Overall picture:
Senate balance:
Current: 53 D (51 D + 2 I) – 47 R
Post-election: 52 R – 48 D (46 D, 2 I)
Change: R + 5

US House:
Current: 241 R – 191 D
Post-election: 248 R + 187 D
Change: R + 7

Governorships:
Current: 29 R – 20 D – 1 I
Post-election: 32 R – 17 D – 1 I
Change: R + 3

Electoral College:
2008: 365 D – 173 R
2012: 295 R – 243 D
Change: R + 122

End result: GOP control of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the governorships.

Race-by-race breakdowns:

Electoral College (Presidential Election):

Alabama – Republican
Alaska – Republican
Arizona – Republican
Arkansas – Republican
California – Democrat
Colorado – Republican
Connecticut – Democrat
Delaware – Democrat
District of Columbia – Democrat
Florida – Republican
Georgia – Republican
Hawaii – Democrat
Idaho – Republican
Illinois – Democrat
Indiana – Republican
Iowa – Democrat
Kansas – Republican
Kentucky – Republican
Louisiana – Republican
Maine – Democrat
Maryland – Democrat
Massachusetts – Democrat
Michigan – Democrat
Minnesota – Democrat
Mississippi – Republican
Missouri – Republican
Montana – Republican
Nebraska – Republican
Nevada – Republican
New Hampshire – Republican
New Jersey – Democrat
New Mexico – Democrat
New York – Democrat
North Carolina – Republican
North Dakota – Republican
Ohio – Republican
Oklahoma – Republican
Oregon – Democrat
Pennsylvania – Democrat
Rhode Island – Democrat
South Carolina – Republican
South Dakota – Republican
Tennessee – Republican
Texas – Republican
Utah – Republican
Vermont – Democrat
Virginia – Republican
Washington – Democrat
West Virginia -Republican
Wisconsin – Republican
Wyoming – Republican

Senate:

Arizona – Republican
California – Democrat
Connecticut – Democrat
Delaware – Democrat
Florida – Democrat
Hawaii – Democrat
Indiana – Republican
Maine – Independent
Maryland – Democrat
Massachusetts – Democrat
Michigan – Democrat
Minnesota – Democrat
Mississippi – Republican
Missouri – Republican
Montana – Republican
Nebraska – Republican
Nevada – Republican
New Jersey – Democrat
New Mexico – Democrat
New York – Democrat
North Dakota – Republican
Ohio – Republican
Pennsylvania – Democrat
Rhode Island – Democrat
Tennessee – Republican
Texas – Republican
Utah – Republican
Vermont – Independent
Virginia – Republican
Washington – Democrat
West Virginia – Democrat
Wisconsin – Republican
Wyoming – Republican

House:

Alabama:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Democrat

Alaska:
At large – Republican

Arizona:
1st district – Democrat (consider changing)
2nd district – Republican (consider changing)
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Republican
9th district – Republican

Arkansas:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican

California:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Republican
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Democrat
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Republican
11th district – Democrat
12th district – Democrat
13th district – Democrat
14th district – Democrat
15th district – Democrat
16th district – Democrat
17th district – Democrat
18th district – Democrat
19th district – Democrat
20th district – Democrat
21st district – Democrat
22nd district – Republican
23rd district – Republican
24th district – Democrat
25th district – Republican
26th district – Republican
27th district – Democrat
28th district – Democrat
29th district – Democrat
30th district – Democrat
31st district – Republican
32nd district – Democrat
33rd district – Democrat
34th district – Democrat
35th district – Democrat
36th district – Republican
37th district – Democrat
38th district – Democrat
39th district – Republican
40th district – Democrat
41st district – Democrat
42nd district – Republican
43rd district – Democrat
44th district – Democrat
45th district – Republican
46th district – Democrat
47th district – Democrat
48th district – Republican
49th district – Republican
50th district – Republican
51st district – Democrat
52nd district – Republican
53rd district – Democrat

Colorado:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican (consider changing)

Connecticut:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Democrat

Delaware:
At large – Democrat

Florida:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Republican
11th district – Republican
12th district – Republican
13th district – Republican
14th district – Democrat
15th district – Republican
16th district – Republican
17th district – Republican
18th district – Republican
19th district – Republican
20th district – Democrat
21st district – Democrat
22nd district – Democrat
23rd district – Democrat
24th district – Democrat
25th district – Republican
26th district – Democrat
27th district – Republican

Georgia:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican
9th district – Republican
10th district – Republican
11th district – Republican
12th district – Democrat
13th district – Democrat
14th district – Republican

Hawaii:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat

Idaho:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican

Illinois:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Republican
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Democrat
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Republican
11th district – Republican
12th district – Democrat
13th district – Republican
14th district – Republican
15th district – Republican
16th district – Republican
17th district – Republican
18th district – Republican

Indiana:
1st distric – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Republican
9th district – Republican

Iowa:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican

Kansas:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican

Kentucky:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican

Louisiana:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican

Maine:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat

Maryland:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Democrat
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Democrat

Massachusetts:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Republican
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Democrat
9th district – Democrat

Michigan:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Republican
11th district – Republican
12th district – Democrat
13th district – Democrat
14th district – Democrat

Minnesota:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Republican
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Republican

Mississippi:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican

Missouri:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican

Montana:
At large – Republican

Nebraska:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican

Nevada:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican

New Hampshire:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Democrat
New Jersey:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Democrat
7th district – Republican
8th district – Democrat
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Democrat
11th district – Republican
12th district – Democrat

New Mexico:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Democrat

New York:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Democrat
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Democrat
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Democrat
11th district – Republican
12th district – Democrat
13th district – Democrat
14th district – Democrat
15th district – Democrat
16th district – Democrat
17th district – Democrat
18th district – Republican
19th district – Republican
20th district – Republican
21st district – Democrat
22nd district – Republican
23rd district – Republican
24th district – Democrat
25th district – Democrat
26th district – Democrat
27th district – Republican

North Carolina:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Republican
9th district – Republican
10th district – Republican
11th district – Republican
12th district – Democrat
13th district – Democrat

North Dakota:
At large – Republican

Ohio:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Republican
11th district – Democrat
12th district – Republican
13th district – Democrat
14th district – Republican
15th district – Republican
16th district – Republican

Oklahoma:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican

Oregon:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Democrat

Pennsylvania:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican
9th district – Republican
10th district – Republican
11th district – Republican
12th district – Republican
13th district – Democrat
14th district – Democrat
15th district – Republican
16th district – Republican
17th district – Democrat
18th district – Republican

Rhode Island:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat

South Carolina:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Democrat
7th district – Republican

South Dakota:
At large – Republican

Tennessee:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Democrat
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican
9th district – Democrat

Texas:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Republican
11th district – Republican
12th district – Republican
13th district – Republican
14th district – Republican
15th district – Democrat
16th district – Democrat
17th district – Republican
18th district – Democrat
19th district – Republican
20th district – Democrat
21st district – Republican
22nd district – Republican
23rd district – Republican
24th district – Republican
25th district – Republican
26th district – Republican
27th district – Republican
28th district – Democrat
29th district – Democrat
30th district – Democrat
31st district – Republican
32nd district – Republican
33rd district – Democrat
34th district – Democrat
35th district – Democrat
36th district – Democrat

Utah:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican

Vermont:
At large – Democrat

Virginia:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Democrat
9th district – Republican
10th district – Republican
11th district – Democrat

Washington:
1st district – Democrat
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Republican
4th district – Republican
5th district – Republican
6th district – Democrat
7th district – Democrat
8th district – Republican
9th district – Democrat
10th district – Democrat

West Virginia:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Republican
3rd district – Democrat

Wisconsin:
1st district – Republican
2nd district – Democrat
3rd district – Democrat
4th district – Democrat
5th district – Republican
6th district – Republican
7th district – Republican
8th district – Republican

Wyoming:
At large – Republican

Governorships:

Delaware – Democrat
Indiana – Republican
Missouri – Democrat
Montana – Republican
New Hampshire – Republican
North Carolina – Republican
North Dakota – Republican
Utah – Republican
Vermont – Democrat
Washington – Democrat
West Virginia – Democrat

To properly understand the events of the Wars of Yugoslav Secession, we must understand Yugoslav history, which begins with the defeat of the Central Powers during WWI. In the post-war settlement, the Western allies sought to create a number of independent states in East-Central Europe that would be powerful enough to prevent the resurgence of Germany and Austria, and counterbalance the dominance of the USSR, while still weak and conflict-ridden enough that international intervention by way of the League of Nations would be necessary. To that end, the nations created were not borne out of plebiscites, despite the grandiose rhetoric championing self-determination and democratic governance. Rather, states were shaped to ensure conflict.

