The White Peril 白禍

I'm afraid that if I don't stop reading Jeff and Joanne, I am going to lose my mind, collar Atsushi and take him away from this topsy-turvy world to an uncharted island, where we can read poetry and history beneath a shady lean-to woven from leaves and I can feed him on green mango salad and roasted fishies and we can live out our days in peace without constantly being reminded how many TOTAL NINNIES there are abroad in the land.

Apparently, Oriana Fallaci is now a fascist. Who knew, huh? Cathy Seipp says that a friend of hers wanted a copy of the English translation of Fallaci's latest book and thought, foolishly, that City Lights would be an apt place to pick it up:

So he asked a clerk if the new Fallaci book was in yet.

"No," snapped the clerk. "We don't carry books by fascists."

Now let's just savor the absurd details of this for a minute. City Lights has a long and proud history of supporting banned authors — owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti was indicted (and acquitted) for obscenity in 1957 for selling Allen Ginsberg's "Howl," and a photo at the bookstore showed Ferlinghetti proudly posing next to a sign reading "banned books."

Yet his store won't carry, of all people, Fallaci, who is not only being sued in Italy for insulting religion because of her latest book but continues to fight the good fight against those who think that the appropriate response to offensive books and cartoons is violent riots. It's particularly repugnant that someone who fought against actual fascism in World War II should be deemed a fascist by a snotty San Francisco clerk.

Strangest of all is the scenario of such a person disliking an author for defending Western civilization against radical Islam — when one of the first things those poor, persecuted Islamists would do, if they ever (Allah forbid) came to power in the United States, is crush suspected homosexuals like him beneath walls.

Not only is it helping free speech not to stock a book by a noted free-thinker, but it's apparently liberating to a teenager to tell her she should shut her mind to a major academic subject. Joanne Jacobs retains her ever-unflappable demeanor while posting a critique of this incomprehensibly dumb Richard Cohen column:

I confess to be one of those people who hate math. I can do my basic arithmetic all right (although not percentages) but I flunked algebra (once), barely passed it the second time--the only proof I've ever seen of divine intervention--somehow passed geometry and resolved, with a grateful exhale of breath, that I would never go near math again. I let others go on to intermediate algebra and trigonometry while I busied myself learning how to type. In due course, this came to be the way I made my living. Typing: Best class I ever took.

Here's the thing, Gabriela: You will never need to know algebra. I have never once used it and never once even rued that I could not use it. You will never need to know--never mind want to know--how many boys it will take to mow a lawn if one of them quits halfway and two more show up later--or something like that. Most of math can now be done by a computer or a calculator. On the other hand, no computer can write a column or even a thank-you note--or reason even a little bit. If, say, the school asked you for another year of English or, God forbid, history, so that you actually had to know something about your world, I would be on its side. But algebra? Please.

The column is over a week old and has been whaled away at by several education bloggers linked by Joanne. Most of them have done an admirable job of defending the usefulness of algebra. But another aspect that deserves attention is Cohen's corresponding (and self-congratulatory) balderdash about writing.

Certainly, too few people can write well--no one can gainsay that point. However, there are far too many people who think that style is a substitute for substance. The world now has plenty of English and sociology and history majors who got by by producing essays using the approved template--organized into paragraphs, featuring footnotes in MLA style, relying on the occasional po-mo wordplay to score points for insouciance--without being schooled in cold, hard facts. These are the people you encounter whose arguments sound great when you first hear them--because their internal logic is sound--but fall apart a few hours later when you have time to test them against real life and think, Wait a minute! She never even CONSIDERED the possibility that.... The more facts you have in your mental database, the more likely you are to have some sense of what you don't know and, thus, to be able to diagnose and address your own assumptions. Pooh-poohing the rigidities of math and overpraising the flexibilities of writing is a good way to reinforce the too-common American belief that you can bluff your way through anything.

Damn. If your US residence is in the 15th District, you can get something called the Dent Dispatch, which feeds your inbox with the latest news from Charlie Dent's website. Most of the time it's the usual "I managed to snag $3 million in federal money for a Memorial to Pennsylvania Dutch Settlers to be erected in front of the old Hess's Main Store" or whatever. But Reason has reached back a few months for one of his more wacky overreaches. I find that when reading whatever his latest post is, it helps to linger a few seconds on the very adorable picture he has posted at the top of each page first, because once you get to the words...well, look here:

"The growing availability of methamphetamine is a form of terrorism unto itself," Congressman Dent said. "This bill will help reduce the supply of this deadly drug by making it more difficult to obtain the ingredients necessary for production. It will also stiffen existing penalties for anyone caught producing or trafficking in meth."

