The White Peril 白禍

Oh, great--this discussion again.

I'm not sure if I'm a neolibertarian or not, but I think I'm awfully close to what they're driving at.

Speaking of libertarianism in general, I've long thought of the hard-core libertarians--the really serious, no-compromisers--as the Marxists of the right. Interestingly enough, Scott Kirwin sent me an article in The American Conservative recently which makes that exact point, and makes it quite well: Click here to read Robert Locke's "Marxism of the Right."

Dean's correct. The article is good. I do think, though, that it only addresses those who are hard think-tank/political-activist libertarians:

Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government.

Wacko Libertarian Party types might believe that, but Virginia Postrel, for example, certainly doesn't. As you read Locke's article, it becomes increasingly clear that what he's refuting is only the perfectionist libertarians, who can't see any grey areas in anything at all. Those people annoy the living bejeezus out of me, as they do a lot of other people, and I found very satisfying Locke's temperate-but-vaguely-aghast tone in pointing out their flagrant idiocies.

But still. I voted for Bush. I'm in favor of free markets, private gun ownership, school vouchers, the WOT, strict readings of the Constitution, and social security privatization; I'm against hate-crimes laws, campus speech codes, campaign-finance reform, the push for gay marriage, the ruthless secularization of the public sphere, UN-worship, and Richard Gere. I've had plenty of people tell me, "Dude [or sometimes Bitch], whatever you call yourself, you're a conservative," and that's fine if they feel that way, but I persist in referring to myself as a libertarian, not a conservative.

It's not something I have a hang-up about. It's just that, in the grand scheme of things, I think liberty is more fragile and needs more protection than tradition. The reason so many sensible people are calling themselves conservatives is that, at this historical moment in America, tradition has taken a bruising, with insights passed down through the ages flung aside or simply ignored over the last 40 years. Recapturing that wisdom is a big and important job, but I don't think it's the vast mission that animates civilization. The world is chock-a-block with societies that respect tradition just fine but offer their citizens miserable lives. It's our liberty that makes us different and makes us a beacon to them. For the use of the word, it's worth being occasionally mistaken for a LP head case; and it has the added advantage of alerting people that they'll have to listen to you to find out what you actually believe.

See, if I were able to write headlines as hilarious as the one on this post, I wouldn't just slap on the first song lyrics that come to mind and consider my entry finished. As Samizdata's Johnathan Pearce says, "God forbid that alcohol should be sold on the basis that it is to do with fun, ooooh noooo." Fun might lead to not only sex but also spontaneity and the formation of irreverent individual opinions. Then where would we be?

BTW, I see that the old nannyculture.com has been transformed entirely into consumerfreedom.com, which is missing the fabulous finger-wagging-granny logo of old but is still depressingly informative.

Jonathan Rauch's newest column is about a topic of great interest to us on the Pacific Rim:

China — yes, repressive, aggressive Communist China — is now more highly regarded in the world than is the United States. A pair of recent BBC World Service polls of more than 20 countries finds that the plurality of respondents (47 percent to 38 percent) and of countries (15 out of 21) regard America's influence in the world as "mainly negative." A plurality of respondents (48 percent to 30 percent) and of countries (17 of 21, excluding the U.S.) regard Chinese influence in the world as "mainly positive."

Why the sharp turn against America? Not just because President Bush is personally unpopular abroad; Pew notes that world opinion of America did not plunge until 2003, well after Bush's election. Nor, Pew finds, is the trans-Atlantic values gap wider today than it was in the early 1990s. Rather, says Pew, "in the eyes of others, the U.S. is a worrisome colossus," quick to throw its weight around and selfish in its aims. In a 2003 Pew survey, majorities in seven of eight predominantly Muslim nations (including Turkey) said they regard America as a potential military threat to their own country. In a Eurobarometer poll of European Union nations in 2003, respondents placed America on a par with Iran as a threat to world peace. Pew finds that in France, Germany, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey, many people believe that America's real goal in the war on terror is not to reduce terrorism but to dominate the world.

Rauch is focused on how America's motivations are viewed. His conclusions ring true to me, though, of course, data from polls have to be used with caution.

I do think that another part of the problem is that too many of us take "people the world over long to be free of tyranny" to imply "people the world over long to live like Americans." We Americans tend to take the idea of government by the people pretty literally. (Of course, sometimes we do so even while trying to offload risk and its consequences on the government--which is why the mention of social security, the public schools, or health care policy gives us out-of-my-face-with-you! libertarians high blood pressure.)