Europe in 1922 - Click to Enlarge

As the enlarged version of the above map should make clear, the borders drawn were bound to cause problems.  For example, Danzig was left to the Germans, but was geographically isolated from the rest of said country, as all the intermediate territory was awarded to Poland. Similarly, a large portion of Silesia was awarded to the Czechs, much to the dismay of both the Germans and the Poles. Perhaps most famously, the Sudatenland went to Czechoslovakia, which was appropriate, since Germans made up less than 25% of the population, but which all the same enraged Germany. Territorial disputes aside, the new map of Europe broke up empires, and restored historic states such as Poland, which had died out in 1795 when Russia, Austria, and Germany (then still known as Prussia) partitioned it.

Yugoslavia however, was unique. Never before had a Yugoslav state existed. As I’ve written about before, there is a well-established history of a Serb state, which included Kosovo, Montengro, Bosnia, and much of Macedonia. It even included portions of Croatia.  However, the historic record is not replete with evidence of Serb rule over the collective Croat community, whose independence before World War II is a contested historical matter. And it certainly never included Slovenia. As historian Joseph Rothschild notes quite clearly in East Central Europe Between the Two World Wars, the Serbs wanted their monarchy to cover historic territory, and had no interest in being co-nationals with the Croats and Slovenes. Likewise, because the monarchy of Yugoslavia would be Serbian, neither the Croats or the Slovenes cared for such an arrangement. Lacking any sense of national unity, the country quickly fell apart when faced with a second world war.

For its part, following the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, the Croats jumped at the prospect of an alliance with Hitler, whilst their Serb brethren mounted two major resistance movements (the Partisans and the Chetniks). As soon as the invasion was complete, they installed Ante Pavelic, who had been under the protection of Mussolini following the French indictment against him for the double assassination of Yugoslavian King Alexander I and French foreign minister Louis Barthou, as dictator. As Avro Manhattan noted in his groundbreaking word The Vatican’s Holocaust:

The Nazis had records of massacres of their own second to none. Yet the horrors committed by Pavelic’s Ustashi troops proved to be of such bestiality as to shock even them: a most crushing evidence that the Ustashi massacres had surpassed anything experienced even by the Germany of Hitler. The magnitude of the butchery can best be gauged by the fact that within the first three months, from April to June, 1941, 120,000 people perished thus. Proportionately to its duration and the smallness of the territory, it had been the greatest massacre to take place anywhere  in the West prior to, during, or after that greatest of cataclysms, the Second World War.

Pg 54 (1986, Ozark Books)

As the previously linked Jerusalem Post article makes clear, this brutality was not the mere result of cold, machine-like efficiency, but driven by demented competition:

On August 29, 1942, a friar from the monastery of Siroki Brijeg, named Petar Brzica, won first place for killing the most Serbs in the shortest time, boasting 1,350 throats slit in one night.

The Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) have almost as revolting a track record, but I shall avoid extensive discussion of the matter, as it is somewhat tangential to the subject at hand. What I hope the above illustrates is that the first Yugoslav confederation, known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, was doomed to fail, because it grouped enemy peoples under one government, who were happy to fracture as soon as the opportunity presented itself, with catastrophic results thereafter.

After World War II, the Western allies once again re-built Yugoslavia, this time replacing a Serb-led monarchy with a Communist dictatorship. Leading this unfortunate entity was Josip Broz Tito, a Croat by birth who led the Yugoslav Partisans (which was, in the early days, was largely comprised of Serbs from Montengro and Bosnia). It was his wartime actions which left him in power for decades thereafter. But, it is vital to note, that the only reason the Partisans became the dominant force is because Churchill betrayed the Chetniks, seemingly due to faulty intelligence passed on by highly-placed Soviet moles. A regime under his command was commensurate with the Yalta “percentages agreement” reached between Churchill and Stalin to divide influence in the new Yugoslav state evenly, as Tito was a communist, but not loyal to Stalin.

Of course, World War II hadn’t changed anything, except that now the hostility between Serbs and Croats was greater than ever, and the government had replaced monarchy with communism. With the death of Yugoslavia’s master manipulator, who routinely re-wrote the national constitution and shifted the internal borders to dilute the influence of Serbs displeased with his leadership (and in so doing empowering many of the groups who would agitate for war soon thereafter) it was all but assured that the state would fail not long after his death.

It is here where we can begin to discuss Milosevic, and the allegations of Serb brutality during the Wars of Yugoslav Secession. Kuhner echoes the dominant Silber and Little thesis, made famous in the undeservedly popular Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation, which portrays the collapse as a necessary and blameless reaction by non-Serbs to extreme Serb nationalism as anchored by Slobodan Milosevic. To dispel such nonsense, we must look at Milosevic’s rhetoric, rise to power, and actions once in power.

Milosevic first became a recognizable figure within the Serb community on April 24, 1987, when he spoke before a crowd of 15,000 Serbs in Kosovo Polje. Tensions were high, as the continued influx of Albanian immigrants under Titoist policy had given the group a super-majority, which threatened the political and safety rights of the ever-dwindling Serbian minority population, already subject to mass violence. Accordingly, the Serbs in Kosovo clamored for intervention by the Federal government on their behalf, which had not yet happened. As an empty gesture designed more to pacify the crowd of angry Serbs than to facilitate a redress of grievances or study the situation to determine an appropriate course of action, Milosevic had been “dispatched from Belgrade (as documented by Louis Sell in “Slobodan Milosevic: A Political Biography,” which ran in Problems of Post-Communism 46.6 Nov/Dec 1999).” This is particularly important to understand as it makes clear Milosevic went to Polje not with an agenda that would end with his seizure of power, but because his superiors ordered he go there and give a party-approved speech devoid of any proposals for a change in policy that would give Serbs equal protection in Kosovo. In other words, he was sent in as a pawn with no nationalist aims.

His statements acknowledged the importance of Kosovo, though not in radically nationalist terms. Speaking of the situation, Milosevic described it as “the weightiest problem during a difficult economic crisis, when standards have fallen drastically, when prices have climbed, when there are more unemployed,” thereby attempting to frame his case in the prism of communism that so defined his policy. In the speech, he specifically cautioned against degenerating into nationalist conflict, saying “I believe that those who carry the spirit of brotherhood and unity, equal rights and progressiveness can be and must be the only working class of Kosovo, because those that are unified have identical interests, and the least reason to divide into nationalism.” Only through willful misinterpretation of his words can sentiments of Serb nationalism be found in his words. Lines such as “It was never in the spirit of the Serbian and Montenegrin nation to bow before adversity, to demobilize when they need to fight, to demoralize when times are tough. You need to stay here because of your forefathers and because of your descendants. You would shame your forefathers and disappoint your descendants,” must be understood in context.  He was not concerned so much with asserting Serb control over Kosovo as he was interested in ensuring that Serbs and Montenegrins not be “pressured by crime and humiliation”  to give up their land, and that Kosovo have a sufficient ethnic balance that the Albanians could not achieve their secessionist aims. This is particularly well evidenced by his concluding statement that “Yugoslavia would disintegrate without Kosovo! Yugoslavia and Serbia will never give up Kosovo!” The mention of Serbia is expected because Kosovo, though largely autonomous, was (and technically speaking still is) a province of Serbia. But that is of relatively little consequence, for he focuses chiefly on Yugoslav unity, speaking to the need for action in Kosovo based on its integral role in preserving Yugoslavia.