You know, if Pennsylvania politicians keep talking nonsense like this whenever they open their mouth about terrorism, I'm going to have to start telling people I'm from "near New Jersey."

Okay, no, it'll never get that bad. But still.

The availability of meth is a form of terrorism? I can see how buying illegal drugs, which puts money in the hands of shady characters who sometimes funnel it to terrorists, can be seen as abetting terrorism. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of the War on Drugs, I hope it's obvious. I'm just saying that someone who managed to brush past rationality in a crowded hallway within the last week could see a connection.

There's so much information lacking about the port-rental-connected-to-UAE-holding-company thing that I figure I'll let everyone else rupture a few arteries and decide what I think when we actually know what we're talking about.

While the subject is raw, however, Peggy Noonan has some great points to make about security concerns:

It is almost five years since 9/11, and since the new security regime began. Why hasn't it gotten better? Why has it gotten worse? It's a disgrace, this airport security system, and it's an embarrassment. I'm sure my Englishman didn't come away with a greater respect or regard for America.

So we're all talking about port security this week, and the debate over the Bush administration decision to allow United Arab Emirates company to manage six ports in the United States. That debate is turning bitter, and I wonder if the backlash against President Bush isn't partly due to the fact that everyone in America has witnessed or has been a victim of the incompetence of the airport security system. Why would people assume the government knows what it's doing when it makes decisions about the ports? It doesn't know what it's doing at the airports.

This is a flying nation. We fly. And everyone knows airport security is an increasingly sad joke, that TSA itself often appears to have forgotten its mission, if it ever knew it, and taken on a new one--the ritual abuse of passengers.

Now there's a security problem. Solve that one.

Yeah, or how about learning to be competent at both? I'm one of those people who usually find the great machines that keep our civilization going inspiring and exhilarating. Turning me off to something like flying is a major undertaking. But nowadays there are few experiences more dispiriting than taking off for the airport.

Of course, JFK has always been a horrible place--especially so if you've got a lot of airports in other countries to compare it to, but plenty crappy on its own terms. Still, it's only gotten worse since 9/11. Like Noonan, I seem to win (?) the wand-down lottery frequently, though whether it's because of my Irish-sounding name and non-menacing slightness of build I don't pretend to know.

I don't pretend to enjoy it, either, but frequently the fact that the people doing the extra-special sweeps go out of their way to be nice and seem to care about being methodical at least restores your faith that someone gives a damn. (Yes, I'm cynically aware that they're probably under orders not to get you riled up, but you take what you can get.) I don't know of other facility that can match JFK for sheer blasé surliness, but all the other hubs I've been through in the last several years have managed to leave a similar impression of high-handedness combined with slackness.

I lost sight of this a few weeks ago without posting about it, but the Casey senatorial campaign is getting into gear in my home state (via Gay News):

In a Senate race that is looking to be the most closely watched and most expensive showdown in the nation, Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. is looking to win the gay vote.

Casey, who said he is gearing for nine more months of hard campaigning, will introduce himself to the region’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community Feb. 18 at the Human Rights Campaign Philadelphia Region Steering Committee’s annual gala.

If he gets on the Democratic ticket, Casey is running, of course, against Rick Santorum, one of the least gay-friendly major politicians in America. (And yes, I know he has a gay communications director. I'm speaking in terms of ideas and policies.)

Already he has the backing of the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization; HRC’s political action committee endorsed Casey in October.

Ken Oakes, chair of the HRC Philadelphia Region Steering Committee, said an early endorsement like this is quite rare, but warranted.

“They [HRC] believe, and we agree, this is the race of the nation,” Oakes said. “Whatever happens here with Rick Santorum and Bob Casey is really a bellwether for the nation.”

...

Casey supports civil unions and domestic partner benefits, but stops short of supporting marriage equality.

But, compared to Santorum — who has equated gay sex with bestiality, and said there is nothing wrong with intolerance — Oakes said Casey is a fair-minded candidate with a proven record of respecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and working on their behalf.

Many members of the sexual and gender minority communities probably cannot understand HRC's endorsement of Casey, Oakes said.