To a lot of people, that looks like chaos--the lawlessness of a country formed by people who swore off the traditions of their homelands to follow their bliss. While many of the traditions peoples repair to in structuring their societies are illiberal, I don't think the overall results are flat-out unjust if everyone has the right of exit and those who stay do so out of choice. If Karen Hughes can emphasize to foreign audiences how the Afghan constitution, the transition government in Iraq, and the democracy movement in Lebanon represent the adoption of democracy in a way that's sensitive to local preferences, she'll be doing a good thing.

Ilyka Damen is one of those people I read all the time but never link. Her latest post deserves link love, though (however unfortunate the surrounding circumstances):

Can we just for once admit we don't know everything there is to know, not even a tiny fraction of what we need to know, about the crazy? We're as bad as people in the Middle Ages were about the plague. Maybe someday the crazy will also turn out to be caused by something as simple as bacteria; I kind of doubt that, but I'm not ruling it out.

My point is, we're only a tiny step up from sending for the parish priest to perform an exorcism; we still have largely no idea how to fix this level of crazy, the "pardon me I have to go shoot my grandad now" sort of crazy. We have counselors and psychiatrists and psychologists and evaluation teams and social workers and medications and treatment plans and rehabilitation centers--but even with all that, every so often the crazy wins one. And it's always tragic when it does, but scapegoating Prozac, bad films, and chat rooms doesn't get us any closer to fixing the crazy.

Americans have a real problem with this. Actually, with these, because it's two issues:

1. Some problems can be identified but not fixed.
   
2. Some problems can be identified but not traced to a comprehensive set of finite sources.
   

One of our most endearing traits is the belief that everyone is redeemable and that there's always a second chance, but, like anything else, it can be taken to an extreme. There are plain wrong-'uns in the world. It's a shame that it has to be that way, given all the resources and goodwill we have available to help people, but it's something we may never be able to solve.

Some comments to this recent post by Eric reminded me of something I started writing and then never wound up publishing last year. Virginia Postrel had a fascinating post on megalopolitan development in China and Saõ Paolo. The usual projected scenario (as in Rolling Stone's long mid-'90's showpiece article on Saõ Paolo's development--it doesn't seem to be on-line, but if you're also a former subscriber, you probably remember it) makes huge cities in developing countries out to be Black Holes of Calcutta. That is, the rural poor keep pouring and pouring in, setting off water and energy crises and flooding the job market until the unemployed occupy entire shantytowns. The argument that the sweatshop work available in the cities is the only way people can eke out a living is often given at the same time, with no comment on the contradiction.

The articles Virginia cited indicate that desperate poverty is, of course, still a horrible problem. They also indicate, though, that (surprise!) people are not gonzo idiots. If work in the big city dries up, they can move to a thriving smaller city. If work in the big city comes with inhumane conditions, they can go back home and make do while they figure out Plan C.

Eric's post was about the guilty rich, but the comments I'm referring to are more specifically about our trade with developing countries:

Money, in and of itself is not an evil thing. However, the way we have designed our free market to create large sums of money off the backs of 3rd world countries is egregious.

For example, is it moral to buy clothing that was made from a slave labor camp in indonesia? WE don't allow these camps in the US, because we know it's immoral, but that doesn't stop our malls from selling it. I buy this stuff too, I'm guilty.
We artifically inflate prices of grains coming into the country to help our farmers, but that means 3rd world nations cannot make enough money to continue growing crops, even when that nation is literally starving to death!

[I'm cutting the rest because the point I want to deal with has been made.--SRK]

Posted by alchemist

alchemist (whose comments at Eric's I always find worth reading, though I rarely agree with her conclusions) got the following response:

Briefly, the production of goods is farmed out to other Countries because the labor is cheaper. The laborers work in these third world Country factories because they want to - they get paid more than their other options would get them. This provides a net gain in jobs and wealth for that Country. There is no reason to pay these laborers more than the labor market will bear, and reasons not to, and reasons why it simply can't be done [simple labor competition]. The goods shipped elsewhere become cheaper, holding down prices of competitor products, making currency more potent and actually stimulating greater production. Standards of living increase in the involved Countries. No one is taking profits off the back of the poor. Risk takers and organizers of the whole enterprise need the reward to even try it and keep the businesses in business. Marx was wrong.