Many cite his 1989 speech marking the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo as evidence of his nationalist vision for Serbia. Indeed, his rhetoric was more firebrand than before, and one so motivated could pick out individual statements that seem somewhat damning. Yet the overall tone is again moderate. “Yugoslavia is a multinational community and it can survive only under the conditions of full equality for all nations that live in it,” he said. And even when speaking of Serbia itself, Milosevic noted that “Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today, more than in the past, members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it. This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is its advantage.”

Certainly, this does not sound like the rhetoric of an ardent Serb nationalist. Compare these statements against the words of his Bosniak and Croat counterparts, and it becomes apparent just how moderate Milosevic’s words were. Of course, politicians throughout history have said one thing and done another. So, we must ask, is Kuhner’s claim reasonable? Did Milosevic really aim to “unite the truncated parts of Croatia with the nearly 70 percent of territory his forces had carved out in neighboring Bosnia,” and in so doing, engage in “state-building through genocidal partition?”

Useful in understanding the Croatia situation is the story of Slovene independence, as it fought for independence at the same time Croatia did. The wealthiest of the Yugoslav states, Slovenia was often the odd republic out, having few bonds with the other peoples of Yugoslavia, except for the Yugoslav national identity pushed by the state. Thus, on December 23, 1990, Slovenia held a referendum for independence, with only 5% voting to remain a part of Yugoslavia. In one of the least bloody conflicts in regional history, Slovenia won independence in the Ten Day War, which claimed a mere 62 lives. Neither Milosevic nor the Serbian military leadership supported the Federal plan for a full scale invasion, defending Slovenia’s exit from Yugoslavia. It was not that he saw the disintegration of Yugoslavia as a positive, but that their independence was not a profound threat to the Serbs. Slovenia was (and remains) the most ethnically homogeneous former Yugoslav republic.  It had very few Serbs, and would not present major territorial dispute issues for Yugoslavia moving forward.

Croatian independence was an entirely different matter. Before Operation Storm, which ethnically cleansed the region, Krajina had an estimated 430,000 Serbs. Moreover, an independent Croatia would fight with the slowly collapsing Yugoslav state for control of Bosnia, which contained more than 1.3 million Serbs. No neat borders could be drawn, and neither territory  was prepared to allow their Serb minority to remain with Yugoslavia. Given the all too recent history of World War II, the Serb minorities in each had profound reason to fear for their safety. This is made especially true by the fact that both the Bosniaks and the Croats quickly returned to their Nazi-era habits. As Djilas notes in the linked Croatian article, almost immediately after the democratic election of Croat leader Franjo Tudjman (an infamous Holocaust denier), the government restored to prominence of the pro-Nazi Ustashe regime and adopted its flag, currency, and anthem. Further, under his direction, Croatia dropped the official use of the Cyrillic script favored by the Serbs, fired many government-employed Serbs, and significantly reduced Serbian parliamentary representation.

Yet, as willing as the Croats were to threaten the Serbs, Milosevic provided little support to his ethnic kin in the rebel republics. The greatest evidence of this is in his handling of Bosnia, where Bosnian Serbs were at war with Croats and Bosniaks for control of their shared homeland. Following the Bosnian Serb rejection of the Vance-Owen Plan, which would have involved the surrender of substantial territory to Herzog-Bosnia (Croatian Bosnia), Milosevic imposed a blockade on the Drina in 1993, cutting off the availability of weapons and other critical resources to the VRS (Bosnian Serb Army). It is worth noting here that NATO did not first bomb Serb territory until 1995, so there was no military pressure for Milosevic to betray his own. As to the Krajina Serbs in particular, Srdja Trifkovic notes in The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, “In Serbia however, [the Republic of Serbian Krajina] was seen as an unwanted economic and burden by Milosevic. To his frustration, the Krajina Serb assembly continued to reject his demands to settle the conflict by accepting the principle of Croatian sovereignty (pgs 217-18).”

Categorically therefore, we can conclude that Milosevic was not a hardliner bent on creating a Greater Serbia. Both his actions and his rhetoric evidence as much. On those grounds alone, one should be prepared to disregard the Kuhner article. If not, his outright hypocrisy should do the trick. Whereas he trivially asserts that Operation Storm, which essentially led to an exodus of all Krajina Serbs not killed in the initial attack, as a proper rebuff against the Serbs, he laments supposedly similar actions taken by the Serbs. Action which he fails to fully explain, and which are not well grounded in history. And, while he faults the HDZ as “fundamentally treasonous” and hopes to see them replaced with “a new conservative party – one that will provide voters with a real patriotic-populist option,” he makes certain to describe Tomislav Nikolic and his Progressive Party (an offshoot of the Radical Party) as “odious,” and their popular support as troubling. More profoundly, he insists that Croatia cease its participation in the ICTY, but never indicates that other countries should do the same, implying that the Serbs should still bow before the court’s authority.

In truth, there is only one phrase in Kuhner’s article which the facts support. Namely, he is correct in describing the ICTY as “a kangaroo court.” Where he is once again in error is in insisting that it is subordinate to the whims of Serb nationalists, and has made a substantial effort to prosecute non-Serbs. The numbers tell a rather different story, as does the fact that Western forces that bombed the Serbs repeatedly (and allied themselves with the Croats, Bosniaks, and Kosovo Albanians) are not being held to account for violation of the same rules of warfare the Serbs are said to have ignored.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

“Bre” stated:

I’m sorry, but Marvin Casey admits that the Jewish fund, the very fund that denies Palestinians their right of return, while giving foreigners a free ticket to the same land, has supported him. Just because he dances, it does not mean he’s any less complicit in the racism that the Jewish Fund happily partakes in. Keeping a blind eye to something wrong makes you just as guilty. Instead of pretending that both sides are equal in standing, let’s first learn to recognize that one side is an oppressive, occupying, apartheid government and the other other is under occupation. Just because some of you do no feel terrorized by the Israeli government, it does not mean they haven’t terrorized millions of Palestinians. Instead of pretending to be interested in dialogue, visit the occupied territories and tell me you aren’t witnessing apartheid. Maybe he should go see for himself if he’s really interested in seeing peace between both peoples. And maybe he should ask the people of “Arab descent” if they were once called Palestinians before his government made it impossible for them to claim as such.

To which I replied:

Bre, the Jewish Agency in no way inhibits non-Jewish immigration. It just fails to actively support it, which is no crime. Consider how Italy extends citizenship offers. If your grandparent is a citizen of Italy, you may seek to automatically be extended Italian citizenship. Israel’s process is similar, though because of the extended period of time for which the Jewish state was under foreign occupation, a slightly different criteria for judging inherited citizenship claims had to be established. Being that the UN created the contemporary state to be a “Jewish” homeland, it seems entirely fair that the state was biased in favor Jews when developing a citizenship system.

Moreover, let us consider this supposed right of return. The Palestinians refused statehood in 1948, and numerous times since then. They have no full state, yet agitate actively for one. Israel is expected to dismantle itself and return to the green line, and then accept millions into the newly dwarfed Israeli state? Such a process would ensure what is already all too probable, which is that Israel’s Jewish identity will be fully extinguished in short order. And since the creation of modern Israel was intended as a remedy to safeguard the Jews from yet another genocide, that seems profoundly troubling to me.