The HRC's early commitment in this case is a much more sensible unusual move than its idiotic endorsement of Joseph Whowasthatagain against gay-friendly (and very powerful) senior Senator Arlen Specter two years ago. Of course, the fact that Casey is a Democrat means everything falls cleanly along pre-conceived party lines this time, thus sparing most people involved from asking uncomfortable questions about, you know, principles and stuff.

Of course, as the PGN notes, this year's race is, for a lot of gay voters, as much about giving Santorum the heave as it is about getting a friendly candidate elected. Suppose you're a gay Pennsylvanian who occasionally thinks about the economy, or education, or the WOT? The Casey campaign's website is still on the thin side, but here's its issues page:

Bob Casey is running for the U.S. Senate because he wants to help bring change to Washington.

ZZZZZZZZ...wha? Oh, sorry.

As your Senator, Bob Casey will fight to put the needs and concerns of Pennsylvania's middle-class families first.

Bob Casey has stood up for our seniors as Auditor General and successfully fought to improve the Health Department's response to complaints about life-threatening abuse and neglect in nursing homes. He will continue to fight for our seniors in Washington.

Bob Casey has led the fight to improve the quality of child care in Pennsylvania and make it more affordable for low-income working mothers. And his performance audits helped save money for our schools. He will continue to fight for our children and for public education as a U.S. Senator.

Bob Casey also successfully fought to protect children from sex offenders. His investigation into compliance with Pennsylvania's Megan's Law led to passage of tough new legislation in 2004 that requires information about all convicted sex offenders to be posted on the Internet. In Washington, Bob Casey will continue to protect our children and to give law enforcement the tools they need to fight crime.

So he likes the usual array of entitlements--not surprising, if you're worried about such trivialities as whether you can get elected. Casting himself as an opponent of excessive spending--using his work as auditor general and state treasurer to give the image dimension--while supporting all the spending programs that are dear to the middle class is a good strategy. (He also wants you to sign a petition to save--of all things--Amtrak. Some fiscal watchdogging there, eh?)

So I'm not sure, at this early date, what change Casey will be bringing to Washington, besides the fact that there would be one senator fewer from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who doesn't go to gay advocacy fundraisers.

Casey's Democratic rivals, perhaps because they recognize that they have a lot less name recognition than the son of a former governor, have much more fleshed-out policy pages. Assuming gay issues are your first priority, Chuck Pennacchio clearly supports civil unions and appears--though the relevant paragraph understandably kind of hedges--to support gay marriage. He also likes the assault weapons ban, calls the Iraq invasion "reckless and deceptive" in origin, wants all campaigns for federal office to be publicly funded, and (as if you couldn't guess) thinks we're not dumping enough tax money into the public school system and Medicare. Alan Sandals has his soundbites in handy chart form. He supports gay marriage and thinks we should begin withdrawing from Iraq. Otherwise, the same: more money for senior citizens, end the K Street Project as one in the eye for Santorum and the GOP.

Gaijin Biker links to a Japan Times interview with the Egyptian ambassador here, in which he does that oily I'm-not-making-threats-I'm-just-stating-a-fact thing:

Attacks like the ones on the Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon last weekend could take place in Japan if the media here insult Muslims by reprinting cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, Egyptian Ambassador to Japan Hisham Badr warned Friday.

"This is not a question of freedom of expression.... This is a question of blaspheme of religion," Badr said in an interview with The Japan Times. "It touches a very raw nerve" with Muslims worldwide.

So it's not a question of freedom of expression; it's just a question of whether expressing certain things will get your life, liberty, or property threatened.

I'm glad that's cleared up.

This whole thing is frustrating because I'm always happy to see calls for civilized behavior and wish there were more of them. I was brought up by and among fervently religious people, and despite being an atheist homo, I try to be respectful of their beliefs. Of course, you can't debate some points of spirituality without telling people directly that you think they're full of baloney, but that's why you don't introduce religion as a topic socially unless you're sure everyone's game for a pretty rousing discussion. I meet some religious people who are just interested in a neighborly manner in my current convictions; I meet others who are pretty clearly more interested in seeing whether they can try to draw me into their congregation. But never have I encountered anyone who's acted as if I were somehow obliged, even as a non-believer, to follow the strictures of his faith or risk reprisal.

