate him. The administration and various human-rights groups say Chavez has destabilized Latin America and abuses political dissidents.

For his part, Congressman Fattah denies that politics are involved:

"This is not a political matter - we have the ability to keep families in the Philadelphia area warm," Fattah said, dismissing the idea that the assistance was embarrassing to the United States. "I'm deeply appreciative of the humanitarian gesture."

Heating-oil prices have jumped by 30 percent to 50 percent this winter because of rising world prices for crude oil, putting poor families in a bind.

"It's ironic that a South American country is coming to the rescue of poor people in Philadelphia, but the issue is whether you freeze to death in winter," said Jonathan Stein, general counsel of Community Legal Services. "No one, Democrat or conservative Republican, should raise questions about where it comes from, but should applaud it."

Despite the fact that they're supposed to be applauding, mean-spirited "political analysts" just won't stop accusing Chavez of playing politics.

Though political analysts have said Chavez is playing petrol politics, the infusion of cheap oil was warmly welcomed by the public and some political leaders in Boston, the first to get a shipment in November, and in other communities receiving the help.

The Energy Coordinating Agency, a Philadelphia nonprofit, will administer the program here. The oil will be delivered to customers by several dozen independent oil dealers, said Ron Goldwyn, a spokesman for Fattah. He said eligible families would be allowed to buy up to 200 gallons of heating oil for $288 - a saving of $194 over market rates, based on the current average price of $2.41 a gallon.

The agency will use information from the state Welfare Department to send letters to households that have exhausted their LIHEAP aid, authorizing them to buy subsidized oil, Goldwyn said. Participants will pay 60 percent of the cost to the oil dealer, and Citizens Energy will pay the remainder.

Shouldn't we all get behind Chavez?

Meanwhile, there's a push for a statewide Chavez subsidy plan, as well as an opening ceremony in Philly:

Citgo officials and aides to Fattah plan to meet with Gov. Rendell's staff next week to discuss whether the program can be expanded to the rest of the state, according to Fattah.

He plans to formally announce the program tomorrow at the home of a family that will receive some of the oil, along with Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuelan ambassador to the United States; Citgo officials; and Kennedy.

A resurrection of Evita, perhaps? I think he's looking more and more Evita-like every day.

(Well, maybe a little touching up needs to be done on the makeover...)

UPDATE: Anyone grossed out by the above should remember it's just someone's PhotoShop. Little Green Footballs has something much more grotesque, all the more so because it's the real thing.

It appears that the terrorist group Hamas has won the Palestian Authority election in a landslide:

Hamas won 76 seats in the 132-member parliament, while Fatah, which controlled Palestinian politics for four decades, won 43 seats, said Hanna Nasser, head of the Central Election commission. The 13 remaining seats went to several smaller parties and independents.

The result was based on a count of 95 percent of the vote and still could change slightly, Nasser said.

Hamas won 60.3 percent of the vote, said Ismail Haniyeh, one of the group's leaders.

In his first remarks since the election, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel won't negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas members.

"The state of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if even part of it is an armed terrorist organization calling for the destruction of the state of Israel," said Olmert's statement, issued after a three-hour emergency Cabinet meeting.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Israel will insist that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, popularly known as Abu Mazen, keep his commitments to disarm militants.

"Israel needs to act judiciously and responsibly," Mofaz said. "We will continue to demand of Abu Mazen to meet his commitments and to disarm the terror organizations."

Mofaz said that the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan, which calls for the creation of a Palestinian state, is the "only existing path."

Other Israeli politicians from across the political spectrum said there could be no relations with a group that has been responsible for scores of deadly attacks against Israelis and is listed as a terror organization by the United States and the European Union.

Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the opposition Likud Party, condemned the vote. "Today Hamastan was formed," he said. Labor Party politician Ami Ayalon said Israel might have to change the route of its West Bank security barrier to take Hamas' victory into account.

The United States of course lists Hamas as a terrorist organization, which it is. This makes it a crime for the U.S. government (or any American) to "provide funds or other material support" to Hamas, members of which are to be "denied visas or excluded from the United States." (Makes "peace talks" rather tough, I'd say.)

But I expect to soon see apologists for Hamas springing up all over the place, as leftist support for fascist fundamentalists has become a fact of modern life.

MORE: Glenn Reynolds has a roundup, and so does Pajamas Media.

Last night, I was put in an awful mood after being told about something being called an "academic discipline," but which makes very little sense.

That is a thing called "whiteness theory."

I guess the attachment of the word "theory" means it's no more proven than evolution or intelligent design, but the idea that there was an academic "theory" involving the "white race" just struck me as incredibly annoying after another long day wasted trying to make sense out of that despicable instrument of emotion-driven machinations we call the human brain.