Moreover, let us consider the conditions under which they fled. Israel’s neighbors vowed to destroy Israel and give the totality of the territory to the Palestinians. They temporarily vacated in support of this aim. That turns out to have been a bad bet. But, just as a casino doesn’t return your money when the house has a better blackjack hand, your enemy has no equivalent obligation either. And make no mistake about it, Israel and Palestine are enemies of one another, as evidenced by the persistent terrorism of the latter.

And then some ISM folks affiliated with the university, who apparently are blind to reality, wrote a rather lengthy defense of the disinvitation of Casey.

My reply to their message is as follows:

Interesting how you appeal to Gandhi, for when asked directly if “the Jews should have committed collective suicide,” he responded “Yes, that would have been heroism .” That is exactly what would happen if Israel, rather than fight back in the extremely restrained fashion they already have, turned an even blinder eye to Palestinian terrorism.

Mind you, if you insist on using the Gandhi motif, let us recall that Israel’s creation was as much a rejection of British imperialism as India’s. To that end, Israel is the product of decolonization, and therefore cannot itself be a colonizing power.

The territory in dispute was won through defensive warfare. If one reviews the international law without an initial anti-Israel bias in mind, it becomes readily evident that Israel has ownership or the right to assert ownership over those territories. In practice, this means that Israel’s actions are no more problematic than the US federal government apportioning aid to the various states at unequal levels, or two states having different gun laws.

As to the Brand Israel campaign, decrying that would be the equivalent of getting angry at US travel agencies advertising abroad and talking about the vibrant nightlife and ample cultural centers available here, instead of emphasizing how the US came to being through the taking of Native American lands. In other words, you’re holding the JA to a standard you wouldn’t hold an American equivalent, so that you can try and find acceptable terms in which to couch your anti-zionism, which itself is just a mask for your anti-semitism (or Jewish self-loathing as may be the case for some).

That you condemn the disinvitation of the Palestinian performers is stunning, insofar as they were not disinvited. Rather, they indicated an intent to boycott, and once their demands were met, they were not actively invited for a second time. It is they who sewed the seeds for their own exclusion.

Oh, and since you like to cite MLK as well, I shall leave you with a couple of quotes from him:

“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

“When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

In broad terms, one might argue that the original line-up fit such a description. It included rappers of both genders, local acts, and those hailing from countries such as Morocco and Israel. Marvin Casey’s Tribe 13 was the only Israeli representation on a heavily Arab list, but given the relative percentage of the Middle East’s population, that would’ve been entirely fair. I stress “would’ve,” because they have since been disinvited. Why? Because the St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee reached out to some of the other rappers performing, and talked them into threatening a boycott if Tribe 13 remained invited. This led Universal Beatz to “[evaluate] the effects of this on our event” and conclude that Casey and Tribe 13 should be disinvited.

In what may be the most feeble attempt to justify caving into such pressure that I have ever witnessed, the group claims that they behaved in a politically neutral capacity by not pandering to Sharif “the Truth” and BiRD, the no-name rappers who had threatened to boycott. Their invitations were not so much withdrawn as they were not extended for a second time after the named individuals first refused to appear. Yet, to Nicole Lopez, this keeps the event “politically neutral in the matter by physically representing neither side of this conflict.” Giving into one side, but only accommodating their wishes in full, without supplemental groveling, is not neutral. Not is a decision like this apolitical. By disinviting the only Israeli representation, there becomes a relative homogeneity of voices, which seems antithetical to a supposedly multicultural event.

But then, such is the nature of multiculturalism, is it not? In practice, multiculturalism means the promotion of minority cultures, from which Jews seems categorically excluded, as we are grouped with caucasians when such matters are being considered. The essence of the STL-PSC’s complaint is that any is Israeli not actively shunning their home country and treating it as an apartheid state (which, for the record, is an idea rejected by the black community) is diverting attention away from Palestinian suffering, and thus is to be boycotted. Never mind that Mr. Casey is not a part of the Israeli political right, or that the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement never condemns the heinous crimes of the Palestinians. Instead, the issue here is that simply being an Israeli renders one a villain by default in the eyes of these champions of multiculturalism.

British journalist Melanie Phillips stated that “Anti-Semitism is protean, mutating over the centuries into new forms. Now it has changed again, into a shape which requires a new way of thinking and a new vocabulary. The new anti-Semitism does not discriminate against Jews as individuals on account of their race. Instead, it is centred on Israel, and the denial to the Jewish people alone of the right of self-determination.” And that is exactly the force at work behind the actions of groups like the STL-PSC. Overt racial or religious anti-semitism has been deemed socially unacceptable in the civilized world since the full horrors of the Holocaust became known. Israel provided the answer, in the it is essentially Jewish, but being a nation, is open to more stringent criticism than would ever be tolerated of Jews directly in our modern context.

As Mrs. Phillips puts it, “This has produced an Orwellian situation in which hatred of the Jews now marches behind the Left’s banner of anti-racism and human rights, giving rise not merely to distortions, fabrications and slander about Israel in the media but also to mainstream articles discussing the malign power of the Jews over American and world policy.” This is exactly what we’re witnessing, and what we need to speak out against.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

The article opens by declaring:

Most students on this campus are shocked to learn that one in four of their female peers are the victims of rape or attempted rape. But this is the reality that exists at Washington University and on college campuses across the nation. This week is Sexual Assault Awareness Week, and Student Life is taking a deeper look into sexual assault on campus and why so many rapes and rapists go undetected. In the hopes of debunking the myth that rape can only be defined as a violent crime between strangers, one student has shared her story of rape.

Now, there are a couple of fair points within this paragraph. Namely, it is correct to say that Washington University is not immune from rape, and that the act of rape needn’t be a man jumping out of the bushes to attack a woman casually passing by. Everything else stated therein however, is false.  The “one in four” canard, elaborated on shortly thereafter, is an absurd Department of Justice statistic that, if true, would translate to approximately 750 undergraduate women at Washington University either having been raped, or been the victims of attempted rape.  Realizing that the average undergraduate spends four years at Washington university, we should expect approximately 188 rapes and rape attempts to have occurred within the past year. Yet, as the Student Life article readily admits, only five women on campus reported being raped in 2009.

What this means is that if we accept the DOJ numbers, 97.3% of rapes or attempted rapes where current Washington University students are the victim go unreported. That number alone should suggest that the DOJ’s estimates are too extreme to be trustworthy. Still, the official statistic is one in four. So how exactly is that number reached? According to the National Institute of Justice, which is part of the Department of Justice, the “one in four” canard comes from a “methodologically rigorous” study by Koss, Gidycz, and Wisiewski. It turns out however that study doesn’t hold up too well to scrutiny. Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers does a phenomenal job demonstrating its flaws. In short, the survey of some three thousand college aged women asked a series of 10 questions about their past sexual activity, from which she concluded that 15.4 percent of respondents had been raped, and that 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape, translating to 27.5% overall, called “one in four” out of convenience.

There are two problems however. First, the definition of rape included any woman who admitted to having sex after having ingested alcohol or drugs, making no distinction regarding her actual level of impairment, the willingness of the woman to ingest such substances, or even how they reacted once sober.  Second, and even more damning, Koss and her associates entirely disregarded whether or not a woman regarded themselves as having been victimized. As such, roughly one quarter described their experience as rape or attempted rape, five percent as some other crime, and the remaining as a simple matter of “miscommunication,” where in many cases no victimization was felt. In essence then, the “one in four” canard gives a big tent definition of rape and attempted rape which includes women who don’t feel victimized or who willingly ingested even the smallest quantity of alcohol.

