Late Night Laugh: A Husband’s Revenge

Runners, Steeples, Drunks And Record Setting Drunks

Running In The Family:

Pearline Williamson, whose grandson is 100m runner Simeon Williamson, was out shopping when a young woman ran past her, pulling the purse from her hand.

Without a thought for her own safety Mrs Williamson sprinted after the woman, believed to be in her early 20s, and managed to catch her.

Nearer My God To Thee:

One of dozens of churchgoers watching a steeple being mounted on top of a newly constructed building in southwest Oklahoma City was killed when a crane collapsed on top of his vehicle, fire officials said.

Winfred Stafford, 79, was killed while watching the ceremony at the newly constructed South Pointe church…

Designing Streets With Drunks In Mind:

Scientists have decided that redesigning streets to make them more user-friendly for drunks could help reduce conflict and violence.

After using computer simulations based on the Welsh to mimic the movements of people staggering home after a good night out, researchers came to the staggering realisation that drunk people trip over things.

Scientists went on to the streets of Cardiff to get information about drunken behaviour they could feed into their computer model,. breathalysing locals and studying their behaviour.

A quarter of the individuals encountered were found to be so drunk they were staggering…

Speaking Of Drunks…

A North Providence man who crashed into a road sign late Monday was tested as having a blood-alcohol level six times the legal limit — believed to be the highest reading on a Breathalyzer in Rhode Island, according to the state police.

Stanley Kobierowski, 34, was tested after he crashed into an electronic message board on Route 95 near Providence Place. He tested at the scene with a blood-alcohol level of .489 and then .491. Kobierowski was released on personal recognizance after a bail hearing and will face another hearing Friday on charges of drunken driving and resisting arrest.

Kobierowski spent most of yesterday at Rhode Island Hospital’s detoxification unit. The police said they had to delay his arraignment until late in the afternoon largely because the hospital would not allow him out of its care until his blood alcohol had dropped below the legal limit of .08. When he arrived at the hearing at the state police barracks in Lincoln at about 4:45 p.m…

Sexy science: Why music really is the way to a woman’s heart

Why are male rock bands so attractive to the opposite sex? It could be that musical ability is an advertisement of health and fertility

From The Scotsman:

I KNOW this guy, Ben. He’s cute, but he’s a little bloke and certainly not what you’d call a madly gorgeous stud. But Ben is a big hit with women, lots of women. Ben can, and often does, get off with a different lady every night, sometimes more than one. So now you’re either thinking “what a total cad” (to put it mildly), or you’re thinking “what’s this guy’s secret?”

The secret is he’s a rock singer. Music can evoke many powerful emotions, one of which is often desire; a fact not lost on thousands of teenage girls who have screamed and sobbed their hearts out variously at the boys from the Beatles, the Bay City Rollers (!), Take That, McFly etc…

But why do we find musicians and singers so attractive? Looking at things from a biological point of view, we would normally expect women to be attracted to men with qualities that indicate good genes that can be passed on to her children or those that show he can look after a family, like a wad of cash for instance. Music doesn’t seem to serve any practical purpose.

Musical ability, along with other creative skills, are rather like a human version of the peacock’s tail; something that has no survival value, but has evolved precisely because it is found attractive by the opposite sex. That’s according to Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico and author of The Mating Mind.

Miller proposes that back through the mists of evolutionary time, those of our male ancestors who were a bit more witty, could daub a bison on the cave wall or perhaps hum a nice tune got more mates, and over time creative abilities evolved as the men who were most artistic or musical had more children. At the same time, the preference for these abilities evolved and over the millennia our brains expanded to accommodate our growing creativity. Meanwhile, he says, women too were evolving creative abilities, because the ones that could entertain their men could keep them around to help raise the kids.

The initial preference for creativity could have come from the fact that only a high-quality man could have the time to spend on creating great music or nice pictures – the rest would be too busy just surviving to think about knocking out a hit single.

There could be another explanation for this weird affliction, according to John Manning of University of Central Lancashire. He thinks musical ability is an advertisement of male health and fertility, and that’s why great musicians are so sexy.

It has been suggested, says Manning, that high testosterone exposure during gestation promotes the development of parts of the right side of the brain where musical ability resides. Manning has also produced evidence to suggest that exposure to high foetal testosterone levels leads to men who are, on average, healthier and more athletic than others, and have a higher sperm count.

In short, he says, men who make lots of good music make lots of sperm.