Posted by J. Peden

I'm a supporter of free markets like J. Peden, but I do think people such as alchemist have a point when they note that reality isn't a shiny and happy as his (her?) outline above makes it sound. Children have worked to contribute to family welfare since time immemorial, so I'm not against child labor wholesale (an issue alchemist addresses in a later comment). Nevertheless, you don't have to look far to find ample evidence that children who work in Third World production facilities are often treated worse than First World livestock. While such treatment is carried out by well-connected and ambitious locals, we are, in fact, subsidizing it by buying the products it yields.

There are other questions to be considered, though. For one thing, while the PRC certainly has a pronounced strain of draconianism, it is notoriously bad at enforcing laws like safety standards at the ground level. Suppose it passed child labor laws--could we reasonably assume, even if it had the best intentions, that it would be able to enforce them? There's the fact that China has over a billion people, there's ingrained corruption, and there's the increased mobility that comes with the beginnings of prosperity. The countries of Southeast Asia may not (except Indonesia) have such huge populations, but they certainly don't lack for corruption and fly-by-nights.

Another question is, Does funding sweatshops actually make it possible for them to maintain their exploitative practices without end? There's evidence that it may not. Rural areas start to become richer (or, given where they started out, less poor) as more wealth comes into the economy, as J. Peden said. And once sweat shops become common, word starts to leak back to rural areas about what really goes on in them. People begin to decide that they might be better off staying on the farm. And factory owners have no choice but to make the work more attractive to employees.

None of this works perfectly. First World economies have plenty of exploited workers, too, after all. The problem is, in order for our wealth to help the poor elsewhere, it has to get to them. For that to happen, either we give it to them as a gift, or they produce things of value that we want to buy. In the first case, we have to hope against hope that powerful family and cronyist networks don't siphon it all away as it trickles down to the village level, or waste it on vainglorious public works projects that no one can actually benefit from. Yes, there are wonderful direct-aid organizations with hands-on programs that help real people, but one of the things that seem to prevent them from being taken over by greedy opportunists is precisely that they do slow, un-flashy, long-term work in a small area. That's a genuine economic contribution, but it takes a long time to show its effects on the grand scale.


In the second case, we have to trust that the increased choice of newly available work will give them more control over their lives than they have now. While that mechanism doesn't work perfectly, it offers a short-term alternative to subsistence farming and the long-term possibility of a greater number of opportunities.

This is probably on-line at the embassy website, but I don't feel like looking it up. Anyway, this is for your own good, so BE WARNED!

Lighters Prohibited At Airport And On Planes
---------------------------------------------------------
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced that all lighters will be prohibited from sterile areas of airports and onboard aircraft beginning April 14, 2005. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires that "butane" lighters be added to TSA's Prohibited Items List.

After carefully evaluating the security threat, Congressional intent and operational considerations, TSA determined that passengers should be prohibited from carrying all lighters on their person or in carry-on luggage in the sterile areas of airports or onboard an airplane. The policy will be fully enforced beginning April 14, 2005. All lighters will be banned from sterile areas beyond security checkpoints at airports. This includes, for example, butane, absorbed-fuel (Zippo-type), electric/battery-powered and novelty lighters. [That's for you Epsilon-minus semi-morons who can't figure out that "all lighters" includes all lighters.--SRK]

The Department of Transportation classifies lighters as hazardous materials and prohibits them from being stowed in checked baggage. TSA will dispose of lighters brought to checkpoints. Passengers at some airports may be able to ship them via a private company for a fee, but TSA strongly urges passengers to thoroughly inspect their carry-on and checked baggage for these items before going to the airport.

See http://www.tsa.gov for additional information.

Thanks. I feel much safer. Especially since some of our security checkers can't seem to detect anything smaller than a turret gun without help, particularly if it's in a "cluttered" bag. Man, sometimes I seriously think we're doomed.

Patterico pontificates that the FEC's noises about political expression on the Internet mean a significant new stage in the erosion of personal liberties:

Yesterday I said that, if the FEC regulates blogs, I will continue to blog the same way I always have. Some have warned me of the dangers inherent in such a position.

This led to me wonder how unusual my position really is. I suspect that my attitude is widely shared by bloggers, including those who have signed the open letter to the FEC.

I think it�s time to put the question to you directly. Who out there will make this pledge:

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

Since I write from Japan but my blog lives back home in the States, I don't know how things would play out for people such as me in practice, but as an American citizen, yeah, I pledge.

