http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:13:23 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/26/131323.php Akeel ShahI think most 'informed' people out there would say that a U.S.-led attack on Iran is not very likely any time in the near future. The majority seems to believe America's neoconservative policymakers wouldn't be reckless or dumb enough to open up a new front when military resources are already stretched thin. Arguably even more important, no prudent decisionmaker would decide to jump into another open conflict in the region when the world's oil supplies are so limited, with world demand increasing everyday – due to 'Chindia's' growth – and the essential Middle Eastern supply of oil potentially so easily cut off by war. It sounds perfectly reasonable, but let's not forget the mindset of the leaders who are making the decisions. Never underestimate the irrationality of a committed ideologue. Ahmadinejad isn't going to back down and compromise on his country's nuclear program; he probably wouldn't mind a limited conflict to bolster domestic support, anyway. He, and the theocracy supporting him, will end up gaining a great deal of legitimacy if the U.S., or its regional proxy Israel, decides to attack Iran. I honestly don't think the Bush administration really understands this – once again, they're listening too much to an unrepresentative and self-interested 'Iranian' minority telling them the country is ripe for change. More importantly, Bush and his neocon buddies might not even care all that much for changing the Iranian regime. Of course, the primary objective of any attack would be to weaken the regional influence of Iran rather than 'liberate' its people. There are actually advantages of having a weakened and isolated radical theocracy still in power in Iran from a cynical 'divide and conquer' perspective. It helps to keep the Sunni Arab majority frightened and distracts them from U.S. domination of the region. In fact, it actually gives America another reason for being there: to prevent the region from descending further into sectarian violence. And how exactly do the people dismissing the possibility of an attack on Iran expect the present 'stand-off' to be resolved? I personally don't see much way out of some sort of military confrontation between the world's hegemon and the intransigent Shia state. It's probably more than a little foolhardy to speculate on the details of the political future of region as complex as the Middle East. Regardless, I'll stick my neck out and make some predictions. My guess is that Shrub holds off on any strike until after the November midterm elections, perhaps sometime in the winter-spring 2007. I don't think he would want to wait too long for the strike, since he only has until the end of 2008 to shape policy in the wake of an attack. The U.S. and/or Israel will conduct a limited airstrike to take out some of Iran's nuke capacity and attempt to 'humble' the leadership. A fullscale ground invasion is definitely not a possibility, but airstrikes and covert ops are certainly within the U.S.'s and/or Israel's capacity at present. Iranian reprisals would probably be largely symbolic and actual counter-attacks would almost entirely be small scale, primarily conducted by proxy through sympathetic Shia militias in Iraq or Lebanon. They could send more Shia irregulars and weapons into Iraq, but their ability to attack U.S. troops would be limited to pretty much what's going on at present (IED attack, small ambushes, snipers). On top of that, the Shia would still be preoccupied with fighting the Sunni and protecting their own people. In the final analysis, the primary reason I suspect there will be a limited attack on Iran is the thinking prevalent among political elites in the U.S., Israel, and Iran. In my opinion, they've clearly demonstrated they are fully prepared for war, and even more troubling is they all appear to believe they can benefit from it. The recent clash between Hezbollah and Israel can be viewed as one of the preperatory phases in a war between the U.S./Israel and Iran. Hezbollah has stated they jumped into the fray between Israel and Hamas to take pressure off the Palestinian resistance movements. But it seems likely their actions were also engineered to bolster Shia influence in Lebanese politics, and to demonstrate the ability of their organization to attack Israel in the event of a strike against Iran. As well, the recent massively disproportional response by Israel has larger strategic objectives. They are trying to destroy the military capacity of Hezbollah, and possibly embroil them in domestic strife, in order to weaken a potential Iranian proxy group. The one counterargument that has me questioning the possibility of an attack is the ability of the Iranians to conduct reprisal attacks on oil transported by tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. This is a very narrow body of water, which something on the order of 1/4 of the world's oil production passes through. Iranian territory makes up the northern shore of the strait and they likely have the potential to disrupt the transport of this vital supply of oil. The Iranians appear to have some capacity to carry out naval attacks on tankers and U.S. warships, but I think it's safe to assume the U.S. has the naval and air capabilty to eventually force the Iranian's to stop any such attacks. My guess would