If men can advertise their prowess through music then we’d expect a lot more men than women to be making it. Manning points out that in a sample of more than 7,000 jazz, rock and classical albums, there were ten times as many male as female musicians.

Classical orchestras also show a preponderance of male musicians, but when Manning and a colleague looked at the gender ratio of the audience it was a different story. Those sitting closest to the orchestra during performances were much more likely to be female than male, lending support to the idea that the music might be serving some mate advertising function.

So if, like me, you are planning a trip to something classical at the Edinburgh Festival this year, look out for those ladies in the front row. Are they considering the complexities of baroque or have they got something much more basic on their minds?

The New Obamath: 200,000 . . . or 20,000? Obama’s Crowd in Berlin

The estimates given by German public television ZDF actually during the event, however, were as little as one-tenth of that number…“We do estimate that 20,000 [literally, "a couple of ten thousand"] people have turned out.”

By John Rosenthal in World Politics Review

“Obama Addresses 200,000 in Berlin” — thus ran the AP headline the day after Barack Obama’s much-hyped speech in front of Berlin’s Siegessäule or “Victory Column.” This 200,000 figure has quickly become the standard estimate of the crowd for Obama’s speech in both the American and the German media: so standard indeed that it is for the most part not even treated as an estimate.

The estimates given by German public television ZDF actually during the event, however, were as little as one-tenth of that number. ZDF began its special “Obama in Berlin” coverage [German video] at 6:45 p.m. Central European Time: only 15 minutes before the candidate’s speech was scheduled to start. At the time, ZDF reporter Susanne Gelhard was out and about on the so-called “Fan Mile” between the Victory Column and the Brandenburg Gate. “The expectations were highly varied,” she said in her live report, “from a few thousand up to a million. Those were the estimates. But, now, several tens of thousands have turned out.” Barely five minutes before the speech was supposed to start, ZDF Berlin studio chief Peter Frey added, “We do estimate that 20,000 [literally, "a couple of ten thousand"] people have turned out.” Frey’s tone, like that of Gelhard, reflected the gap between the relatively modest number cited and the lofty predictions that had preceded the event. Moreover, while the ZDF live images showed that the “Fan Mile” was indeed populated from one end to the other, they also appeared to reveal patches of thinness and pedestrian traffic flowing easily on the half of the boulevard closer to the Brandenburg Gate (i.e. furthest from the “Victory Column”).

And then: the candidate did not appear at the appointed time. Could his handlers have been disappointed by the turnout? Did they hope to buy time for more spectators to arrive? At this point, ZDF interrupted its special coverage and broke for the nightly news. When the coverage resumed some fifteen minutes later, ZDF host Claus Kleber promptly declared that there were “one hundred thousand” people on the Fan Mile. He then repeated the claim twice more in rapid succession — now, more precisely, “over one hundred thousand people” — as if repetition could somehow cover up the glaring discrepancy between this number and the number cited by his colleague Frey only 20 minutes earlier.

Minutes later, Obama was on stage. And a half hour after that, he was gone again. By 8 p.m. — as the crowd filed out, obediently following the order to disperse given over the loud-speaker system — the number being cited had grown to fully 200,000. As this German timeline indicates, the original source for the rapidly growing estimates was in fact the rally organizers: i.e. the Obama team. The 200,000 figure would also be attributed to the Berlin police — which might represent the first time in modern history that the police and the organizers of a political rally agreed on their estimates of crowd size.

As the Berlin-based writer Christian J. Heinrich notes: “During the big anti-Bush demonstration after the fall of Baghdad, there were 250,000 people. And it looked totally different from yesterday. Then, you couldn’t move all the way from the Brandenburg Gate to the Technical University [on the western side of Tiergarten park, another kilometer beyond the Siegessäule].”:

Obama Wants To Talk About Race In America? It’s Not So Black And White

From Psychology Today:

Yesterday’s New York Times ran an article titled “Poll Shows Racial Division on Obama’s Candidacy.” The story included several examples of divergence between White and Black Americans’ perceptions of the presidential campaign; for example, more than 80% of Black respondents reported a positive impression of Barack Obama, compared to closer to 30% of Whites. Some of the most interesting findings, however, have nothing to do with presidential politics, but rather speak to the persistent divide in how Americans think about race, a divide that too frequently is only discussed by behavioral researchers.