I've never refrained from posting about something because of its political content--and that's as someone who's a guest in this country and frequently says critical things about its government and society. The reason I don't feel the need to watch my step is that 60 years ago, we began the process of turning Japan from an empire into a democracy, complete with constitutionally-mandated freedom of speech. The following is from Chapter III of the constitution Japan has had since after the war:

第二十一条

１　集会、結社及び言論、出版その他一切の表現の自由は、これを保障する。

Article 21:
1) Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed.

Because America was concerning itself with extending the gift of liberty to its former enemies, Japan today has the same free-speech protections we have. It's a beautiful thing to live around.

Our government's current enthusiasm for curtailing the constitutionally protected speech of its own people is not beautiful. It's immoral, unethical, illegal, and outrageous. It's also not new. McCain-Feingold, with its little numbered permissions and categories, is already law, after all.

By the way, as someone who lives abroad, I think there's something else we might consider. I don't believe it's our right or duty to install democracy throughout the world, but there is nothing wrong with seeing ourselves as a symbol of what to aspire to. We'd be selfish and mean if we didn't want to give people hope; we all have ancestors who were once in their position, after all. And there are governments all over the place that would be overjoyed beyond measure to see the US start clamping down on political speech on the Internet--as in, "See? Even America doesn't consider it a civil right to speak out about the candidate of your choice without permission. Now, stop bitching, citizens." Happily, the proper response to this particular threat is something Americans are already good at: keep talking, and loudly. Best not lose that ability by indulging in another American habit: taking our good fortune for granted.

Jonathan Rauch's new National Journal column discusses a recent outcome in a Boston sexual-abuse-by-a-priest case:

Last month, Paul Shanley was sentenced
to 12 to 15 years in prison for child rape. Because Shanley was 74, this was effectively a life sentence. His accuser--not [Gregory] Ford [the one originally mentioned] but Paul Busa, a 27-year-old Boston-area firefighter who recounted a similar story -- said in a victim-impact statement, "However he dies, I hope it's slow and painful." The city of Boston, outraged by priestly pedophilia scandals and clerical cover-ups, agreed.

The jury was convinced that Busa was telling the truth. So is Busa himself, to judge from what's presented here. The problem that his testimony is based entirely on "recovered" memory:

The theory underlying this claim is that of traumatic amnesia. The notion is that some experiences are so horrible that the mind pushes them down into the subconscious, where they can fester and cause all sorts of physical and emotional distress. Eventually, often under the guidance of a therapist or on being cued by some stimulus, the amnesiac brings the memories into awareness.

This theory has a checkered legal past. Recovered-memory cases alleging sexual abuse, sometimes by satanic cults, surged into the
hundreds in the early 1990s. Many alleged victims were steered by insistent therapists, and in many cases the recovered memory itself was the only evidence of abuse. (One plaintiff said her evidence of having been sexually abused from age 2 to 11 was based on "just what's wrong with me today ... [and] I'm still afraid of spiders.")

I shouldn't have to make this disclaimer, but I will anyway: I'm not making light of actual traumatic abuse. It's possible that some of these people did have vague memories of real violation, and that their therapists were able to prod them in the right direction to remember more and come to terms with it. That doesn't appear to be the general pattern, though. For all the reasons Rauch gives, backed up by trained researchers but mostly familiar from everyday experience, it is difficult to accept that an incident can seem to disappear entirely from the memory and then be miraculously restored in perfect detail--at least in any consistent and reliable way you could use in court.

Rauch's last example above is clearly an extreme one. It does seem suspicious in a general way, though, that all these memories happened to start being restored in a cultural environment in which people were looking for someone to blame for all of life's downers (abetted by all those therapists, naturally). Rauch also cites an article from Legal Affairs that indicates that the complainants in this case (the testimony of only one ended up being used) had their share of downers. Shanley is obviously no innocent, but he was being tried on particular charges, not his entire record of moral misjudgments as a priest.

It's understandable that Gregory Ford and his family wouldn't be able to understand why he turned out to be a wrong 'un and would look for a single, concrete, external explanation. Sadly, that doesn't mean there is one.

Well, now, isn't this nice. Susan Estrich decided to challenge Michael Kinsey on the dearth of women writing op-eds for the LAT, and things have escalated:

As the controversy drags into a fourth week, Estrich continues to bounce from conciliation to confrontation. She seemed near tears in an interview, saying she never intended the fight to get so personal. She blamed the operators of her website for improperly posting comments about Kinsley's mental health and contended she didn't think e-mails to Drudge and others in the media would get into the public domain.

