I was greatly disturbed by Abigail Graber’s op-ed piece in The Phoenix last week. In it, she says Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University was hate speech, and that hate speech should not be given a public forum. I disagree with this on both levels. Ahmadinejad’s speech was not hate speech, and even if it were, it was right for Columbia to let him speak.
Graber boldly claims, “The Holocaust was a moral abomination. Holocaust denial is a moral abomination.†I think mostly everyone will agree, including me, that the Holocaust was a moral abomination. But, Holocaust denial is not a moral abomination. Since when has holding a mere idea become a moral abomination? Maybe the inquisitors during the Spanish Inquisition will beg to differ with me, but I can think and believe whatever I want. Denying the Holocaust, while historically unjustifiable, is not hateful. Saying that Hitler was justified in killing Jews may be considered hate speech, but a simple act of denying the Holocaust is not hateful.
But let’s suppose for a moment that Holocaust denial is indeed hateful. I don’t concede for a moment that it is, but let’s follow this chain of logic. I still claim that Ahmadinejad’s speech should have been given the public venue. Graber is perfectly correct in pointing out that there was absolutely no legal obligation to let him speak. But I would like to argue from a higher stance of our moral obligation to protect free speech, even if it is hateful. Could she be afraid that people might be offended? How dare she be as insulting as to make an assumption about the public’s ability to discern. This is not about Ahmadinejad’s right to speak, it is about our right to listen. As the author Christopher Hitchens points out, every time you censor speech, you take away the right of the public to hear something.
Indeed, it is helpful to grant people like Ahmadinejad a public forum, because it helps us reevaluate what we know. What would you say to someone from the Flat Earth Society? How do we know what we know? It is our duty as rational, skeptical beings that we constantly question the evidence. Therefore, it is imperative and necessary to give minority opinions a public forum, no matter how hurtful, incorrect or appalling. When Graber said, “There is no debate to be had on these subjects,†I hope she meant that Holocaust denial is an irrational position to hold. I hope she did not mean that any point of view that is unpopular or hurtful should be silenced.
Let me also argue from a more practical standpoint. If we were to ban hate speech, to whom would we grant the power to decide what is hateful? For example, one remembers well the incident in 2005 where a Danish newspaper printed a cartoon with the prophet Muhammad, and a violent uprising around the world caused many deaths. Should we leave it to Muslims to decide what we can or cannot draw, simply because they find certain things offensive? Should we leave it to the Christians to decide what we can or can’t say? Meanwhile, the religious often get away with hurtful speech with the excuse that it is part of their religious belief. If we are going to continue letting ministers preach homophobia in public settings and let the Bible stay in print for that matter, then we better be consistent and allow freedom of all expression, no matter how incorrect or hurtful.
This grim outlook on broadband internet access may become reality if congress does not pass net neutrality legislation soon. All bits are created equal!
By Alan B. Krueger
Tuesday, September 11, 2007; 12:00 AM
Six years after 9/11, all too many Americans still have only a vague idea of what does — and doesn’t — motivate terrorists. It doesn’t help that many politicians exploit the anxiety that terrorism evokes to promote their own agendas. Here are five key urban legends:
1. Terrorism is a random act carried out by irrational people who hate our way of life.
If only it were that simple. In fact, terrorists are typically motivated by geopolitical grievances, not blind hatred. The agendas of individual terrorist groups vary, but their tactical goal is always more or less the same: to sow fear and confusion by deliberately targeting civilians in order to intimidate a country into changing its policies and ways.
So political calculations are key here. Citizens of countries that occupy other countries, for example, are more likely to be targeted by terrorists. In addition, wealthy democracies are more likely to be the targets of terrorist strikes than are totalitarian regimes, which suggests that terrorists deliberately strike countries that are susceptible to public pressure.
Another reason not to see terrorist attacks as random: They’re often timed to occur when they can have maximum impact, such as the eve of pivotal elections. In Israel, for example, attacks by Palestinian terrorist groups bent on sabotaging peace talks are more frequent before elections when left-wing governments hold power, in hopes of pushing Israeli voters in a more hawkish direction, according to research by Claude Berrebi of the Rand Corporation and Esteban F. Klor of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
There’s even a cold logic to the time of day that terrorists pick for their attacks, which also suggests a rhythm that’s far from random. My analysis of U.S. government data from the National Counterterrorism Center reveals that terrorists are most likely to strike in the morning — in time to enter the day’s news cycle.
2. Terrorists are no different than ordinary criminals.
Wrong. Criminals tend to be poor and uneducated. But terrorists tend to come from families with above-average means and are often well-educated. For example, Jitka Maleckova of the Russell Sage Foundation and I found that members of the military wing of the radical Shiite group Hezbollah who were killed in action in the 1980s and early 1990s were better educated and less likely to be poor than their Lebanese countrymen. Other researchers have found similar results for other terrorist groups. People who join terrorist organizations often have legitimate, well-paying jobs, unlike common criminals.
3. Terrorists are likely to cross into the United States from Mexico.
This is a favorite chestnut of some activists and politicians keen to tighten immigration and build a fence on the Mexican border. But the historical record doesn’t bear it out. Of course, the past may not be a good predictor of the future, but terrorists have rarely crossed into the United States from Mexico. In a recent Nixon Center study of 373 Islamist terrorists, Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke concluded: “Despite widespread alarms raised over terrorist infiltration from Mexico, we found no terrorist presence in Mexico and no terrorists who entered the U.S. from Mexico.” By contrast, the authors found “a sizeable terrorist presence in Canada and a number of Canadian-based terrorists who have entered the U.S.” For example, Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian terrorist who tried to blow up Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999, was caught trying to cross the border from Canada into Washington state.
4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.
Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism. (Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country’s mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.) Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.