The Times article provides a link to the results of the entire survey, revealing a number of interesting findings. First, as reported in the story, White respondents (79%) were more likely to agree that progress has been made towards eliminating racial discrimination in recent years than were Black respondents (59%). But the article doesn’t note the interesting change in responses to this question over time. When it was first asked in 1992, 53% of Whites agreed that progress was being made, compared to only 29% of Blacks. While some sort of racial gap has been found each time this question has been asked, it is interesting to note that in a decade-in-a-half, both White and Black respondents have moved up over the 50% agreement mark on it.

A notable contrast is provided by responses to a more general question regarding whether race relations in the U.S. are currently good or bad. 55% of Whites in the recent poll said “generally good,” compared to only 29% of Blacks. When this question was first asked in 1990, the racial split was 43% to 33%, indicating that only the White respondents have become more optimistic on this count over time.

So the Times poll indicates that a majority of White and Black Americans think progress towards racial equality is being made, but only Whites seem to be getting more optimistic over time regarding the general state of race relations. Why is this? Well, in large part it seems to be the case that Whites and Blacks use different reference points in answering these questions.

In a series of research studies, Yale social psychologist Richard Eibach has observed the comparable result that White Americans typically perceive more progress towards racial equality than do Blacks. One reason for this racial gulf is that Whites typically answer the type of question found in the Times poll by comparing the present to the past, whereas Blacks tend to answer it by comparing the present to the racial ideals they envision for the future.

In other words, when you ask White Americans about race relations in this country, on average they tend to respond by thinking, well, things are certainly better now than they used to be, so I’ll say we’re doing OK. Blacks, on the other hand, are more likely to think about their personal experiences with prejudice or current racial disparities in important outcomes like health, income, or employment. Accordingly, Blacks more typically think, things still aren’t as good as they could or should be, so we’re not doing so great.

A few important notes here. First, any time you discuss differences by race (or gender, age, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.), you’re talking about generalized differences at a group level. Within-group variability exists as well, of course. Certainly some Whites think U.S. race relations aren’t going so well (in fact, the Times poll data puts that number currently at 34%). And some Blacks see real progress being made. So neither the Times nor Eibach would argue that it’s an either/or proposition, that all Whites think this and all Blacks think that.

The second important note, I think, is that both reference points discussed by Eibach are reasonable. That is, neither Whites nor Blacks are wrong in how they’re seeing the racial landscape of the country. They’re just using different comparison points to answer the question. It seems indisputably true that we have made progress towards racial equality over the past several decades. The conclusion that we still could do better, that we still have a ways to go seems equally compelling. How could we not hold out hope to do even better when, for example, 15% of White Democrats in West Virginia say they wouldn’t vote for Obama because of his race? It would be fairly depressing if that were the best we could do, no?

So some of this racial disparity reflects different reference points used by Whites and Blacks in answering these questions. Anytime you ask someone for a global assessment of anything—whether marital happiness, job satisfaction, or the state of the economy—the reference point they choose to use is hugely important in determining the answer they give. This is why anytime we used to call my wife’s late grandfather to ask how he was doing, his answer was always, “compared to what?” Grandpa Syd understood the importance of the reference point in making any global assessment.

But there also remains a more pessimistic interpretation of this racial divergence in opinions. Some of it clearly has to do with self-interest. In another set of studies, Eibach concludes that many White Americans view gains in racial equality as personal losses, whereas Black Americans see them as personal gains. Of course, it’s hard to get people to support movements that they see as working against their self-interests, suggesting that this gulf between Whites and Blacks can’t be bridged completely by getting everyone to focus on the same point of reference.

In short, the Times poll raises a lot of provocative questions about race in contemporary America, but these are issues that transcend Barack Obama and this year’s election. I can’t help but think that the Times article (and obviously this blog entry) aren’t really about Obama per se—it’s just that his candidacy is prompting many in our society to engage in these issues more than they ordinarily would, to join in the discussion about race relations in this country that too often is relegated to academic journals instead of our newspapers and dinner tables.

Europeans Chasing Illusions And The Calm Before The Storm

Just because there is a wall that stands in the way of the terrorists doesn’t mean that their frustrations have disappeared!  …And, as far as the lower number of attacks is concerned, it’s an illusion. It will only be a matter of time before they rise again. While we are sitting here talking, the smuggling of arms continues, from Iran to Lebanon via Syria and from Egypt to the Gaza Strip. Nobody can do anything about it. It’s the calm before the storm.

From Der Spiegel:

Dutch author Leon de Winter talks with SPIEGEL about his new novel, which is set in 2024, the threats mounting against Israel and the assimilation of Muslims in Europe.