Most of us in the West are not part of the ummah. We are not. We don't feel the need to act as if we were. I don't think these sorts of discussions can really get anywhere until a critical mass of Muslim public figures and opinion-makers make it very clear that they get that. I would think it discourteous if a group of Christians (and Jews and New Age types and atheists) decided to eat in a pointed fashion in front of a Muslim friend or corworker during daylight hours in Ramadan. But what if some Muslims had started things off by demanding that the cafeteria be closed so that no one could buy food on the premises during their holy month? Well, that would change things, wouldn't it? You might still recognize the public eating of Egg McMuffins with exaggerated relish as an affront, but you'd recognize that it was an affront with a point: we can be friendly and accommodating after you recognize that we are not bound as adherents by your religious rules.

After all, if we're going to criticize hostility to foreign religions, we could get quite a long discussion going about Saudi Arabia, where policy actively interferes with the religious practices of non-Muslims (indeed, even Muslims who don't belong to the official sect) who want to wear crucifixes or see clergy regularly or bring in copies of their sacred books. But I guess it's more important that liberal democracies be lectured about cartoons.

Added at 0:06: Speaking of Saudi Arabia, Al Gore is... cheese and crackers.

Joanne Jacobs writes that Queer Studies is spreading. And a good thing, too. There's no more difficult project than getting spoiled 20-year-old gay men and women at elite private colleges to obsess over themselves and feel disadvantaged. It can only be hoped that giving them academic credit for it will help.

She also links FIRE's website. I should know not to click through to FIRE by this point. It's not that the organization isn't doing wonderful, necessary work; it's just that the cases it documents are so infuriating that reading about them makes me want to flee to another planet.

Of course, you have to wonder which planet the good folks at Jacksonville State University think we're living on already. They feature in a post on FIRE's blog-like "The Torch":

There must be something illiberal in the water in Alabama. [I blame Susanna.--SRK] In October of last year, FIRE Legal Network attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against Troy University in Alabama for violating the First Amendment by maintaining a restrictive speech code and censoring student artwork.

Now FIRE has learned that Jacksonville State University (JSU) in Jacksonville, Alabama, maintains one of the most illegally overbroad—not to mention simply inane—speech codes that we have ever seen. The student code of conduct at JSU provides that "No student shall threaten, offend, or degrade anyone on University owned or operated property." Got that? No student shall offend anyone on University property. The only way for students to ensure they are in compliance with this policy is to remain in complete silence. Otherwise, how could a student possibly know whether an opinion she wants to express might offend one of the 9,000 other students at JSU, each of whom has his or her own particular sensitivities?

I hate to break it to Samantha Harris (who wrote that on behalf of FIRE), but as a rather laconic guy myself, I can assure you that being quiet only invites Chatty Cathy types to be offended at one's perceived "unfriendliness," "aloofness," or even "elitism."

Personally, I cracked up with unrestrained offensive glee at the "degrade" part. I have this vision of some outraged, fresh-faced 19-year-old (of either sex) showing up in a huff at the Dean of Student Life's office and declaring, "That guy who lives two doors down in the dorm just totally degraded me!" Presumably then there would be a Threat/Offense/Degradation Incident Report to file?

Bonkers--just bonkers.

Grand Stand has a post up about the cartoons thing, and of course, it's good. I'd love to agree with it. I go on and on about civilized discourse myself all the time.

The reason I can't is that I think context matters. We accept that there are settings in which any political speech would be offensive--you don't take your aunt's funeral as an opportunity to decry her having voted for Dukakis two decades ago. Political cartoons are at the opposite end of the spectrum. They operate on caricature; they condense complex issues and actions into jolting pen-and-ink images. A public figure who's recently displayed greed will soon open the paper and see herself depicted as a very large pig with its snout in a very large trough.

Does that mean that there are no lines to be crossed? Of course not. But whether a drawing is mere childish provocation or a genuine contribution to the public debate that uses its shock value in a meaningful way is often going to be an issue that no one can settle. Perhaps the result would be unladylike and ungentlemanly either way, but that's why we look for context clues: Do the other cartoons this guy has drawn consistently jeer at a particular group? Does the rest of the editorial page at this publication take a balanced view of the issue being treated? One doesn't want to slide into easy defenses of caddish behavior, but one also doesn't want to stifle genuine free thought by demarcating some ideas as off-limits to criticism or extrapolating too much from a 9 in² drawing.