be the Iranian's wouldn't be able to block the flow of oil for long, and/or wouldn't be willing to deal with the consequences of cutting off the transport of oil, which is vital for most of the world. If the rest of the world's oil supply is threatened because of Iranian attacks, it will likely push many more countries closer to the U.S. side, since they would want to get their oil fix back ASAP. If what I've outlined is correct and the oil supply can only briefly be interrrupted, then you would expect crude prices to spike for a few weeks, or even shorter, and then quickly settle at a much lower level. The new 'floor' on the oil price might be $10-20 higher for some time, but wouldn't be a disaster. I might be underestimating how easy it would be for the Iranians to disrupt this supply of oil for a significant period of time, but I very much doubt they will have the political will to do it.One thing I don't doubt, however, is an attack on Iran will greatly increase tensions all over the region and decrease the stability of a number of Arab governments closely allied with the U.S. However, while recognizing the reality of this in the short term, this is probably viewed as manageable by the majority of Bush's Neocon crew. After all, I'm sure they're pointing at the Iraq war naysayers who were talking about the 'Arab street' exploding in outrage because of the invasion, which essentially never happened. At the end of the day, all the major U.S. allies are still safely ensconced on their thrones. The neocon policymakers probably think this provides enough evidence to dismiss the 'regime instability' argument.Personally, I'm quite convinced a U.S.-led attack on Iran will most likely end up harming U.S. interests in the long run. It will almost certainly further damage their standing and influence in the Middle East, further bankrupt the nation, and will probably decrease their own security. Such a provocative escalation will probably end up pulling the U.S. deeper into an 'unwinnable' fight with guerilla forces it won't be able to restrain. You can't wage a 'conventional' war against a people's mistrust and contempt, and it will always be too easy for irregulars to attack U.S. troops and civilian 'allies' in the region. Having said that, the chances of the conflict spreading uncontrollably throughout the entire region are slim. The governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc., likely won't collapse. Iraq will become more violent, but it already appears to be in a low-level civil war anyway. Bush and his cronies aren't good with 'nuance' and will only see the improbability of total failure; the rest of it, to use Rumsfeld's terminology, is 'known unknowns' and 'unknown unknowns'. The Bush Neocons haven't altered their basic policy and are still committed to completely reshaping the politics of the region. In the final analysis, what's going to stop them from attacking Iran? Some excellent corroborating analysis from Jim Lobe below. These articles illustrate the growing calls for war from many of the most influential Neocons.US Hawks Smell Blood.The Drums of War Sound for Iran. Politics50793@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:13:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/10/182607.php Akeel ShahBy now everyone following the developing news on Iran has heard about Seymour Hersh's article claiming that the Bush administration has decided to carry out plans for a massive bombing campaign of Iran in order to destroy its nuclear capability and destabilize its theocratic regime.Despite the fact that Hersh's article was based on the statements of a variety of high-level sources within the White House, intelligence community, and congress, his article was dismissed as being 'wild speculation' and 'nuts', or 'sensationalistic' by many. However, there's been a couple of recent news items that should be something of a wake up call for those naive enough to think that Bush's belligerence is just empty bluster. The first item was Blair's sacking of Jack Straw as Britain's Foreign Secretary last week. This piece of news came as a big surprise to many observers. The Guardian weighed in on the issue and speculated on the reasons behind Jack Straw's dismissal from the post.The article argues that Straw was likely removed for two main reasons: 1. His chummy relationship with labour rival Gordon Brown, 2. His recent comments about an attack on Iran being 'inconceivable', and the use of tactical nukes being 'nuts'. The following passage from the article elaborates on the second reason: Mr. Blair, who sees Iran as the world's biggest threat, does not agree with his former foreign secretary. The prime minister argues that, at the very least, nothing should be ruled out in order to keep Iran guessing. Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr. Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically.His fate was sealed when the White House called Mr. Blair and asked why the foreign secretary kept saying these things. In any case, Mr. Straw had boxed himself in on Iran to the extent that he would have had to resign if a military strike became a reality. It should come as no surprise that Blair has denied that the removal of Straw had anything to do with his previous statements on Iran. The second news item was Bush's statement that the passenger 'revolt' on flight 93 was the 'first blow' to strike the enemy in 'World War III'. Many will likely dismiss this as idle rhetoric or a poor choice of words, but it should be noted that the administration has consciously avoided characterizing the conflict in those terms in the past and has made no attempt to back track on Bush's remark.What many may find more surprising is how welcome his words were to many on the American right. To get an idea of how the pro-Bush crowd responded to his 'World War III' remark, check out this thread on the Free Republic website ('freepers', like many other online Conservative groups, are notorious for their complete unwillingness to listen to any criticism of their glorious leader). The 'freepers' seem pretty delighted by this characterization. These two stories give us some indication of how charged the Iranian showdown really is. The message behind both stories is the breadth and aggressiveness of Bush's foreign policy agenda. Given that there's nothing in Bush's history to suggest that he will opt for negotiations over military force despite ample evidence that aggressive action would be detrimental, the recent developments seem to point to the conclusion that the Bush administration is paving the way for an air strike if Ahmadinejad refuses to capitulate. The case for expecting the worst scenario is convincingly laid out in this recent opinion piece by the astute New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. While the Bush administration seems poised to strike intransigent Iran, the American public and media have been 'mobilizing' for military action as well. Feeding the war frenzy has been a relatively easy task considering the deep unpopularity of the target.Of course Ahmadinejad has done much to fuel the fear and anger of the US and Israel. stifling the public's weariness towards war has also been accomplished by the spread of a number of fear-mongering attack pieces on the Iranian president Ahmadinejad. These attacks are largely based on questionable rumours floating around about Ahmadinejad, rumours designed to incite a level of hysteria necessary to get the public on a war footing.One example is the often repeated claim that Ahmadinejad was actively involved in the 1979 hostage taking 'crisis'. This 'photographic evidence' that has been used to spread the notion that the Iranian president was a hostage taker far and wide, despite the fact this 'evidence' has clearly shown to be false. Obviously, if such an accusation were shown to be true, it would greatly bolster support for military action amongst an American public still fuming over the 'national humiliation' of the hostage crisis. Despite the refutation, various war-mongers allude to this false 'evidence' and unwittingly or maliciously spread misinformation.Professor Gary Leupp author of an article entitled "Accusing Ahmadinejad", describes how such misinformation, even after being refuted, effectively plants these spurious 'facts' in the minds of the public: Even so, it serves the Bushites' interests that my morning paper, the Boston Globe, which has relegated the Downing Street memos to its back pages, put the photo in question on page A1 July 1, with the tendentious caption: IRAN ELECTION SPURS QUESTIONS ABOUT 1979. I don't expect another front-page piece any time soon entitled: QUESTION ANSWERED IRANIAN PRESIDENT NOT INVOLVED IN EMBASSY SEIZURE. Rather, I see a three-sentence AP item in the Globe this morning (July 5) concluding, "Ahmadinejad, who won a landslide presidential election victory, has been accused of taking American hostages in 1979 when radical students seized the US Embassy in Tehran." He has been accused. I suspect many will read that to mean "He did it" and this will pass for truth in pub conversations all over Boston. Doesn't this process sound all too familiar? Another example of pro-war hysteria is evident in the reaction of war-mongering elements over a recent article from Amir Taheri an exiled Iranian journalist hysterically titled "The Frightening Truth About Why Iran Wants The Bomb".This incredible report essentially paints Ahmadinejad as an apocalyptic fanatic determined to get a nuclear weapon in order to somehow facilitate the second coming of Shia Islam's 'messiah'. The article essentially says very little other than the Iranian regime is deeply religious and views itself as being in conflict with the US, it present no actual information on what will be done with this bomb.Instead of presenting concrete information and sources, the article works hard at planting sinister insinuation to great affect. On top of this, the information is presented by a man exiled by the very regime he writes. Remember the last time the US government relied on an exile community for its intelligence gathering? Given the sensational tone of the article, the complete lack of source material, and the likely agenda of the author, you would think the article would be greeted by healthy skepticism. Instead, the pro-war crowd continually pulls out this article to bolster their argument that Ahmadinejad is an aggressively dangerous lunatic that needs to be stopped.Overall, the recent developments seem to indicate that a variety of forces are 'mobilizing' in preparation for a military campaign against Iran. The Bush administration has given every indication that it will use military force to achieve its goals, and we have every reason to believe the threat. I personally suspect that Sy Hersh is right, and Bush has effectively decided