SPIEGEL: Mr. de Winter, your new book — “The Right of Return” — is a novel, but it actually describes a political vision. In the book, it is the year 2024, and Israel has shrunk to just a few square kilometers around Tel Aviv, which is surrounded by enemies. Are you simply playing with some ideas here or is this a serious prediction?

Leon de Winter: Both. Israel is menaced by two threats. On the one hand, by the hatred of its enemies, which today is primarily stirred up by Iran, and on the other hand, by the erosion spreading throughout Israeli society. There are three groups that have little in common: the Orthodox Jews, the Israeli Arabs and the secular Jews, who currently make up the majority of the population. But this majority is dwindling. The conflict between these three lifestyles is every bit as much of a threat — if not even more dangerous — to the existence of Israel as its outside menaces.

SPIEGEL: Does this mean you’re afraid that Israel, as a predominately secular Jewish state, could soon be history?

De Winter: I am not a prophet. When I was young, I really wanted to be a prophet, sometimes even the Messiah. But that is what all Jewish boys at a certain age want to be. They all wake up one morning and are absolutely positive: I am the Messiah! Who else would they be? And then they have to attend school, and reality catches up with them. I don’t disseminate messages; I tell stories about individuals. On the other hand, you cannot tell stories about Israel in the year 2024 without writing about politics. That just doesn’t work.

SPIEGEL: This is not the first time that you have made skeptical remarks about Israel’s future. This story sounds like the proclamation of a catastrophe.

De Winter: And that’s what it is. The book is a thriller with a sad, almost desperate undertone. But concern about Israel’s future was not my starting point here. I focused on a father whose 4-year-old son has suddenly disappeared without a trace. What happens then? His wife leaves him, he can’t work anymore, and he quits his job as a professor at Princeton and starts looking for his son. He feels guilty because, for a brief moment, he failed to watch over him. Later on, he realizes that his son’s disappearance has to do with global politics.

SPIEGEL: But he doesn’t care about politics; he’s only interested in his own misfortune.

De Winter: That’s right. My story starts in the past and ends in the future. That was my personal framework for articulating all my fears — in a fictional context. At the same time, I hate science fiction because the present provides enough excitement. I don’t need the future to write myself into a rage.

SPIEGEL: Do you think the conflict in the Middle East can be resolved through negotiations, or will the strongest win out in the end?

De Winter: It will depend on who gives up first — who won’t be able to take it any longer because it costs too much: too much energy, too much time, too much blood. And that will be the secular Jews, who have no ideology, who merely want to live their lives.

SPIEGEL: In your vision, many Jews leave Israel and emigrate to Europe or America, where life is easier. In the real Israel, an increasing number of Jews are acquiring a second passport, but it doesn’t look like they really want to leave. It’s more a modern form of life insurance, just in case things go wrong.

De Winter: It’s more than that. Immigration compensates for emigration because Russian Jews are still coming into the country. Nevertheless, take a look at Los Angeles or New York, where there are now large communities of ex-Israelis. And you even have them here in Holland. I wonder what will happen if it comes to a new conflict with Hezbollah. Very soon, the majority of Israelis will live within range of the rockets launched by Hezbollah and Hamas. Contrary to Islam, Judaism has a very weak tradition of martyrdom. In the end, we are powerless against a people who are prepared to sacrifice everything.

SPIEGEL: That said, the number of suicide attacks has declined sharply.

De Winter: Just because there is a wall that stands in the way of the terrorists doesn’t mean that their frustrations have disappeared! Look, the age-old yearning of the Jews to return to their historical homeland has engendered the same desire on the Palestinian side: the return to the homeland. It’s already a reality for the Jews, yet it remains a dream for the Palestinians. And, as far as the lower number of attacks is concerned, it’s an illusion. It will only be a matter of time before they rise again. While we are sitting here talking, the smuggling of arms continues, from Iran to Lebanon via Syria and from Egypt to the Gaza Strip. Nobody can do anything about it. It’s the calm before the storm.

SPIEGEL: The Europeans are trying to mediate in the conflict between Iran and the West. They keep returning to the negotiating table to prevent a possible nuclear threat against Israel…

De Winter: … but what good does it do? Remember the so-called troika, the foreign ministers of Germany, France and the UK: Joschka Fischer, Dominique de Villepin and Jack Straw. They flew to Tehran and back, drank tea and coffee with Iranian politicians and negotiated over the Iranian nuclear program. Imagine that: three respectable European intellectuals negotiating with guys who grew up in the Tehran bazaar and would sell them their own watches! That’s the kind of results that it produced. They told us that they had pursued a constructive dialogue but had not yet attained their objectives, and so they said that negotiations had to continue … And these three educated, sensible, and critical European intellectuals went along with this! And then, in the fall of 2003 — in other words five years ago — they held a press conference: We’ve reached our goal! Actually, nothing has happened, no agreement, absolutely nothing.