Maybe you could argue that if the hang-up is over iconography, the debate has to be conducted in words rather than images; but I think you could just as easily argue that if visual representation is the issue, images are the most direct and immediate way to get to the heart of the matter. You could also argue that there are some questions the free, skeptical mind can't ask without offending people. So fine--people are offended, and they respond with more speech. The minute newspapers that print controversial material start bleating that people are getting furious with them, I will be back at Grand Stand's side immediately. That's what's supposed to happen. What's not supposed to happen, when you dwell among the sane, is the torching of embassies and the issuing of death threats.

Unreal. Just unreal. I know this stuff shouldn't surprise me anymore, but I've gone back to Michelle Malkin's site and looked at those pictures several times over the last few days, and I find it hard even to get angry, exactly. (I'm sure that would be different if this were the aftermath of a suicide bombing or other sort of attack.) It's just so depressing: "[thesaurus word for kill] those who [thesaurus word for assail] Islam." These people can't even come up with stimulating, idiosyncratic thoughts on their protest posters.

This is probably going to sound ridiculously petty, but I wish our civilization were clashing with a force that at least gave us a run for our money when it came to imagination and...flair. Not that that would make the bloodthirstiness or illiberalism any better at all; but it would at least give the feeling of fighting a worthy, equal evil, as opposed to one that just happens to breed in such large numbers that its presence can't be ignored. As Steven Malcolm Anderson would have said, they have no style.

I hadn't really planned on doing the Buy Danish! thing, but if the enemy insists on being so incandescently lame, I figure I'll go the whole way and take the in-your-face gay approach: I will stop by Seibu on my way home and drop some money on Royal Copenhagen. Yeah, fine, I spend too much on housewares even when there's no moral message to be conveyed, but see, I hadn't planned on buying anything there TODAY, so I still get to feel all upright and socially responsible. So say I.

Okay, I know I shouldn't be disrespectful, but I laughed aloud at this (via Rondi Adamson). Luckily, I didn't have a mouthful of tea and cake at the time:

A leading Islamic cleric called for an "international day of anger" today over publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, and a Danish activist predicted that deadly violence could break out in Europe "at any minute".

As more European newspapers reprinted the cartoons, what started off as a row between Denmark's press and its Muslim population grew into a full-blown "clash of civilisations".

As Rondi says, "But isn't every day an international day of anger for Islamofascists?" Yeah, seriously, what is that all about? We infidels are going to be glowered at especially hard today? The shrieky denunciations of Western culture and institutions will be ratcheted up a decibel or two?

The Danish cartoons thing is one of those stories that everyone with a blog had written about the moment it broke, so I wasn't going to say anything about it. If you believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech, the political position you need to take is obvious. As Virginia Postrel says:

My response to this nonsense is to wonder why Muslims don't grow up. If your co-religionists are going to take political stands, and blow up innocent people in the name of Islam, political cartoonists are going to occasionally take satirical swipes at your religion. Those swipes may not be nuanced, but they're what you can expect when you live in a free society, where you, too, can hold views others find offensive. If you don't like it, move to Saudi Arabia. Or just try to peacefully convert people to Islam.

We all cherish the right to free speech, but of course we have to try and assess motives in order to be able to deal with each other, and there's no reason not to raise the question of whether the cartoons in question are merely coarsening the public discourse rather than contributing useful thoughts to it. That's the angle of the whole thing that pisses me off; there are legitimate issues about civilized behavior in a liberal society that this could be an opportunity to discuss. It's useful to ask where vigorous opposition shades off into unenlightening jeering and disrespect.

But, you know, you have to stop frothing at the mouth in order to get to the point at which you can contemplate such things, and that's something many Islamic activists seem incapable of doing. Not only that, but moderate Muslims haven't figured out how to grab the spotlight when these sorts of things happen and put a sensible, civilized public face on their faith. (Virginia's right about Kindly Inquisitors, BTW. Short but very good.)

Added after finishing tea: Trust me to get through an entire post about something I'd planned not to post about without posting about the thing that spurred me to post about it in the first place. (Don't bother rereading that sentence--you got the gist already, trust me.)

It was the State Department (via Michelle Malkin):

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the beliefs of Muslims," State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said when queried about the furore sparked by the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility," Higgins told AFP.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

"Not acceptable"? Give me a break. "Not acceptable" is, like, the locution I use when scolding an employee for being late or not filling out his paperwork properly. It would be "not acceptable" for Electrolux to refuse to make restitution if it sold you a defective vacuum cleaner. It's "not acceptable" for a commercial flight to take off an hour late with no apology from the crew.

