You know that any article starting off like this is going to get mentioned on this blog:

“Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative. At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.”

Mr. Levitt? Mr. Dubner? Anything to add?

[via The Toronto Star]

Let’s see…what’s in the news today…

Senator fires back at U.S. family upset with seal hunt. First of all, she’s right: the war in Iraq, the execution of prisoners, the racism that exists in the justice system and the aggressive foreign policy are all regrettable actions on the part of the US. However, that doesn’t invalidate the McLellan family’s statement about the seal hunt being “horrible” and “inhumane”.

Harper restricts ministers’ message. First of all, I don’t think all the comparisons to Bush (see the many, many comments) are accurate; Bush’s media controllers don’t restrict Republican topics, they simply dictate precisely what everyone is to say that week. However, that’s semantics; the spirit and the intent is the same. Harper has obviously noticed that our media (like their American counterpart) has become so addle-minded that it can be controlled without much effort.

Does God Have a Future? (Part 3). First of all, Deepak Chopra may well be right in his predictions for religion in America: gurus and other spiritual authorities may wane in influence; faith may no longer be seen as an irrational departure from reason and science; wars may decline as peace becomes a social reality; nature may regain its sacred value; and so on. However, that does not mean that Deepak Chopra is not a huckster fuckwit.

From the Globe and Mail:

When [the hostage takers] were finally convinced that Mr. Budzanowski was not an American in disguise, he said, they started treating him more politely, and handling him less roughly. “When they were certain I was Canadian, they were very disappointed. Then, they told me, ‘We love Canada.’ That’s wonderful to hear when you have guns pointed at you…”

I expect the number of tiny Canadian flags sewn onto American backpacks to spike tomorrow.

Interesting, the differences in attitudes toward religion between countries. While George Bush can hardly say “Good morning” to his wife without adding “…and may God bless America” — and indeed, an American politician could not get elected unless he or she makes such platitudes throughout their campaign — the reaction to what Tony Blair said yesterday — that God would judge the invasion of Iraq — has drawn some very harsh criticism. Among it, the quote “We don’t want Bush or Khomeini-type fundamentalism in our politics…” from MP Evan Harris. I never thought I’d hear a president’s name slung alongside the Khomeini’s, but there it is.

And maybe it’s deserved. Violence is violence; is it really more acceptable when a state uses its military to enact violence than when a nonstate group commits terrorism? Is it acceptable when civilian casualties due to state military action, though largely unintended, far outnumber the intended civilian deaths through acts of terrorism? Is the destruction of foreign infrastructure and seizure of natural resources — and the long slow death that follows — less senseless than attacks on western symbols? Does invoking God’s name somehow make Bush or Blair holier than the martyr who cries out for Allah?

Like those referenced in the title of this story in the Sydney Morning Herald, I’m not sure I agree with the three-year jail sentence given to David Irving for denying the holocaust. Obviously I disagree with what he says (or said; Irving claims to have reversed his views, as do many people when facing jail time); I think it makes him wrong, and an ass, but I don’t know if it makes him a criminal. I tend to agree with the rabbi who said “Personally I prefer to treat him with disdain than with imprisonment” or the historian who said “However nauseating, these people should be confronted in debate rather than chucked into jail and turned into martyrs.”

I understand that Germany and Austria have extraordinary political currents that shape their feelings on such matters, and it could hardly be expected otherwise, even several generations on from the Holocaust. I can’t reach into the mind of the average Austrian lawmaker and determine the extent to which guilt plays a part in such decisions; it just smacks of…atonement, I suppose? Again, understandable. But would Irving have been found a criminal in most other countries? Or simply ridiculed and made a fool of in public debate? Does jailing him really turn him into a martyr?

It’s incredible, the destructive power of war and genocide, that we’ll be feeling effects like this for another century. In some ways, I suppose it’s changed things forever.