SPIEGEL: What do you think the Europeans are doing wrong?

De Winter: They are chasing illusions. At the time, I met Fischer during a reception at the headquarters of Springer Verlag (publishing house) in Berlin, and he came to me and asked: “What do you have against me? Why do you write such negative things about me?” I said: “I have placed so much hope in you, but you have disappointed me.” And he was really taken aback. I tried to explain the situation to him. He had to be told that the Iranians weren’t taking him seriously; they were making a fool of him. Fischer’s response to this was that we had to pursue a dialogue and return to the negotiating table again and again.

SPIEGEL: But Fischer was right. What would have been the alternative?

De Winter: We could have told them: If you don’t stop, we’ll wipe you out!

SPIEGEL: You can’t really mean that.

De Winter: Yes, I really do. I would have told the Iranians that if they don’t halt their nuclear program today, we’ll put the fear of God into them tomorrow. And they would have stopped because that’s a language they understand. You can’t go to these people and say: “Listen, if you renounce generating nuclear power, we’ll help you produce something else. And if you don’t do that, well, we’ll be very, very sad.” “Okay,” is definitely what the guys in Tehran would say “That’s a threat that we take seriously, and we’ll meet your demands.” What a ludicrous idea.

SPIEGEL: That is, with all due respect, the slightly simplified worldview of a novelist who lives in nice, little Holland and doesn’t have to make such decisions. A foreign minister has responsibilities and has to be more cautious in his judgments.

‘We Know Who We Are Dealing with Here’

De Winter: But we know who we are dealing with here. These people pursue their objectives with all possible means. If we wait to see what happens, then we have already accepted their ground rules. We are placing our fate in the hands of fanatics and fundamentalists. When you deal with diplomats from Iran or politicians from the Middle East, you cannot act as if you were dealing with the state governor of Hesse or Bavaria! It’s another world. You cannot negotiate without threatening to use force, especially if you want to prevent the development of nuclear arms by people who are practically longing for the apocalypse.

SPIEGEL: You have misread at least one situation in the past with your hawkish positions. Shortly before the war in Iraq, you published an essay in SPIEGEL, which could have been interpreted as a call to arms. You wrote that we have to cut off the monster’s head — meaning Saddam Hussein’s — and that if that didn’t happen, the monster would send our heads rolling. But now we’ve learned that Saddam’s secret military arsenal was a myth.

De Winter: At the time, Saddam Hussein acted as if he had weapons of mass destruction. He threw the United Nations inspectors out of the country; he ordered thousands of Kurds to be killed with chemical weapons.

SPIEGEL: That was long before that.

De Winter: What do you mean by “long”? He did it, and we had to assume that he would do it again at any time. And, besides, getting rid of a tyrant is never a wrong move, even if later on you have to accept the chaos that we are all familiar with for a period of time.

SPIEGEL: In the 1990s, Philip Roth wrote a novel called “Operation Shylock,” in which the Jews abandon Israel because it has become too dangerous. Did you have this book in mind when you wrote yours?

De Winter: No. I had the idea for “The Right to Return” when I wrote my last book, “Malibu.” I read something about the Mameluks, who were not originally Muslims, but were abducted as children or taken from their parents as “taxes” to be raised as warriors. I was captivated by this story. What happens to children who are basically forced to switch sides? What would a Mameluk story be like today? I’ve transferred the whole thing to the future, the future of Israel. Roth’s “Shylock” is a great novel, but it has no connection with reality. That’s not my field. I write realistic thrillers.

SPIEGEL: In “The Right of Return,” Jewish children are transformed into Muslim terrorists to spread fear and desperation throughout Israel. That’s not especially realistic, either. Actually, it’s more like introducing a new level of anxiety…

De Winter: Exactly, the ultimate horror.

SPIEGEL: Do these Jewish suicide bombers serve as a metaphor for those Jews throughout the world who oppose Israel or at least sharply criticize the country?