Oh, super! Nothing like giving fuel to those who contend that chicks are too emotional and flighty and irrational for the world of ideas--though I'm not sure irrational is a sufficiently powerful word to cover the stupidity of sending e-mails to media figures (including MATT DRUDGE!!!!!) and assuming there was no way they'd be publicized. Nice blame-passing about the website thing, too, counselor. Way to help out those of us who want to see women who with a talent for public life have their shot at maximizing it!

I found the story above through Virginia Postrel (emotional! flighty! irrational! NOT!), who addresses it with dry distaste and appends an experience of her own:

The whole silly brouhaha reminds me of how the LAT used to handle this question: through rigid, numerical quotas. I remember visiting Bob Berger, the op-ed editor, back in the early '90s. An old-style newspaperman, Bob didn't like the paper's demands that he demonstrate "diversity" on the op-ed pages. I especially remember his complaint that he not only had to find gay writers but gay writers who would mention that they were gay. No gay foreign policy experts need apply.

When I was in high school and college, I always envisioned myself as a professor or journalist of some kind. This malarkey makes me more grateful than ever that my path changed and I ended up in the fulfilling but anonymous and artisanal job I have. How hard should it be to judge writers by whether they write well?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to build a reputation based on your name, of course, or with using it as currency when you do. Nor is there anything bad about inviting commentary on feminism and gay issues from women and gays. Yeah, yeah, yeah--this issue's been around for thirty years, and getting worked up over it just raises the blood pressure. It still boggles the mind that people who think this way can get their silly little hang-ups enforced--be sure to read the last paragraph of Virginia's post.

As Japan continues to strengthen its ties with the US, it's naturally moving away from the PRC:

Now that China is no longer considered a developing nation, Tokyo has told Beijing it plans to begin cutting the size of its low-interest yen loans from this fiscal year, aiming to phase them out entirely by fiscal 2008, sources said.

Beijing likely will protest, the sources said.

Some members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party are calling for an immediate end to all official development assistance (ODA) to China.

This would be the rightist wing of the party, which believes (not without justification) that, in financing China, Japan is aiding a trade and military rival.

However, loans will continue to be extended for projects that have already started, and grants and technical aid will be given for training and environmental protection programs.

The decision to turn off the loan tap to China reflects the government's belief that China's economy has taken off and the country has taken its place in the international community, the sources said.

In addition, development in China's coastal cities is now about equal to that of industrialized nations, meaning that China no longer can be regarded as a developing nation, the sources said.

Sources close to both governments said Beijing will press Japan to continue the loans beyond 2008 because provincial authorities across China are pressed for funds to develop their economies. Also, Beijing is unhappy about being told unilaterally by Japan that the ODA well will soon run dry.

...

Japanese officials would like to reach agreement on the loan reduction plan this month so that the government can begin implementing cuts soon, the sources said.

But LDP hard-liners want ODA to China stopped right away, sources said. Thus, there likely will be strong opposition to the plan for gradual reductions.

...

Criticism in Japan of ODA to China surged following anti-Japanese outbursts at the Asian Cup soccer matches last summer in China. Further straining relations was the November intrusion by a Chinese submarine into Japanese territorial waters.

Tokyo is also finding that ODA no longer carries much diplomatic leverage in talks with Beijing.

Meaty Fly, by the way, has posted twice in the last several days. Japan-China relations are right up his alley--his last post in September was, after all, headlined "Japan to designate China as military threat"--so it's possible that he'll get back to more regular writing. On his blog, I mean.

Eric is angered about honor killings in the Islamic world, and rightfully so. He also links a City Journal article by Kay Hymowitz. It's well written, of course, and there's nothing she says that isn't true, or arguably true, to my knowledge. I couldn't help feeling what she was emphasizing wasn't the major point, though.

I'm not saying that Hymowitz and Eric are worried over nothing. If anything, I think the problem is a little darker than it looks from what she's written. Most of the people Hymowitz cites are, if not insane, not the sort of people any sane person ever goes to for reliable depictions of reality. I mean, her conversation with one Miriam Cooke of Duke University, president of something called the Association for Middle East Women's Studies, is pricelessly appalling; but most academics, while to the left of the American public, are not that airheaded. And how illuminating really is it to demonstrate yet again that Michel Foucault was and Gayatri Spivak is a professional reality-dodger?