This trivializes real rape. But so does the story of “Rachel,” the anonymous figure whose story in the Student Life article is supposed to sway emotionally those of us not moved by obviously false statistics. She, after a night of drinking, blacked out and awoke later with vaginal pain. Despite remembering almost nothing of that night, including having had sex, she believed that the male peer who drove her home had sex with her, and thus raped her. Now, there seems to be no evidence for this (other than a UTI, obtainable through other means), and certainly no way to know whether or not he too was intoxicated, if indeed they had sex. And, likely because it was not rape, but at most drunken sex between the willingly intoxicated, she did not regard herself as a victim until quite a while later, under the guidance of a friend who has grown up in a generation that believes rape to be far more prevalent than experience and hard data suggests, and who by extension see rape where it is not.

It is worth noting that the law does hold a person unable to consent after ingesting alcohol. However, if both parties are intoxicated, it is generally only the male who is liable to face criminal charges. This is in keeping the cultural and legal emphasis on defining rape as a male crime against women. The reality however, is quite different. And if we are to recognize the severity of rape, and thus seek to properly address it, we must recognize that men are just as seriously victimized by rape.

The male victimization occurs in two forms: actual rape, and the trauma of false rape accusations. Regarding the former matter, it is often overlooked, but the prevalence of prison rape is quite astounding  - 240,000 American men falling victim to it each year. Before dismissing it is as the fitting punishment of criminal scum, remember that many men raped in prison are there for victimless crimes, especially of the drug related variety. Sanctioning prison rape then, aside from granting approval to something inhumane and otherwise immediately fit for condemnation, is sanctioning rape for possession of marijuana. And that is all without even discussing male rape outside of prison, particularly of minors.

False rape accusations get even less attention. Outside of the Duke Lacrosse scandal, such matters are rarely discussed.  Yet RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) has demonstrated nearly half of all rape accusations against non-criminal males are false. Their conclusion is based on three academic studies of rape accusations (one in the Air Force, another in a large midwestern city, and a third at a pair of universities), all of which found between 41% and 60% of rape allegations to be false, as measured primarily through the accuser recanting their charge of rape. As they disturbingly note, with 95,000 reported rapes per year in the US, this means that approximately 47,000 men are falsely accused of rape each year within our borders. And, even those who avoid conviction have their lives ruined.

In the spirit of Sexual Assault Awareness Week, let us therefore reject unsound dogma and acknowledge certain facts:

1. Rape is not vastly underreported. While no doubt some women who are genuinely raped never file a police report, it is not the rarity the DOJ statistics would have you believe. Moreover, about half of those instances where rape charges are filed are bogus.
2. Men can be victims of rape too, and are, in large numbers. Prison rape is a serious phenomenon.
3. False rape accusations and gross statistical distortions, as well as defining intoxicated sex as rape, serve to belittle true victims by both introducing greater doubt in genuine cases, and in trivializing rape by making it falsely appear to be something so commonplace and potentially non-violent.

On the subject of fences, it is worth thinking about those that Israel has built. True, they created a somewhat temporary, and readily breached one between Egypt and Gaza with the permission of the former. But, more controversially, they’ve been building one around the West Bank to match what they’d built around Gaza in 1994. The chief argument made in favor of the fence is that it has saved countless Israeli lives through impeding Palestinian terrorist efforts. And the data supports this. In 2002, before construction of the fence began, 457 Israelis were killed at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. In 2009, that number was 8.

But, even supposing that Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and countless other smaller entities permanently renounced terrorism, disarmed, and fully committed themselves to peace, removing the fence would be folly. What few seem either to realize or openly admit is that the Palestinians represent a threat not only in absolute security terms, but in political and economic terms, analogous to the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States.

Let’s put this in perspective in numeric terms, first comparing Mexico and the US^[1]:

Now, let us perform the same comparison for Israel and the Palestinian Territories^[2]:

Notice the similarities. In the case of both Mexico and Palestine, the economic growth rate is faster than the wealthy nations they neighbor. But, this growth is attached to an economy that is significantly weaker to begin with, such that the US and Israel represent considerably more economically attractive options respectively.

The United States is a first-world, economically prosperous nation replete with opportunity. So too is Israel. Mexico is an impoverished, chaotic nation with a inadequate educational and health care infrastructure, whose somber reality compel many of its people, especially its poorest and least skilled, to seek opportunities elsewhere, even if illegally. So too is Palestine. Even ignoring the long-term harm done to Israel’s Jewishness by mass, uncontrolled immigration of Palestinians to Israel-proper, the immediate impact of relaxing the border would be to invite a flood of illegal Palestinian immigrants into Israel, which would constitute a significant economic burden, especially since Israel has universal health care. It is therefore worth remembering that Israel has a compelling interest, not only in security terms, but in economic ones, to build a border fence. Much like the US, Israel doesn’t have the good fortune that Europe enjoys of being surrounded by peaceful, economically stable nations between which open borders are viable.

Footnotes:
1. Economic Freedom Rankings from the
Heritage Foundation. All other data via CIA World Factbook.
2. CIA World Factbook lists Gaza and the West Bank individually. In cases where the numbers differ, an unweighted average has been listed.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

They [sic] hypocrisy of this institution is beyond nauseating and this piece is just another example of a lame-duck editorial beating around the bush on an issue while another recent staff-ed took a very vocal position on homophobia when it suited their liberal, anti-commerce agenda. [See screenshot]

The above quote is a verbatim reproduction of a comment made by Richard Jesse Market at 10PM on September 13, 2010 in response to a fence-sitting staff editorial entitled “Donate Blood and Fight Homophobia,” which ran in that day’s issue of Student Life, the ever-declining rag which is the Washington University campus newspaper. Written not long after I had criticized the paper over their decision to remain silent about the staggering hypocrisy of the university in first ending its cooperation with Target in response to their indirect aid of a homophobic politician, and then running a massive blood drive from which homosexuals are prohibited, this editorial was intended to encourage students to have their cake and eat it too, and to avoid admitting that the self-satisfaction so many members of our community enjoy is undeserved.

If you clicked through to read the staff editorial, you may have noticed that Mr. Markel’s comment is absent from the page. And why exactly is that? Well, it is the result of the continued degeneration of journalistic standards and the notion of editorial independence under Kate Gaertner.

Where first she made a name for herself in censoring conservative submissions from long time columnists, she soon moved on to hiring new writers based exclusively on their political positions. Dissent was never something she tolerated, hence her eventual decision to close down the Editorial Board to non-editors (a position she has since switched again, now requiring new editorial writers to attend). But now it seems her loathing of an alternative opinion has reached such profound heights that she has banned all members of the Editorial Board from openly disagreeing with the staff editorial. Never mind that it is a consensus view and not something which all members must sign off on. Here, it must be pointed out that Richard Markel is as close to a conservative member of the editorial board as can be found, and thus is always shouted down. So, in effect, this policy exists to curtail the critical speech of a single member, based entirely on the grounds that it would look “unprofessional” for an editor to break with his publication. It is worth mentioning that such policies never existed under previous management, and this decision was made by Kate Gaertner herself.

It is at this point where I must mention that Mr. Markel did not merely have his comment deleted, but was explicitly threatened. He was told to fall in line, or to resign. This speaks to Kate’s seeming goal of chasing every last non-liberal off of the paper’s staff. First, I resigned in August of 2009, after having spent but a few weeks under her as Senior Forum Editor, based on her willingness to censor columns she disagreed with and her infusion of political bias into ever aspect of her management. Later, with Kate’s promotion to Editor-in-Chief and the end of the academic year, the generally moderate-toned libertarian who joined at the same time I did, Phil Christofanelli, resigned as well. He attributes his decision largely to the displeasure he felt writing for Kate, who he acknowledges put personal politics above editorial freedom.