De Winter: Yes, definitely. On the one hand, I unconditionally support the right to freedom of speech. Everyone should be able to say whatever they want to say — even if it’s absolute nonsense. It wouldn’t be fair to say that those Jews who back the anti-Semites are just a bunch of sick or crazy people because there are some intelligent people among them. But there is an absurd or pathological element to it: the fear of being identified as a Jew or, actually, as a bad Jew. They would like to be good Jews and well liked because of it.

SPIEGEL: In your home country, the Netherlands, there is a widespread fear of Islamization. You have written a great deal on this topic yourself, and some of this sounds rather apocalyptic. Does this still reflect your view of the world?

De Winter: Not during the day. Only when I wake up at 3 o’clock in the morning and can’t fall asleep again. That’s when I really start to worry about everything — about my taxes, my children, my dog and my cats. And, of course, about the state of our society and what will happen to it. We are living in exciting times. And you know the Chinese curse: “May you live in exciting times!” Not since the end of World War II have things been as exciting as they are today. We are experiencing a new phenomenon: the mass immigration of Muslims to countries where the “infidels” live.

SPIEGEL: What do you expect the consequences of this will be?

De Winter: There are signs that a modern Islam is emerging. An increasing number of young, liberal Muslims are trying to practice their own form of religion because they have been inspired by the idea of freedom. But, of course, radical Islam remains a problem. It has a very strong appeal for frustrated young men with violent tendencies who at some point in time discover that the world is full of injustice and want to do something about it. It’s a bit like an adventure: the dramatic farewell videos, the last message to the world and then — the explosion. On top of that, there is the promise of sex after death, something many of them can only dream of. I can understand how young men become fanatics. But I also see something entirely different: how it is primarily young Muslim women here in Holland who become integrated into society; how they get an education and move forward because they have their freedom. And they seize this opportunity.

SPIEGEL: So it’s only a matter of time before the problem solves itself?

De Winter: We don’t know how long it will take and how many victims it will claim. It could take 40 or 50 years before integration has really occurred. Everything is in a state of flux, and nobody can say where the journey will take us.

SPIEGEL: And, in these exciting times, you are now moving to the US with your family?

De Winter: Yes, we’re going to Los Angeles for a year, to the most multicultural city in the US. I want to experience first-hand the election campaign and the period immediately following the elections. I feel comfortable in the US, and especially in LA, where there are no real locals and everyone is an immigrant.

SPIEGEL: Does your love for the States have something to do with your Jewish origins?

De Winter: That’s certainly possible. But if that were the case, then I would feel most at home in Israel. I travel a lot to Israel, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

SPIEGEL: Why not?

De Winter: Because of all the things that we have talked about. If I had lived during the 1920s, I would probably have also emigrated to Palestine. But today? I don’t see it as the duty of every Jew to live in Israel. As far as I’m concerned, America is the Promised Land because everyone can live there as they please, no matter where they come from and no matter which god they worship — as long as they work and respect the laws.

SPIEGEL: A fairly idealistic view of the United States.

De Winter: Please leave me with at least one illusion!

SPIEGEL: Your last novel, “Malibu,” was published six years ago. Usually it takes you two to three years to write a new book. Why did it take so long this time?

De Winter: I tried to save the world. That’s also a terrible Jewish habit. Above all, I tried to save Europe. I really thought that I could make a difference by writing political commentaries, columns, lead articles, essays for SPIEGEL. It became an obsession. I couldn’t do anything else. I spent the whole day on the Internet and got upset about everything. That’s not healthy for a writer.

SPIEGEL: Are you feeling better now?

De Winter: You can’t imagine how wonderful, how liberating it is to write a novel, even one with such a sad story. It’s such a relief to be able to control reality instead of being swallowed up by it. In my novels, I’m God. Everything obeys my command.

SPIEGEL: Thank you for this interview, Mr. de Winter

The Mortgage Bailout: Get Ready For Eminent Domain Seizures

From The American Spectator:

Of all the unintended consequences of the housing bill that passed the House on Wednesday, the most ironic and far-reaching may be this: whatever security marginal homeowners have from foreclosures, their homes will be far less safe from being taken by bureaucrats through eminent domain.

The bill that emerged from the negotiations between House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson took the specific language protecting property rights from the housing bill that most recently passed the Senate and rendered those words almost meaningless.

Now, the billions of dollars in new grants the bill provides for “the production, preservation and rehabilitation” of housing units could stimulate a bonanza of state and local property confiscation of the type green-lighted in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision Kelo v. New London.