to 'take action' if the Iranians do not capitulate.It also seems clear that Ahmadinejad's hardline regime will not yield to Washington's demands. In the final analysis, it's hard to see how a war between the US and Iran will be avoided for the remainder of Bush's second term. The consequences of such an American air strike will most probably greatly complicate the situation in Iraq, generating tremendous conflict between US forces and the Shia population.In addition, a US air strike will almost certainly lead to 'covert activity' by both sides in Iraq and Iran. However, these 'complicating' factors can be viewed as desirable, in the sense that they are politically destabilizing events and therefore necessary for reshaping the region as the US sees fit. A project justifiable by an administration believing itself to be engaged in 'World War III'. Politics47564@blogcritics.org Wed, 10 May 2006 18:26:07 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/20/080011.php Akeel ShahAnother reason to be proud of Canada. According to the The Canadian Recording Industry Association(CRIA) Canada has the highest per capita rate of illegal MP3 downloads in the world! In light of this, the CRIA has been complaining about Canada's lax copyright protection laws. According to the CRIA illegal downloading hasn't just hurt the music industry but also software developers. Canada's failure to modernize its copyright laws has come at considerable cost to the economy. A recent study conducted for the Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft (CAAST), an industry alliance of software publishers, found that software piracy rates in Canada are significantly higher (36 percent) than those of major trading partners such as the United States (21 percent) and the United Kingdom (27 percent) that have enacted digital copyright reforms. As a result, Canada has lost more than 14,000 jobs and suffers $7 billion in annual economic losses in the software industry alone. For Canada's music industry, the rise of file-swapping coincided with a 41 percent - or $541 million -- decrease in retail sales of pre-recorded CDs and cassettes between 1999 and 2005 and a 20 percent loss in employment. So a number of large software and music companies suffer some economic loss. It's likely massively overstated because many of those pirates wouldn't own the software or music if they couldn't get it for free. And just think about all the wealth in digital products gained by the starving masses out there with high-speed connections. However dark clouds are gathering as Canada is looking to tighten up its copyright laws.OK, even I admit that something will have to done about illegal downloading, but what's going to work is probably something far different than what most in the recording industry think should happen. The reality is that the nature of the medium makes a mockery of strict copyright laws regardless of what the courts decide. Most digital content can ultimately be hacked and cracked. The content providers can make it extremely difficult for the hackers to do their work but someone will eventually find a method for circumventing their barriers. Once these protections have been broken, the digital content can then easily be shared via the world wide web. Not to mention there will always be countries like Canada and Sweden which will have less strict interpretations of copyright making other countries' laws harder to enforce. Given that a strict interpretation of copyright law is virtually impossible to enforce, because of the decentralized nature of the internet and ease of reproducing digital content, a major task of media enterprises will be figuring out ways of generating revenue through their using audience. Charging users to own the content isn't the only way producers of the content have to make money. There is also advertising and even donation models that do work for some. A good analogy is the advent of commercial radio or television. The creators of radio or television content didn't start demanding that users pay for their product. Rather they developed an advertising sponsorship model to fund their work. A pay-to-own model can still work for providers of media content. But it will only work if the price to own that content is low enough to make it worthwhile for the consumer to buy it from a legitimate source. The reality is that any digital content can be reproduced and spread at virtually no cost. It simply isn't the equivalent of stealing a bunch of CDs or DVDs. On top of that, you can't regulate your way to a monopoly on the internet; digital information is too easily manipulated and spread. Many will probably dispute this and point to the emerging monopoly on MP3s that Apple iTunes has. Sure a company like Apple has a growing monopoly on MP3 devices, offering the possibility of a monopoly on the distribution MP3s. This has definitely bolstered the pay-to-own model through iTunes. Eventually, I'm sure as the pay-to-own internet distribution models mature there will be a push to eliminate CDs to tighten up their monopoly on distribution. But inevitably there will be someone out there that will find a way to get past the barriers they put up, and much of that protected content will find it's way on the internet and will be distributed for free.There is now a strong hacking/cracking culture committed to keeping as much content as possible free on the internet. Free content