This alienating pattern of mismanagement has had some severe consequences. When I wrote for Student Life there were so many forum contributors that there was talk of having each writer submit a piece every third week. Now however, they are currently “desperate for writers,” according to one inside source. And it shows in the many issues where they struggle to fill even a single side of a page with editorial content. Alarmingly, they would have even less if Kate Gaertner had her way, as it is only through the intervention of Senior Forum Editor AJ Sundar that a handful of right-leaning editorials have been published from Mr. Markel, who even as a voter for Barak Obama is apparently too conservative for the Editor-in-Chief’s tastes. What little content they do run from other writers tends to be shamefully bad, with pieces either being little more than stream of consciousness drivel, or burying the lead so deeply as to leave the reader wondering if the article ever underwent even the most modest revisions.

Particularly striking was “Constitutionally Correct?” by Sophie Adelman, which after deftly managing not to express any opinion for the first two thirds of her mercifully short article, ends with what amounts to a condemnation of free speech rights protecting Fred Phelps. Mr. Markel, outraged by her position, sought to write a response defending the importance of extending free speech even to the most reviled bigots. After turning in said article, he was confronted by other members of the paper staff indicating that his column would not be run as submitted. Various points made by those party to the discussion, such as a refusal to include language that made it a direct response rather than an alternative view of the same issue, were at least understandable even if not correct. Others however, are a different story, which you’ll soon discover yourself.

As it happens, within the Student Life office, various staff members tend to congregate. And, since that can make for some excellent drama, occasionally some of those not party to the argument of the moment will secretly record the conversation and share it with others for amusement. That happened the very same day Mr. Markel was arguing to have his article run, and I have since been given a copy of the argument.

In the conversation, he is told that the word “fag” cannot appear in his article, even in the context of quoting Phelps and the signs he protests with. The idea of running a censored version of that word was met with nearly as much hesitance. Moreover, discussion of how Mr. Markel has been making too many waves and would be advised to watch out can also be found, though this is stated somewhat less bluntly. Embedded below via Youtube is the audio file, which I have edited only to remove information which might identify my source, and to try and improve sound quality. I have cut off the start and end points as necessary, but the middle portion remains unedited, so that you too can judge how they handle such matters.

Lastly, though I have already spoken a great deal about censorship as directed by Kate Gaertner at Student Life and its negative ramifications, I must share one last thought. The September 22^nd staff editorial, of which Kate was a strong proponent, is focused on condemning a peer institution’s newspaper for its failure to censor columnists. Now, while I’ll readily admit that the Johns Hopkins editorials condemned by Student Life don’t reflect especially well upon the paper that ran them, the very last thing a newspaper should go out of its way to advocate is increased editorial censorship. The fact then that the current staff is so enthused by it as to no longer simply practice it covertly, but to champion it in print, says all that is needed to confirm that Student Life is a damn disgrace of a newspaper.

Please note that the information included above has been culled from a variety of sources, ranging from my own interactions with various staff members, to tips given by a large number of past and present Student Life staff members. That Richard Markel is the protagonist of this particular entry on Kate Gaertner’s Student Life speaks only to the fact that he remains among the brave few willing to stand his ground in some capacity. His opinion was not solicited at any time before, during, or after the composition and editing of this piece. All sources that have asked not to be named will remain anonymous.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Authored by אנדר-ויק. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Target is homophobic…or so Washington University in St Louis would have you believe. Not long ago, this ever so progressive university withdrew from the Target After Hours Shopping program the retail chain created to serve college freshman through offering not only extended hours, but transportation from campus to the store and back. The justification given by Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Jill Carnaghi was that, “We need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. ” What Carnaghi meant is that Washington University cannot merely preach tolerance, but must actively champion it. So you’d think that Target must’ve been donating to the Westboro Baptist Church or doing something equally nefarious, right?

As it turns out, Target earned the university’s ire by making the mistake of donating some $150,000 to Minnesota Forward, a political action committee formed to “ensure that private-sector job creation and economic growth are at the top of the agenda during the 2010 campaign.” How is this an issue of tolerance? Well, it seems that Minnesota Forward decided to give Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmers some money. Emmers, more than simply failing to stand up for gay rights, is closely associated with a homophobic rock ministry that advocates the murder of homosexuals based on the Bible (though curiously, they seem less concerned about killing violators of the Sabbath, another scriptural gem). While this is no doubt troubling, this is also not related to why Minnesota Forward helped finance his campaign. On their own website, the group notes that “As a legislator, Tom Emmer voted against job-killing taxes and for reduced government spending. Emmer voted with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce 91% of the time on votes scored by the Chamber.” In other words, for a commerce-minded PAC, he seems to be an ideal candidate. Likewise, as Target is a Fortune 100 company interested in protecting its bottom line and delivering ever-larger returns for its investors, it seems only natural that they would donate to Minnesota Forward. That Emmers is a bigot (or at least keeps company with them) does not indicate Minnesota Forward or Target supports discrimination. In the case of Target, one would be hard-pressed to find a more tolerant company of its size. When not setting records with its generous charitable contributions, Target is busy earning a perfect rating on the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, which measures GLBT treatment in the work place. And it has long had some of the most generous domestic partnership benefits of any major American corporation.

So you would think that if the university was prepared to hurt its students to send a message to a gay-friendly corporation that they ought not donate to groups that donate to incidentally-homophobic individuals, that it must take a similarly extreme approach across the board. I did. Hence my surprise when in my university inbox I see an announcement for a university-sponsored blood drive that will be taking place next week. Maybe the higher-ups missed a memo, or maybe they just didn’t think they could get the same smug satisfaction from treating the American Red Cross with the disdain they did Target, but this effort is exponentially more harmful to homosexuals than anything Target can be linked to. Why? Well since 1983, any “male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once,” has been barred from giving blood thanks to the FDA. This, of course, is one of a myriad of restrictions imposed that would seem intent upon limiting the spread of HIV. Since homosexual men constitute the majority of HIV-positive individuals in the US, this seems reasonable enough on the surface. But, while the majority of those with HIV may be gay, the majority of those who are gay do not have HIV. Even those who can prove their health are ineligible on a permanent basis to donate blood. That, to me, seems far more outrageous than a gay-friendly company backing a PAC for economic reasons, which later went on to back a homophobic candidate for economic reasons.

And I won’t even get started in pointing out the hypocrisy of getting outraged at Target without kicking the ROTC off-campus like Columbia and Stanford.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

4:36 PM CST

Call placed. The automated system cannot understand me, and after several failed tries declares that it will connect me with an employee.

4:39 PM CST

Connected to the employee, where I ask about what constitutes an acceptable answer to race. She reads an official answer that does not address my question (included below), prompting me to repeat myself. She then says that she cannot answer my question, and to put whatever I want.

4:42 PM CST

I declare that my concern is being legally compliant, and I would thus like to speak with somebody who can indicate whether my intended answer is legal or not.

4:43 PM CST

The second employee indicates that there is no illegal answer to the question, my only obligation is to answer it. She goes on to claim that I can even make up a race if I like.

Now, why is it that I have a question about race? Should that not be exceedingly straightforward?

Put simply, the issue with categorizing oneself by race stems from race being a social construct. This is demonstrated aptly by the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of race, and that there is likewise no uniformity of opinion on what constitutes a racial group and how many exist. This is perhaps most notably demonstrated by the fluidity of our racial categories over the history of the Census.

As Jeff Jacoby notes, we’ve vastly expanded our racial category options:

In 1850, the Census Bureau divided Americans into “white,’’ “black,’’ and “mulatto’’; by 1890, it was classifying “Japanese’’ and “Chinese’’ as races, along with “Negro,’’ “mulatto,’’ “quadroon,’’ “octoroon,’’ and “white.’’ Based on this year’s enumeration, the government proudly announces, “Tabulations will be available for 63 race categories — six single-race categories and 57 different combinations of two or more races.’’