That 5-4 decision in 2005 allowed states and localities to use eminent domain for the benefit of private parties, so long as the land confiscation served a “public purpose.” The case generated mass outrage, and rightly so.

As the Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners whose property was under threat in the case, has argued, the result meant that no one’s home is safe. It would serve a “public purpose” to destroy almost any residence and put a retail store in its place to raise more tax revenue.

IN RESPONSE TO the decision, many states and towns have passed laws protecting property owners by barring eminent domain solely for economic development purposes. But many other municipalities have simply ignored public opinion and used the ruling to condemn land with even more abandon.

As property rights expert Don Corace puts it in his new book Government Pirates, “Despite the widespread fury from conservatives, libertarians and liberals, hundreds of cities throughout the country cheered the ruling and continued their assault.”

And for the many areas that still utilize this practice, the federal government is often the source of funds for the projects that result in the use of eminent domain. Efforts to bar federal funds to be used on projects that make use of this type of eminent domain have stalled in this and the last Congress.

To their credit, the drafters of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which passed the Senate on July 11, at least recognized this danger of throwing billions in construction grants to state and local governments.

So they put in a clause stating, “No funds under this title may be used in conjunction with property taken by eminent domain, unless eminent domain is employed for a public use.”

The clause then adds that “public use shall not be construed to include economic development that primarily benefits any private entity.”

BUT THIS LANGUAGE has vanished from the House bill that passed Wednesday, replaced with phrasing that would give governments substantially more leeway to take land.

The nearly 700-page bill craftily replaces the Senate’s prohibition on funds “used in conjunction with property taken by eminent domain” with a looser ban on using the funds for a “project that seeks to use the power of eminent domain.”

This new language in the House bill would give property-grabbing bureaucrats an easy way around the supposed prohibition on using eminent domain. All they would have to do is take property for any reason that Kelo allows, then come up with another project for the specific use of that property.

If land were grabbed for general economic development, as Kelo permits, and then a new project were created for a city to sell this land to developers, this would likely not be a violation of the House bill. After all, the new project isn’t “seeking” to use eminent domain, it is merely using land that had already been confiscated.

It is typical for governments to change the “project” or purpose of land use many times once it has been taken through eminent domain. In fact, this was the case in Kelo.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor noted in her eloquent dissent describing the shifting justifications for the land grab in New London, Connecticut: “Parcel 4A is slated, mysteriously, for ‘park support.’ At oral argument, counsel for respondents conceded the vagueness of this proposed use and offered that the parcel might eventually be used for parking.”

The Senate language isn’t ironclad, but its broad ban on funds being used “in conjunction with” eminent domain for economic development would at least put some necessary burdens in using these new funds to help confiscate land.

All in all, if this new language is what ultimately passes, there will be virtually nothing stopping states and localities from using the federal housing grants to help themselves to confiscate housing.

HOW DID THESE property rights protections get removed? That’s somewhat of a mystery.

Barney Frank may not be a friend of property rights, but then neither is Treasury Secretary Paulson, who, according to press accounts, convinced President Bush not to veto the bill. Just after Bush nominated Paulson to head Treasury, Competitive Enterprise Institute adjunct scholar Steve Milloy warned that Paulson “has demonstrated little respect for private property rights.”

Milloy noted that as head of Goldman Sachs, Paulson spent shareholders’ money to support environmental groups’ efforts to stop forestry on a piece of land in Tierra Del Fuego, Chile. After this pressure, the Chilean landowner was forced to sell the land to — who else? — Goldman Sachs. For this reason and others, Milloy urged the Senate to reject Paulson’s nomination, as did the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Because of the House changes, the Senate has to pass the bill one more time before it goes to the President. This slighting of property rights from the earlier Senate bill cannot be ignored.

Otherwise, the U.S. may repeat the tragedy of ’50s and ’60s “urban renewal,” where the “federal bulldozer” of government housing programs literally made people homeless.

If that happens, you ain’t seen a meltdown yet!

Obama In Berlin: Bussing In The Believers

From Reader Expat, via email;

Just for the record, Obama’s team and Democrats Abroad delivered announcements of his speech to bars and cafes in Berlin to push attendance. They also brought in people from Democrats Abroad in other European countries. Reporters here were calling BO’s newly painted plane Obama One.

What people in Germany don’t know is that BO should have visited Germany before as part of a Congressional committee trip and should have held hearing in the committee he chairs. They don’t realize that he only cares when the lights are on him.