has its advantages, it more readily allows for the free flow of information and ideas. Take public libraries as an example. It can be argued that libraries deprive many authors of a great deal of revenue. But fortunately there is a strong culture of promoting the free flow of ideas amongst authors and in the publishing industry - there has to be free access to books since everyone should have access to the ideas they promote. This idea of knowledge being accessible by all was not always promoted. In various stages knowledge and writing was monopolized by a priestly, scribal, or bureaucratic class, much like trade guilds monopolized the trade and know-how of a specific craft. One of the main things that brought about a literate culture with a free flow of ideas in Europe was the printing press which made producing books much less expensive. Now with the contemporary computing and communications technology, all media is reproduced at virtually no cost. Therefore, this content should be much cheaper for the consumer than it was before. Even more important, people who can't afford to buy the content should not be deprived of the right to view it since it costs the producer nothing to allow them access. There will likely be tremendous benefits to society as a whole of allowing free access to all types of media. In my view, the recording industry should be selling their music for much cheaper prices. If they did, many more people would actually pay for their music online. Why is iTunes charging $1 a song?! That's pretty close to the price they charge for a song on a CD, yet the overhead for distributing the music is much lower. Not to mention, with the advent of cheap software for music production, the cost of producing the music should also be far lower, and can now even be done independent of a high-priced studio. The music industry is gouging the consumer because they have a great deal of control over the means of distributing and producing the content. It's as simple as that. How about a dime or a quarter for each song? If they charged 10 cents a song I'd probably get most of my music legally. Why should the price of a song cost roughly the same as it did when the only effective distribution method for music was CDs, tapes, and records? I don't have any stats but I'm willing to wager that with many artists the bulk of the recording industries' money goes into advertising. Why not throw the music out on the wild world of the web and let the strong songs survive. The good songs will naturally reproduce and spread. You don't need to spend as much to hype stuff up in the age of viral marketing and considering how fanatical music fans can be. A devoted horde of music fans will do all the marketing for you. And if the music is unable to garner a devoted fan base on its own than why should some corporation prop it up. It's corporate subsidies for music. Not to mention that much of the music they patronize is watered-down content-free unoriginal garbage that they promote because it's the easiest to spoon-feed to a mass audience. In the digital age, a mass audience isn't required to support the production and distribution of music. Will the record execs ever get it? Some of them definitely don't; they just don't realize that a new medium often comes with a new business model. Some of them probably do and resist anyways because they realize they're profits are largely a product of the influence they have over the means of music distribution. Regardless, the future of music is going to be more decentralized in production, distribution, and marketing. This will mean a much greater variety of music and a much wider body of musicians (part and fulltime) being able earn some money by creating music. And yes it will probably mean fewer millionaire superstars. A wide variety of easily accessible, interesting, and good music, versus, popstar hype for the masses churned out by corporate execs. I know what model I prefer. Music45241@blogcritics.org Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:00:11 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/03/155820.php Akeel ShahHere's a link only geeky readers over the age of 25 can truly appreciate. The New York Times recently ran an article about Dungeons & Dragons going online, and how the 'gaming' market has been almost completely subsumed by online/computer gaming. Apparently this online version of the D&D experience stays pretty true to the original. They're even trying to replicate the group experience by building in a mic feature that will allow online players to chat with each other. Overall, it sounds pretty interesting, an online treat for the 30-40-something geeks out there. But is it going to meet the discriminating tastes of the comic book guy demographic? Don't count on it. It seems like most of the old-school gamers out there aren't too impressed with the idea. The article gives us this quote from one middle-aged gamemaster. (I highly recommend you try reading it out loud in the voice of the comic book guy a couple of times for full effect.) I play because I have a very creative mind and a very noncreative job. So the game helps me balance it out. There is no creativity at the computer, because you're limited by what the programmers thought you might do. Here in person, I can react dynamically to the players and craft an adventure specifically for them. The most surprising revelation of the entire article was