If you’re wondering how there are 63 racial categories now, then let us look at what the Census Bureau has to say:

The Census Bureau collects race data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country, and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically or genetically. People may choose to report more than one race to indicate their racial mixture, such as “American Indian and White.” People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.

In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include both racial and national origin or socio-cultural groups. You may choose more than one race category.

As you can see, their definition is exceedingly unhelpful. They acknowledge that their is no biological, anthropological, or genetic standard by which they are defining as race, but that instead the definition shall be the product of social standards. This assumes a national uniformity that does not exist, an acceptance of questionable consensus standards, and attaching oneself to a label whose boundaries are rendered fluid by virtue of their function as a sub-category of something as mutating in definition as race is. More at issue though is the decision to include “national origin” or “socio-cultural groups” as valid identifiers of race, for it would seem to sanction a massive range of answers that in both social and historical context would not fit what the average person understands to be a race. “Korean” is a nationality and “Hmong” is an ethnicity, yet the census lists the former as an option and the latter as an example of an acceptable expansion upon the “Other Asian” choice.

By this standard then, I could readily identify as American, for I was born here. Some conservatives have considered this very idea, and seem to believe it technically legal. And Jacoby agrees, noting that the New York Times endorsed this very notion in the mid-19th century. Of course, I’m a first generation American, the product of legal immigration. Being of Canadian stock, I might then identify under that category instead. But is isn’t as though my family spent centuries in Canada. We fled there from what is now Belarus in the early 20th century, so Belarusian might seem more fitting. Based on the history of said region though, I might just as easily identify as Lithuanian, Polish, or Russian for at one time or another they all occupied said land before my family escaped. The Russians had the most recent control, so identifying as Russian might make the most sense. Complicating the picture though is that fact that my family is most likely not from Belarus, but settled there at some period during the Russian occupation, at which time Russian simultaneously held a multitude of other neighboring territories, any one of them being potential historic homes of my family.

Given how confusing national origin would prove, I might instead identify as being of a socio-cultural group. At the most basic level, that might mean identifying as either Jewish or Semitic. Either should clearly be a valid answer, for just over two decades ago, the US Supreme Court acknowledged Jews as a being part of a racial category separate from Caucasians. This could further justify me describing myself as either Ashkenazi for specificity’s sake, or as Israeli, Hebrew, Egyptian, or Iraqi based on the national origin criteria stated above and Jewish history. Obviously, the national origin identification choices are even more absurd than before, for I am much more removed from any of those lands than Belarus or Canada. Ashkenazi seems equally poor, for it is a better indicator of how frequently I recite Birkat Ha’Kohein and what I consider chametz than anything else. That theoretical value is expunged outright by my atheism.

So why not save myself the mental energy and identify simply as Jewish? After all, the Census is said to collect data for statistical purposes, and will neither be linked to the individual nor freely divulged in a way that threatens privacy. Or at least that is the official claim. History though tells us a much different story. In 1942, Congress passed the Second War Powers Act, which required that”any information or data” be collected by the Census Bureau be made available to other government entities. It is well established that this enabled the government to more easily locate and intern Japanese-Americans during the Second World War. More recently, the Department of Homeland Security collected Census data on Arab-Americans, which we know only through a FOIA petition from EPIC. Given then that the cause for concern extends beyond general distrust of an overreaching government, and there are multiple examples of outright abuse, I have no desire to identify as such on my form.

Many would suggest then that I identify as White. But I see two substantial problems with this. First, as mentioned earlier, I am bothered by the notion of embracing a social construct to placate government workers. Even if I accepted the notion of race, and that White was the logical choice, I would remain hesitant, for virtue of the simple fact that I’m Jewish enough to not be White in the eyes of a disturbingly large percentage of the population. But second, and perhaps more importantly, I do not wish to provide said answer for the very reason that the inquiry on race is pernicious. Look at the official justification for said inquiry:

Information on race is required for many Federal programs and is critical in making policy decisions, particularly for civil rights. States use these data to meet legislative redistricting principles. Race data also are used to promote equal employment opportunities and to assess racial disparities in health and environmental risks.

If you cut past the rhetorical efforts to make this seem positive by citing “civil rights” and “equal opportunity” issues, the meaning is rather clear: tell us your race so that we can better interfere in your community and use race-related issues to justify doing so. Even if we are to assume it will be used only in service of every liberal’s favorite example of what makes this necessary, the Voting Rights Act, it remains objectionable. While laudable in helping to enfranchise Black voters, the VRA has also been widely cited as justification for affirmative racial gerrymandering. That is, while our courts have held that redistricting efforts that diminish the political power of minorities are impermissible, no such restriction extends to redistricting in such a way as to optimally concentrate minorities into voting regions that give them more power. In practice, this leads to the creation of majority-minority districts, where a target percentage is to be Black or Hispanic, so as to ensure that candidates of said group are move viable, and that those groups at large can put their votes to better use. This is extremely objectionable, in that it leads to the creation of extremely odd shaped voting districts, the disproportionate influence of certain groups who are being extended special privilege, and has partisan implications. That last point is especially concerning, for Hispanics, and to a far greater extent Blacks, do not vote Republican. Thus, racial redistricting counts, as one of its major consequences, the creation of permanently Democratic seats, thereby negating the value of having actual elections.

So, knowing that specific racial information is liable to be exposed and abused, and objecting to both the notion or race and the available labels, how did I answer the question of race? I checked “Some other race” and wrote “No race” in the provided box. I am hoping that this does not yield a follow-up phone call or direct visit, but I certainly imagine it will. After all, while the workers I spoke with seemed to believe that however I identified would be valid, and I found “No race” the closest acceptable short answer, I should be compliant with the law. Yet, since my answer surely is not the sort they desire, mere compliance probably won’t end their harassment.

I mention legal compliance because of the United States Code, Title 13 (Census), Chapter 7 (Offenses and Penalties), SubChapter II:

221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

* (a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

* (b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

* (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Though the Constitutional mandate for the Census does not mention race as required information, the Supreme Court has held that questions not explicitly included in the Constitution may still be made a mandatory component of the Census, such that legally speaking the above penalties could realistically be imposed on those who fail to answer or who inaccurately answer the Census. Rare as enforcement may be, the risk is higher than I care to assume given my financial limitations and desire to avoid even the remote prospect of imprisonment.

It is clear that we must, legally speaking, all fill out our Census forms, and we must indeed answer absurd questions such as those asking about race. But, short of not outright lying, there is no established guideline. So fill in whatever answer you find most comfortable, appreciating fully the consequences of giving the government certain answers, be it helped to undermine the democratic process or receiving further communications from their army of underinformed temp workers.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

In order to preserve formatting, specifically as related to footnotes, I have this as a PDF and uploaded it to Scribd. The essay is embeded below, though you may download it as well.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Though I do not want to paint too rosy a picture about the operations and content of Student Life prior to this staffing change (such as the horrid coverage of Dr. Daniel Pipes), as somebody who has worked at other student papers and for a range of more professional sources too, I feel able to say that on the whole, the previous standards of operation were generally commendable, and the results often praiseworthy.