What Americans don’t know is that Obama’s wise foreign policy experts allowed his little campaign ploy to get involved in in the next German election. Angela Merkel was not pleased that his Brandenburg Gate would have highlighted her opponents. BO’s plane landed early and he asked whether he could visit Merkel 15 minutes earlier. She refused. Meanwhile the insipid mayor of Berlin got his photo op presenting Obama with a porcelain bear.

Secret Identities…

From The Wall Street Journal:

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That’s not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a “W.”

There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

“The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror — films like “In The Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Redacted” — which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense — values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right — only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3″ and now “The Dark Knight”?

The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?

The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of “The Dark Knight” itself: Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They’re wrong, of course, even on their own terms.

Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don’t always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them — when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take on those difficult duties themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away — because we have to chase him.”

That’s real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised — then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

Perhaps that’s when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.

Nightmares For Nancy And Harry

From The Wall Street Journal:

Voters Want Less Pork, Even In Their Own District

If you want to know how out of touch Congress is on the issue of wasteful spending, listen to Florida Rep. John Mica defend his pork projects: “There’s no way in hell I would support banning earmarks. That’s our job, getting elected and making decisions.” Mr. Mica is the most powerful Republican on the Transportation Committee.

The idea that bringing home federal dollars is integral to a politician’s job and essential to getting re-elected is a favorite of Republicans and Democrats alike. Three months ago, Hillary Clinton told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, “I’m very proud of my earmarks. It’s one of the reasons I won 67% of the vote, because I took care of my people.” Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, a professional earmarker, sees a direct correlation between earmarks and political longevity. “I listen and I provide. That’s what I’m elected for. You show me a congressman who says, I’m not going to have any earmarks, and I’m not going to listen, and I’m not going to provide, and I’ll show you a short-timer.”

There is just one problem with this theory. It is dead wrong.

The Club for Growth recently conducted a nationwide poll on government spending, and the results were exactly the opposite of what most politicians have been saying for years. Voters are fed up with Washington’s out-of-control spending. Politicians aren’t representing the will of the people when they bring home the bacon. They are really representing the will of their special-interest cronies. And it’s not just conservative voters who feel that way. Voters across the board have finally found something they can agree on even if their elected officials can’t: It’s time to cut the fat, even if that means fewer projects for their own districts.

Conducted in late June, the poll surveyed 800 voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46%. Likely voters were asked the following question: “All things being equal, for whom would you be more likely to vote for the U.S. Congress: 1) A candidate who wants to cut overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district or 2) A candidate who wants to increase overall spending on federal programs, as long as more federal spending and projects come to your district?”

The results were unambiguous. Fifty-four percent of general election voters chose the frugal candidate, compared with only 29% who chose the profligate candidate. Republicans overwhelming favor less federal spending, 72% to 17%, with independents close behind at 61%. Only Democrats prefer more federal spending, but only by a plurality. Thirty-six percent of Democrats chose the more fiscally conservative candidate, with 42% choosing the alternative.

Unfortunately, too many politicians are refusing to listen. The vast majority of congressmen are just as wedded to bloated budgets as ever. Part of the problem is that wasteful spending is embedded in the congressional culture. Congressional freshmen are instructed by leadership to seek out earmarks and flaunt their success back home. They are indoctrinated to believe that seeking and securing earmarks — no matter how silly or wasteful — is a congressman’s official duty and a surefire path to re-election. It is for this reason that vulnerable incumbents are showered with additional pork projects as the election cycle heats up. I know this is true because Republican leaders explained this all to me when I entered Congress in 1999.

But this argument is falling apart. Voters across America don’t see their elected officials “listening” and “providing.” Instead they see spending that is wasteful, prone to corruption, arbitrary and inefficient. They see Republican congressmen like Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney hauled off to jail for earmark-related corruption. They see Congress lavishing their hard-earned tax dollars on such projects as the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska, the Mule and Packers Museum in California, and the Lobster Institute in Maine. Even worthy-sounding earmarks like a local science lab are viewed with suspicion. After all, these projects are not subject to competitive review and bidding, and they are designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

The club’s poll confirms what a number of politicians have been proving for years. Reps. Jeff Flake and John Boehner and Sens. Tom Coburn and John McCain have long eschewed “bringing home the bacon” without cost to their re-elections. And a number of new candidates across the country are staking their campaigns on a strong antiearmark platform.

There is a new antispending movement and it is rising from the grass roots up. If Republicans want to win elections again and regain the majority one day, they will have to listen to the voters instead of the John Micas and Don Youngs of the GOP.