finding out that Vin Diesel is a hardcore Dungeons & Dragons freak. You can find corroborating evidence of that fact in this Wikipedia entry on Diesel. Here's the relevant part of the wiki bio: Diesel is a long time fan and player of Dungeons & Dragons and other role playing games, a fact that he proudly states in various interviews. He occasionally makes reference to D&D in his films ... It has been said that his portrayal of Richard Riddick in the Pitch Black series of movies and games is based somewhat on this favorite character, a Drow "witch-hunter" who was a loner, and that Diesel has the character's image tattooed on his leg. He has also written the foreword to the commemorative book 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of D&D, a collection of stories and essays which chronicles the history of D&D. It is also rumored (though never confirmed) that Diesel plays the popular game World of Warcraft under the alias "Dish". Priceless. Vin Diesel is a massive D&D dork, and is actually very proud of it. I guess it goes a long way in explaining how he gets sucked into these horrific action movies. Hilarious - you can't make this stuff up. And for those of you who doubt the geeky depths roleplaying depravity, take a look at these two videos. Gaming44415@blogcritics.org Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:58:20 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/03/074647.php Akeel ShahThe US Congress has just approved some legislation that will likely fuel the growth of online institutions of higher learning. The US government enacted legislation in 1992 that required universities and colleges to have half of their courses taught on a physical campus in order to qualify for federal student aid. Thanks to effective lobbying and the support of some key Republicans, Congress has now removed this restriction on federal aid for post-secondary institutions. Here's one of the more interesting passages from the NY Times: "This is a growth industry and you get rich not by being skeptical, but by being enthusiastic," said Henry Levin, director of Columbia University's National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. People at the academic conferences will say they did a survey about Internet-based education, but there are a lot of phantom statistics," he said, "and it's all very promotional. We have not found a single rigorous study comparing online with conventional forms of instruction." How fast the college landscape will change is uncertain. Sean Gallagher, a senior analyst at Eduventures, a Boston research firm, predicted that the proportion of students taking all their classes online could rise over the next 10 years or so to 25 percent from the current 7 percent.So essentially, the method is in its infancy and there is no substantial data about the relative efficacy of this form of learning as of yet. That said, one doesn't have to look too far to see the potential of the internet as a means of acquiring and building networks of knowledge which are ultimately the most important functions of any university or college. Even collaborative aspects of learning can be replicated with good design and savvy usage of technology by the students. The bottom line is that the passage of this bill will probably mean a rapid increase in the development of online post-secondary education, not only in the US but also in Canada. While great care and effort has to be put into monitoring the quality and legitimacy of the educational experience these online institutions will offer, there's little reason why the majority of courses taught at universities can't be offered by online institutions. Especially when you consider there is such a large pool of underemployed or underpaid PhD holders out there that could create the content and manage the service. Not to mention the hordes of disaffected undergraduates who would gladly jump at the opportunity to study online in order to avoid incurring an enormous student loan debt. In my experience (I'm currently a postdoctoral researcher working in an academic setting), most universities, like most academics, are quite conservative and slow to adapt when it comes to making structural changes to the educational experience (and in many ways when it comes to altering the content of the education itself). This is somewhat ironic considering our post-secondary institutions are also the center of most research and development which is ultimately the source of a tremendous amount of the innovation and growth that we see in all sectors of society. But given the cloistered nature of academia, largely protected from the free market and dominated by academics entrenched for life in little departmental fiefdoms, it's not surprising that many aspects of the academic experience are far from being dynamic. I have little doubt that commercial interests will lead the way in bringing education online. The potential, in terms of improving the quality of the experience and reducing expenses, is enormous. I look forward to what this change will bring and welcome anything that will encourage innovative and high-quality post-secondary learning and teaching. For similar articles, please visit The Bloviator Culture44410@blogcritics.org Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:46:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/14/192758.php Akeel ShahRecently a friend made an interesting observation about