After all, the throughover moral relativists and post-structuralists are in the minority, even among humanities and social science professors. Really, they are. My experience can't be universalized wholesale, but it squares with what Christina Hoff Sommers (mentioned by Hymowitz) found when researching Who Stole Feminism? and with experiences friends from other colleges have reported to me over the years. Liberals who love genuine diversity of thought don't go after their multi-culturalist/post-colonial idiot colleagues in public because (1) they underestimate the influence of their ideas (on people who run foundations and think tanks, as well as the more impressionable students), (2) they feel guilty about their own relative privilege and can't figure out how to acknowledge that without undermining their criticisms, and (3) they don't want to start trouble. I hate to say it, but I'd bet that that last is the most important factor.

I had a professor (not an advisor of mine) explain to me that he knew Foucault was garbage but could still see his value as someone who shook up people's assumptions, so why get all bent out of shape at people who cited him? That's nice, but questioning your assumptions isn't an end in itself. You're supposed to be trying to figure out whether you should retain them because they've remained intact through testing, or you should discard them because they have not. Someone who plays fast and loose with facts, as Foucault did, is exactly the wrong sort of person to be looking to for help in that operation.

In other words, what worries me is less that there are amoral crazies in the academy than that the moderates who know better do not very loudly call BS when they start spouting nonsense. The very way such incidents stick in the memory--remember Martha Nussbaum's attack on Judith Butler in The New Republic a few years ago?--testifies to their relative rarity. Of course, it's 25 years too late to prevent post-structuralism from gaining ascendancy; but one might have thought that 9/11 would have a galvanizing effect on the reasonable types, as it did on a lot of other liberal Americans. It appears not to have, and it's a shame.

BTW, not exactly the same topic, but has anyone else noticed a lot of blog posts lately with titles of the "X, Y, and Z" form? You know, like "Feminism, Commercialization, and the Bobbie Ann Mason Protagonist." I'm not criticizing, though it does make me feel a bit as if I were doing readings for a senior seminar. My own titling habits probably don't gladden many hearts, and I used a mock-academic title here because of the subject matter. It's just odd that they seem to be cropping up everywhere.

Added later: Amritas addresses something I hesitated over before posting this originally:

What is so great about the word 'moderate'? Would you approve of someone who was 'moderately' in favor of freedom - or of evil? "He's not an - ugh! - extremist. He's a moderate. He's OK with a theft here, a killing there. Isn't inconsistency what life is all about?

Actually, while I wouldn't use the words "in favor of," I do think most of us are moderate in the sense that we prefer not to achieve perfect safety through draconian measures. Providing people with the means and confidence to defend themselves from miscreants may not erase crime, but it's the compromise most of us prefer.

I probably should have been clearer about this, but I hope it's obvious that I wasn't using moderate to mean "gloriously wishy-washy." If I had to pinpoint the types of moderation I was referring to, I'd say there were two aspects. One is that, while it's perfectly acceptable to arrive at an extreme position, a scholar should get there through sober, methodical consideration of the unvarnished facts, such as they're available. A second is that, when thinking about social change, it's generally (not always, but generally) wiser to look for ways to bring it about organically and...I was going to say slowly, but I suppose it doesn't always have to be slowly, exactly. It just can't outrun people's ability to adjust to it.

So that's what I was talking about. A professor who, for example, may believe that there is something inherently unfree about head coverings for women but would not advocate policies that ban them because she recognizes that real, living people used to existing standards of modesty may need time to get used to thinking of women in less constricting clothing as respectable. Perhaps I should just have said "pragmatic" rather than "moderate."

The chief known conspirator in the Bali bombing has gotten a sentence of 30 months in prison:

Australia and the U.S. have expressed disappointment at the 30-month jail sentence handed to Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir for his part in the Bali bombing.

An Indonesian court found Ba'asyir guilty on Thursday of an "evil conspiracy" to commit the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

He was acquitted on the more serious charges of direct involvement in the Bali attack and in the bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, which killed 12 people in August 5, 2003.

Australia and the United States consider Ba'asyir to be the spiritual head of the al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist group, which is blamed for the Bali bombings, the Marriott bombing and last year's blast at the Australian Embassy.

Intelligence officials say the group has cells across Southeast Asia.

That comes to 4.5-ish days for each victim who died. Now, I guess, it goes to appeal.