After all, it was not long ago that homegrown villains such as Timothy McVeigh and the so-called Unabomber were the most notorious terrorists. That makes sense; the vast majority of terrorist incidents are local, motivated by local concerns and carried out by natives. Even international terrorist events tend to be local affairs, most frequently carried out by local militants who target foreigners who happen to be in their country. (Just think of last week’s foiled plot to attack U.S. targets in Germany.) This suggests that the likelihood of attack by homegrown terrorists is far greater than the threat of another 9/11-style attack by foreigners.
5. Terrorism never succeeds.
If terrorism didn’t work, it would be far more rare than it now is. Sometimes terrorists do achieve their goals, which is why others continue to try the tactic.
Of course, it’s not always easy to determine what the terrorists’ objectives are, but sometimes their goals are pretty clear. Consider the devastating commuter-rail bombings in Madrid in March 2005, three days before Spain held congressional elections. The Islamic radicals who set off the bombs reportedly hoped to change the Spanish government. It worked. A new study by Jose Garcia Matalvo, an economist at Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, compared absentee ballots cast before the bombings with votes cast after them on a province-by-province level. His work convincingly shows that the shock of the bombings led the Socialist Party to defeat the incumbent conservative government. Upon assuming power, the Socialist Party immediately withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq.
akrueger@princeton.edu
Alan B. Krueger is the Bendheim professor of economics and public policy at Princeton University and the author of “What Makes a Terrorist.”
The iPhone price drop. If you haven’t heard, Steve Jobs dropped the price on the sexiest gadget ever made by $200 – 1/3 the original price – only two months after release. And the iFanboys are going crazy. All the early-adopters who waited on line for hours to buy the iphone on he first day are mad as hell. But I don’t understand the controversy.
When was the last time an electronics product became obsolete or cheaper right after you bought it? It happens all the time! Why is this such a big deal? If anything, we should all be thankful that the device is now more accessible to more people. If you bought the iPhone during the first 2 months, you KNEW that the price was going to eventually drop. And you also KNEW that you are potentially taking a risk by buying any electronics product upon initial release.
What’s even more mind-boggling is that Steve Jobs actually caved into the uncalled-for outcries and offered a $100 gift certificate to all who bought the iPhone at the higher price. Why? I know Steve Jobs likes to look like the “nice guy” of the tech industry, but I think he has gone too far this time. Seriously, the vocal minority who are complaining about the price drop, they need to get a life. Because of this incident, Apple will NEVER drop prices on their products like this ever again.
All you complainers who bought the iPhone early: don’t you see? It’s all YOUR fault. Because of you, Apple and other companies will be less willing to drop prices like this anymore. And we ALL lose. The higher price you paid for your iPhone got you the title of being the “cool” guy who had the iPhone first. You had your time in the spotlight. And you paid for it with $200. Now stop complaining.
And Mr. Steve Jobs, please don’t cave into the iFanboys so much. Your $200 price drop was perfectly okay. You don’t need to offer reparations. If anything, the iFanboys deserve a $200 fine for buying a first-generation so soon.
My gut choice is Hillary Clinton. I find her very likeable and she’s a methodist (perhaps as liberal as you can get in the protestant world). I also want to see Bill Clinton in the White House again.
But my calculating choice is Barack Obama. He’s actually a lot more liberal than Hillary, despite what people think. For example, Obama is against the Death Penalty, but Hillary is not. Obama thinks the war in Iraq is doing more harm than good. Hillary does not. Obama is more progressive on issues about stem-cell research. Plus, Obama’s mother was an outspoken atheist, so he understands the atheist position very well.
So I am torn. Purely from a policy perspective, I think Obama is my man. On the other hand, I really want to see Hillary in office. Perhaps an Obama-Hillary ticket would be the best. I think that would be quite a dynamic duo. Hillary’s more centrist tendencies could be checked by Obama’s more liberal leanings.
It is interesting to note that the public **perception** of Obama is that he is more centrist than Hillary is. Which, of course, is actually exactly the opposite of what’s true.
Apparently, Fox News viewers have the least knowledge about domestic and world affairs. Not very surprising, really, if you have ever watched Fox News for more than ten minutes. What I fear the most is that America is breeding a very dangerous generation of ignorant farm-boys raised surrounded by conservatives only, watching the Fox News Channel, and not really have a clue about what the world is like outside of their community. Mixing ignorance, politics, and religion is a dangerous concoction. This, together with the religious fervor and dogmatism that are on the rise in the middle east (for both Jews AND Muslims), is setting the stage for what I only fear will be the most devastating period for humanity. And these different beliefs can never be reconciled because they are based on faith, not evidence. In deed, how can any amount of evidence and rational thinking bend the will of God (or what they perceive to be the will of God)? This is grim indeed.
Reports from Taiwan suggest that Apple may launch next month a new iPod that looks, feels and works like an iPhone, but without the phone part.
DigiTimes, a Taiwan-based publication that often leaks details about local companies that make electronic components for companies worldwide, says Taiwan-based Wintek has won a large touchscreen display contract for Apple’s next media player.
If Apple does ship an iPhone-like iPod, it would likely prove popular. Millions want the advanced, multitouch interface of the iPhone, but balk at moving to AT&T, dumping their 80GB iPods for 8GB iPhones, or moving from a 3G phone to EDGE data speeds.
When all those silly iFanBoys lined up for days to buy a 600 dollar phone with clumsy typing and only 1/10th the capacity of a regular iPod, I shall be basking in the glory of a REAL iPod that can actually store all of my music at once, AND also have the killer touch-screen multimedia capabilities of the iPhone. And, I won’t have to dish out close to thousand dollars a year to AT&T to use it. I shall have the last laughter.
I wonder if this iPhone-without-the-phone iPod will still have WiFi and a web browser?