the whole Muhammad cartoon kerfuffle. He pointed out that while several European papers have published the cartoons, relatively few have in the US and Canada. Of course the Internet is a very different story. There are many North American websites proudly displaying the cartoons, encouraging people to buy Danish good, and proclaiming their solidarity with the print papers who published the cartoons 'in the name of free speech'. But nonetheless, most major North American media outlets have avoided displaying the cartoons, while several widely read papers in Europe have republished them.Naturally the following question arises: Why did so many European newspapers feel the need to take a more militant stand in favor of free speech, while major media outlets in the US and Canada preferred to avoid provocation and decided not to show them? Both my friend and I agreed that this primarily had to do with cultural differences between Europe and North America. These cultural differences not only explain the divergent responses to the Muhammad cartoons, but also reveal some of the underlying causes behind the degree of successful integration of Muslim immigrants. One doesn't have to look very far for evidence of the relative failure of Muslim integration in Europe: Religious/race rioting in France and England; the vast majority of 'Western-born' Muslim militants have come from European countries; the high level of tension in countries such as Denmark; all of the 9/11 attackers that had lived in the 'West' resided in European countries. My friend's argument was that the wider cultural rift between Europeans and their Muslim immigrant population, when compared to America, was primarily due to the 'more militantly secular' attitude of Europeans clashing with the relatively non-secular attitudes of many Muslim immigrants. Essentially, he claimed that Europeans are more hostile towards any strong religious belief because of a more thorough and much more bloody history of secularization. This is a quote from my friend's blog which captures the essence of his argument:Protestant Europe rejected religion a long time ago, long before the current tide of post-modern secularism based on the fanatical hostility to the two thousand year tradition of European cultural Christian heritage... Religion was traded away for the first time, for nationalism in XVII-XIX centuries. Then came Communism and Nazism and by the time the current holders of the discourse arrived there had been not much left to salvage.I largely agree with his argument. In general, I think most European countries are more secular-minded and openly critical of religion than either the US or Canada. More than likely, this is an aggravating factor in terms of Europe's relationship with contemporary Islam. This explanation does provide some insight into why so many European papers felt impelled to republish the cartoons. However, I believe there are other cultural factors at play that are probably more relevant than the 'militant secularism' that my friend describes. For one, Europeans personally define themselves by their ethnicity/race to a much larger degree than North Americans. This also applies to their national identities as well; ethnicity, race, and language are the primary factors used to define each nation-state. In contrast, the US and Canada consist of much more heterogeneous populations. In addition, the majority of the North Americans views themselves as being a descendent of immigrants, since most people can find at least one immigrant among their last few generations of ancestors. Finally, the US was largely defined by ideology rather than ethnicity/culture from its inception, while Canada has historically embraced a bicultural and more recently a multicultural identity. Given these differences, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Europeans might be more likely to harbor xenophobic attitudes, viewing 'troublesome' newcomers with suspicion and sometimes outright hostility. I think another important explanatory factor is the stronger emphasis on preserving history and old culture across the pond. Overall, North American society is more dynamic and adaptable. North Americans are more willing, and capable, of altering their culture in response to changes in their demographics and changes in technology. Since their culture is more fluid to begin with, North Americans are less likely to become apoplectic about immigrants having some influence on the character of the society they live in. I think another cause behind the differences between North America and Europe is that the fight for the rights of, and inclusion of, various minorities has generally been more successful in North America. Visible and religious minorities have seen great progress being made in regards to making the building of a more inclusive society in North America. As a result of the fairly steady progress towards an inclusive society, the sensitivity of North Americans to racial/ethnic/religious minority issues is more acute. To put it in a less flattering way, North Americans are more likely to have 'politically correct' views. To borrow my friend's terminology- North Americans are more 'militant' when it comes to the toleration/acceptance of minorities. Europe of course has a very different history. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the majority of large scale racial and ethnic conflicts in Europe in the 20th century have either led to the disintegration of multiethnic nation-states, or worse, the eradication of the minority presence. In the US and Canada, major racial, ethnic, or religious conflicts have been for the most part successfully addressed without resorting to the fragmentation of the state, or wide-spread massacre (the major exception being the Native population- however, the worst of that abuse occurred several generations ago). The different historical legacies of the two continents have produced very different cultures. In North America, there are strong cultural norms and attitudes that decrease the likelihood of conflict between diverse groups (some examples being: American historical 'amnesia'; downplaying of ethnic roots; optimism; an orientation towards the future rather than the past). Of course the emergence of the EU goes against the generalizations I've just made about Europe. In my opinion, the EU has the potential of having a very positive transformative effect on 'old' European culture- particularly with the inclusion of Eastern Europe and Turkey. The shock therapy of integration may help to breathe some life into a somewhat fossilized culture. Finally, another factor is the less libertarian outlook of Europeans. They're more likely to expect individuals to adapt to the community, and correspondingly less inclined to have a 'live and let live' attitude. This inevitably leads to more hostility towards Muslims, or any other immigrant group, who actively resist adopting the cultural norms of the native inhabitants. One of the most important cultural norms would be the strong secularism of Europeans mentioned above. I'm sure many readers are looking at this last explanation and scratching their heads thinking something like 'well if Americans are more libertarian shouldn't they be more angered by the potential stifling of free speech that the cartoon row poses?'. Actually, to a large extent I agree with that statement, and because of this libertarian mindset, I believe the 'average' North American who cites 'defense of free speech' for their pro-cartoon-publication attitude is more likely to advocate this position on principle, and less likely to be advocating it because of a general contempt for Muslims and Islam. However, there is another side to the libertarian attitude, and that is a belief in leaving other people/groups alone unless they directly threaten the rights of others. Europeans on the other hand, have much more aggressively challenged what they view as 'backward' or 'unacceptable' cultural practices among their Muslim immigrants. In America, there are fewer voices like Jyllands-Posten, Pim Fortuyn, Theo Van Gogh, very publicly producing material they know will offend (e.g. repeatedly and unapologetically referring to all Muslims as 'goatfuckers' in public). There are also fewer attempts to 'normalize' behaviour such as the French ban on the hijab in schools. Europeans simply have been more eager to actively challenge conservative Muslims on cultural grounds. In contrast, socially conservative forces in America are more likely to seek a 'firewall' for their own communities (from 'liberals' as well as 'foreign cultures' like Islam), and therefore are less interested in correcting the perceived flaws of other communities (and when they have attempted this, they've largely failed, e.g. abortion). American liberals also tend to avoid direct confrontation with the conservative Muslim minority, preferring to allow some degree of 'cultural diversity', or at least seeking a more peaceful dialogue when they do tackle certain cultural practices. The American 'libertarian' attitude has clearly gone a long in preventing conflict with conservative Muslims living amongst them.In conclusion, the cultural differences I listed above are what I believe to be the most important factors behind the different responses to the controversial cartoons, and Muslim immigrants in general. It is interesting to note that many cite the relative lack of education amongst European Muslim immigrants, compared to their North American counterparts, as another reason for the weaker integration of Muslims into European society. While this is certainly another factor, it should be noted that Europeans themselves largely chose this pattern of immigration. Europeans have thought of immigrants solely as cheap temporary labor, and have been less successful in attracting skilled and highly educated immigrants largely due to their reluctance to accept newcomers as full citizens. This European 'rejection' undoubtedly fuels the feelings of alienation that already exists because of the numerous reasons cited above.I do realize this article is filled with sweeping generalizations. First of all, it is true there are considerable differences between the various nationalities of Europe. However, most of what I said was very general, and I do think the comparisons are more or less valid for the majority of European countries. Secondly, it is important to note that there is a great deal of individual variation, and I was only talking about the 'average' European and North American. Anyways, I hope you enjoyed the article and would be interested in hearing the readers' thoughts on the subject.A version of this article was original posted on The Bloviator (home of the well-reasoned rant). Culture43616@blogcritics.org Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:27:58 EST