Right away, I thought, "Well finally, they've done it!"

Racist Nazi crackpots, I assumed, had finally made it into academia with white multiculturalist, identity politics theories.

No, I was told. "Whiteness theory" is based on the premise that whiteness is not racial, but cultural, and premised on privilege and power -- an all-encompassing cultural meme so pervasive as to be said to swallow literally everything we (there I go being "white" -- because I'm assumed by the whiteness theorists to be assuming that everyone who reads this is white) take for granted. Even such things as science, art, logic itself. These are all part of whiteness. The privilege of being white.

"Such things cannot be!" I complained to my outraged white self. Why, this might mean that my very blog is contaminated by my whiteness.

How can I purge an evil so profound?

I tried to research this matter, and I found a number of websites, many of which cite a Harvard Law Review article titled "Whiteness as Property" as a foundation block of whiteness theory. In it, Cheryl Harris (now a UCLA law professor whose faculty web page describes the essay as "highly influential") contends that whiteness is, well, property:

It was a given to my grandmother that being white automatically ensured higher economic returns in the short term, as well as greater economic, political, and social security in the long run. Becoming white meant gaining access to a whole set of public and private privileges that materially and permanently guaranteed basic subsistence needs and, therefore, survival. Becoming white increased the possibility of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of others' domination.

My grandmother's story illustrates the valorization of whiteness as treasured property in a society structured on racial caste. In ways so embedded that it is rarely apparent, the set of assumptions, privileges, and benefits that accompany the status of being white have become a valuable asset that whites sought to protect and that those who passed sought to attain - by fraud if necessary. Whites have come to expect and rely on these benefits, and over time these expectations have been affirmed, legitimated, and protected by the law. Even though the law is neither uniform nor explicit in all instances, in protecting settled expectations based on white privilege, American law has recognized a property interest in whiteness that, although unacknowledged, now forms the background against which legal disputes are framed, argued, and adjudicated. . . .

So what?

But there I go, scoffing at a new idea just as it's ready to be fully, um, integrated within the cultural mainstream. Despite the fact that it's is still being scoffed at by racist inheritors of white privilege (doubtless I fall into this category anyway by my very act of breathing) "whiteness theory" is now widely recognized in academia, and rapidly gaining ground elsewhere:

That the so-called "white race" is not a scientific category but rather a historically constructed social formation, i.e., a kind of myth and indeed a life-threatening lie, is now widely recognized even in that bastion of white supremacy known as Academia. Not yet a decade old, the new abolitionist movement—the organized effort to abolish the white race as a social category, along with the whole miserabilist system that it does so much to sustain—reflects a widespread and growing grassroots ferment with its own characteristic forms of direct action (such as the "cop watch") and an ebullient periodical literature, exemplified by the lively journal, Race Traitor, whose motto, "Treason to Whiteness Is Loyality to Humanity," is perhaps the best short definition of the new movement.

Since belief in the white mystique has a demonstrably paralyzing effect on the collective solution of social problems, the current defection from whiteness must be seen as an authentically revolutionary sign of the times. Predictably, the powers-that-be have responded to the new abolitionism the way they always respond to emancipatory currents: with incomprehension and malice. An article in the New York Times Magazine (November, 1997) set the tone, deriding recent criticism of whiteness not only as an academic fad ("like porn studies a few years ago and queer theory before that"), but also as a trend established by and for whites.

It is important to note that whiteness is not a racial phenomenon, but an American one. Immigrants to this country who happen to be members of the Caucasian race do not start out white; they become white:

The critical examination of whiteness, academic and not, simply involves the effort to break through the illusion that whiteness is natural, biological, normal, and not crying out for explanation. Instead of accepting what James Baldwin called the "lie of whiteness," many people in lots of different fields and movement activities have tried to productively make it into a problem. When did (some) people come to define themselves as white? In what conditions? How does the lie of whiteness get reproduced? What are its costs politically, morally and culturally? Not surprisingly, thinkers from groups for whom whiteness was and is a problem have taken the lead in studying whiteness in this way. Such study began with slave folktales and American Indian stories of contact with whites. The work of such writers as Baldwin, Cheryl Harris, Ida B. Wells, Américo Paredes, W.E. B. Du Bois, Leslie Silko, and Toni Morrison has deepened such traditions. For radical white writers wishing to forge interracial movements of poor and working people, whiteness has also long been a problem, with Alexander Saxton and Ted Allen making especially full efforts to understand whiteness in order to disillusion whites unable to see past the value of their own skins.