Given that candid eye contact from a woman in public is enough to "[incite] religious or ethnic hatreds" in some of these people, going all extra-sensitivo when writing (of all things!) political cartoons seems a bit pointless. Especially if our standard is going to be wifty-ass PR-speak like "acceptable."

BTW, while I'm citing a series of beautiful, smart, fierce women, Samantha Burns hasn't yet posted about this whole ridiculous cartoon drama, but presumably she will. (A commenter has prodded her.) And when she does, you know it's going to be a corker.

Added still later: In the interest of diversity, here's a post that's not by a beautiful, smart, fierce woman. Since this is Beautiful Atrocities we're talking about, it goes without saying that it's not safe for work. Not safe for play, either. I'm a big proponent of civilized discourse, but there are times when targeted offensiveness makes a point that can't be made any other way.

Jews are cool. I don't think I mention that often enough. Sure, they (and their institutions, such as the Israeli government) are fallible like the rest of us, but overall, they set quite a cultural example of resourceful and enterprising approaches to problems.

It's not that I have a problem with non-Jews, mind. Why, some of my best friends aren't Jewish. Hell, I'm not Jewish. It's just that, given that the Palestinians have just voted a party into power that has wiping Israel off the map as part of its platform, saying that Jews are cool seems somewhat more important than it might have last week.

I know, I know--Fatah was corrupt and disingenuous anyway. I also know that bitching about something Jimmy Carter said about the Middle East will have no practical result, though it brings back fond memories of the harangues Mom and Dad used to deliver at the TV news when I was little and might lower my blood pressure somewhat. Here he is. (BTW, Mr. Carter? If you turned up the heat, you wouldn't need that vest on indoors to be toasty warm. Just a thought.)

Hamas deserves to be recognized by the international community, and despite the group's militant history, there is a chance the soon-to-be Palestinian leaders could turn away from violence, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday.

Carter, who monitored last week's Palestinian elections in which Hamas handily toppled the ruling Fatah, added that the United States should not cut off aid to the Palestinian people, but rather funnel it through third parties like the U.N.

I'm bringing this up because I've heard the issue framed that way by a few people since the weekend, and I think it's predicated on a misunderstanding. Has anyone--Bush, Rice, Rove, anyone?--talked about not recognizing the Hamas government the way, say, the ROC was considered the real "China" at the UN until thirty-odd years ago? Perhaps so and I've missed it. What I read from the Secretary of State, though, was this:

"We're going to review all of our assistance programs, but the bedrock principle here is we can't have funding for an organization that holds those views just because it is in government," Rice said.

The U.S., Europe and Israel list Hamas as a terrorist organization; various Arab governments have contact with the group.

"It is important that Hamas now will have to confront the implications of its covenant if it wishes to govern," Rice said. "That becomes a primary consideration in anything that we do."

It is not clear that all European nations or the United Nations would cut off aid, let alone Arab governments that do not recognize Israel.

That sure sounds like a recognition of Hamas's legitimacy as the democratically elected majority party to me. That it simultaneously declares that Hamas needs to stop acting like scum if it expects our help in governing is a different consideration. (The "if it wishes to govern" part reads like a warning of practical consequences rather than a threat.)

Seriously, I'd like to be able to say I think Palestinians are cool, too. I don't hold it against them, in any fundamental way, that they don't like the Jews. Long-standing ethnic enmity is a fact of life all over the Earth, and while democratization has turned it into mostly good-natured mischief in some places, it still plays a major role in the love-your-goods-but-hate-you way that, say, Japan, China, and Korea interact (just to pull a region out of the air, you know).

But besides all that, when they're not getting misty-eyed over suicide bombers, the Palestinians have a reputation for being unusually hard-working and inventive. I was brought up in the sort of environment in which those qualities are valued and would just kind of like to know when--when on Earth--we're going to see them bear fruit there. The Palestinians have infrastructure and universities. They have internal and external markets to exploit. Yes, the Israelis have access to cooler guns, but that alone doesn't explain why it's Israel that has the First World standard of living and the breakthroughs in medical research that get global publicity. I've seen--I wish I remembered where--the results of the recent election as a signal that the Palestinian people are starting to look at how they themselves, though their government, are causing some of their own problems instead of blaming everyone else. It's nice to think so.

In the meantime, though, the less-corrupt party with the official position that Israel must be destroyed is still taking an official position that Israel must be destroyed. Recognizing it without rewarding it strikes me as good policy.