And since I just mentioned adolescents, I might as well report that some of them (at least the ones attending those schools normally thought to be tainted with high-priced whiteness) are having this "whiteness theory" drilled into their guilty little white brains:

Bobby Edwards, the amiable dean for Community and Multicultural Development at Phillips Academy (also known as Andover) in Massachusetts, the country’s oldest boarding school and among its most prestigious, is a case in point. “I do more work than I anticipated around the race issue,” he says ruefully. Edwards teaches a tenth-grade required course called “Life Issues,” which immerses students in the holy trinity of university multiculturalism: race, class, and gender. Many pupils tell Edwards that race is simply not a salient feature in their lives. It will be once Edwards gets through with them, though. He informs his class: “Unless we work to help you have an understanding of the history around this issue, you won’t have a clear understanding of how you really do have a race issue.”

Most troubling to a diversity professional: even some “students of color” are skeptical of racism talk. “They say: ‘I don’t think there’s an issue when I go into a store,’ ” notes Edwards, incredulously. Rather than accepting the students’ reported experience, Edwards chides them: “Are you looking at the people following you around in the store?”

Other prep-school diversity bureaucrats report the same resistance to their message of “all racism, all the time.” Hugo Mahabir, head of multicultural concerns at the Fieldston Academy in the North Bronx, admits: “Students today think, ‘Adults don’t get it: we’re post–civil rights; we’re moving on to something else.’ ” They see explicit discussions of race, gender, and class as “divisive,” confesses Mahabir. Russell Willis, dean of multicultural affairs at Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire, Andover’s younger sibling and archrival, finds it “ironic” that some black students oppose affirmative action, since they benefit from it, he bitterly points out.

In a saner world, these little shoots of colorblindness would be encouraged to spread. A privileged independent school, especially a boarding school, is an ideal hothouse for nurturing them. With their arcadian campuses, rich endowments, and freedom to reject the pedagogical garbage peddled by government, ed schools, and teachers’ unions, private schools can create whatever sort of educational utopia they choose.

The idea that "whiteness theory" should be promoted and taught in every university or college as part of "ethnic studies" is not new (so I am embarrassed by my ignorance). Considering that neither are ethnic studies requirements in most schools new, I'd say this is the sort of thing which will soon be a required part of what we call "education" -- everywhere in the United States.

The following comes from a 1997 description of a conference held at the UC Berkeley Department of Comparative Ethnic Studies:

CONFERENCE DESCRIPTION:

As a recent articles in _American Quarterly_ and the _Chronicle of
Higher Education_ explain, there is a growing group of scholars who are working in a new field: the study of whiteness. This field has expanded over the past decade in part as a result of suggestions by intellectuals like Toni Morrison, who have long suggested that race studies must include a critical, self-reflexive body of work about whites which is both anti-racist and progressive. Thus, the study of whiteness is both comparative, in that whiteness is understood as one specific race among others, and critical, in that whiteness is generally viewed as a socially-constructed identity which has historically helped to perpetuate social inequalities. Scholars of whiteness represent a very diverse range of disciplines. Sociologists, historians, anthropologists, as well as practitioners of ethnic, legal, cultural, and literary studies, are bringing interdisciplinary methodologies and critical concerns to the study of whiteness. Additionally, many anti-racist activists have spoken to issues around whiteness as they appear in community organizing, coalition building, and other forms of political movement.

Ho hum.

It was in Berkeley long ago that I grew tired of being white. Too busy watching my friends die, I guess.

Little did I know how racist I was being.

Sigh.

At least it's all just theoretical.

Speaking of theory, Coco was staring at herself in the mirror for a long time this morning. (I think she's contemplating canine theory.)

Speaking of news, damned if I'm not a Mazda RX-8. That's news to me.

Why am I always the last to know?

I'm a Mazda RX-8!

You're sporty, yet practical, and you have a style of your own. You like to have fun, and you like to bring friends along for the ride, but when it comes time for everyday chores, you're willing to do your part.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

(Via Dr. Helen, who's a Dodge Viper married to another RX-8. I don't think I've ever married a car.)

Increasingly, there seem to be two different "news worlds" for lack of a better term. There's online news, and "regular" news.

Right there I'm realizing that I'm running out of terms, and resorting to improvising on-the-spot euphemisms of my own.

What, in the name of God, is "regular" news? The stuff that manages to find its way past whatever editorial board runs the New York Times, the news that makes it onto major network television, or the news that makes it into the hard copy of my daily, the Philadelphia Inquirer?

I don't know what regular news is.

For that matter, I don't know what "real" news is. If it doesn't get widely reported, is it news? If it gets reported, but barely, then is its relative importance to be determined by that?

I'll illustrate with a few recent examples.

While I would have thought a major change in government in the country to the immediate north of the United States would have been considered of the utmost importance, the news of the Canadian election results was buried in the interior pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Yet today's Inquirer deems Palestinian Authority exit polls (not even tangible election results) worthy of today's front page. Why?

The huge story of Goo