First and foremost among what made Student Life function as a credible vehicle that was more newspaper than sub-tabloidal misallocation of paper (as is presently the case) was that, rather than choosing governing sentiments as fit the agenda of those in charge, they upheld journalistic standards, chief among them free speech. It is understood that, especially as it pertains to editorial columns, the writer is given sufficient discretion to not only choose their topic, but write about it in a tone and with a slant of their own choosing. For their part, the editor is generally expected only to make alterations to grammar and syntax, and if need be, removing statements that qualify as libel. And that was the position taken by my editor, and insofar as I am aware all others, up until the staff shift. Not a single article I wrote between September of 2008 and April of 2009 was censored, including an article where I advocated applying an obscure Israeli law that would make the vast majority of its government eligible for life imprisonment and another article decrying Gandhi and the undue popularity he continues to enjoy postmortem. The new staff however, was quick to abandon this standard. Or rather, Kate Gaertner was. Being the new Senior Forum Editor, she has the ability to override the decision of the daily editors. And, at least in my experience, said group was not actively inclined to follow Gaertner’s reckless lead. Rather, they were just a bit too green behind the ears to challenge her abuse of authority, meaning that from day one, she could censor articles whose viewpoint she disagreed with, altering the tone, or making changes that made the article less coherent (as happened with my Fujimori article), thereby making the author seem less competent.

I was greatly concerned when, within a week or so of assuming power, she overrode the daily editor and made drastic changes to an article about the Federal Reserve written by fellow CLA member Phil Christofanelli. While some of her changes were legitimately necessary to enhance the readability of his column, having seen both the original version submitted and that which ultimately ran, I can say with confidence that she grossly distorted Christofanelli’s position, and left out crucial details that supported or qualified his position, and which were contextually critical. Alas, this was not the last example of her flagrant disregard for the opinions of the few non-liberals who had opted to lend the paper credence by letting it cite us as examples of a balance that never truly existed. The very next week, my article about the famed Peruvian politician Alberto Fujimori was savagely butchered.

Length was obviously not the issue, for it was among the shortest columns I turned in last year, and was nearly three hundred words shorter than the column I’d run the previous week about US-Israel relations. Indeed, the version she decided to run without my consent was a mere 19 words more brief. The real changes she made were not to length, but message. My article was unabashedly supportive of Fujimori, who many conservatives hold as hero based on the stellar results he generated while in power, especially as compared to the job done by those who preceded and succeeded him. In her mind however, that was unacceptable. After the column ran, I met with her to discuss my profound anger over the rape of my column. Her justification was that because I was the only Student Life columnist whose focus was on international affairs, she felt the need to moderate my tone, given that I had no left-wing counterpart. Never mind that with the arguable exception of Christofanelli, who covered various domestic policy issues every other week from a qualified libertarian position, every other writer for the section had a pronounced left-wing orientation. Yet at no time did she ever feel that balance was needed there. After all, the views of said columnists aligned generally with her own, so she felt no need to restrict their speech. In that particular exchange her seeming fetish for censoring conservatives was re-iterated throughout, as she issued various proposals that involved cutting, marginalizing, or balancing my column and no others. We ended with me making rather clear that should my column ever again be censored, I would cease to write for Student Life, as I now have.

Censorship though is not limited to those writing, as such policies just as readily apply to those wishing to join the staff. One individual wishing to write for Forum sent Gaertner an email detailing their desire to write for her section. She did not ask for a writing sample or details of the writer’s credentials. She did however make certain to confirm that their political position was one consistent with her own. She stated, in reference obviously to me, that the paper already had a writer who is “very neo-conservative in his stance [ed - this is grossly inaccurate], very pro-Israel” and that she was not looking to hire another such writer in the name of the “balance,” which consisted of me on the right, and most of the rest of the staff on the far left. It wasn’t until she was sufficiently ensured she wouldn’t be adding another conservative to the staff that she granted the applicant a column.

Of course, once granted a column, even if a Forum writer is not subject to censorship as a result of their ideological sympathies, it all but certain they will suffer from the ill-effects of mismanagement and/or power politics. For instance, it was not until shortly after I attempted to submit my Srebrencia column (now run elsewhere) during the first week of class this academic year that a clear word limit was ever stated, being set at a meager 700 (which, in turn, has caused a decline in quality perhaps moreso than any other singular action since the staffing change). Problem was, what your limit was would vary depending which editor you asked, and who you were. Under the old regime, if there was a word limit, it was perhaps a soft 1000, and I ran at least four articles that were between 800 and 1000 words without so much as a suggestion that I consider writing shorter submissions. Under the new regime, the limit is a hard 700. But, and here’s the catch, it applies selectively. I had run multiple columns longer than that in the short reign of the new governing regime. And indeed, I was told by my editor that the submitted article would run, but that in the future, I should keep articles under 800 words. A friend of mine writing for Forum was told to keep his columns under 550 words by a different editor. Presumably these were not arbitrary decisions, but rather the result of mismanagement by Gaertner, as applied to her subordinates.

I am especially inclined to believe the fault lies exclusively with Gaertner based on her inability to relay simple information to her staff in a timely fashion. After the last minute rejection of my Srebrenica article for being longer than a limit I was never told about, and other issues to be detailed below, I resigned from Student Life on August 30, 2009. From what I have been told, even though the article was in her hands well in advance of that time, she did not bother cutting it until printing day, keeping the Friday Forum Editor in the dark. Likewise, he was not even told of my resignation until the next week, at which time he was tasked with finding a way to fill column inches he had come to expect were already accounted for, being that I had a weekly column.

Still, it may not merely have been an issue of incompetence and limited communication skills on Gaerner’s part, as her apparent love for instigating petty conflicts in an inexplicable quest to ensure that her authority was never challenged, even though hierarchically she was never in any danger, manifested itself regularly. This is perhaps best evidenced by her fear of openness, and the associated reliance on secrecy, witnessed clearly in her management of the Executive Board. Made up officially of senior staff, its job is to select the topics for the staff editorials, as well as the position that will be taken therein. Whatever the connotations of her name, the staff in charge before her held that such meetings should be open to all Forum writers interested in attending, and that when there, participants were equal in status to those who were official members of it. They recognized that there was no negative consequence to this approach, as only those genuinely interested would attend if not obligated. At the same time, there was tremendous benefit that came with it, including helping to determine who would be offered promotions at the next staff roster adjustment, encouraging interaction between junior and senior staff, fostering an open atmosphere that instilled faith the paper, and allowed for a diversity in opinion to be given voice that might otherwise be sorely lacking. Gaertner however, would have none of this. Though she herself had attended several such meetings before being made an editor, unsure in power based on her underwhelming experience and leadership skills, she sought to keep the meetings closed, limiting them only to the newly appointed editors, all of whom had the same or less experience than her, and were disinclined to challenge her authority. Or rather, she almost did.

Having regularly attended such meetings previously, and moreover having both written a Staff Editorial (about University College access by undergrads) and having introduced a piece of software still widely used by Student Life staff to collaboratively edit articles (Writeboard), I continued to attend the meetings without issue. And at first, there was no apparent problem, for she had not announced a policy switch, and no other non-editor besides me made a point of attending such meetings. One week however, I suggested to a friend of mine that also wrote for Forum that he experience an Executive Board meeting, as they sometimes featured rather interesting debate. He agreed, and we went together to the next such meeting. Shortly after leaving, he received an email from Gartner, wherein she said stated he was not welcome at said meetings in the future. She said, “One thing that I wanted to address with you is that the editorial board meetings are technically open only to senior staff members, and we invite Caleb, as a columnist, to come to our meetings because we feel he helps us to strike the appropriate political balance of opinion that an editorial board for our campus community should reflect.” That she even allowed me to continue attending for the remainder of the academic year was a bit shocking, for her actions detailed earlier in this article make clear she had no true allegiance to balance. But this was to be short lived.

Just before the start of the academic year, and prior to my resignation from the paper, I sent Gaertner an email inquiring as to when and where the Executive Board meetings would be held this year, thinking that it might have changed from last year. In response to my inquiry, she informed me that “the scope of eboard has changed this year, and in keeping with our goals, it will be limited to editors.” Now, insofar as I can tell, that policy was not any different from the preceding year since her assumption of power, with one notable exception. And that is the concern for balance. It seems that over the summer, she lost any interest in even pretending that her section enjoyed any. Not being one to avoid confrontation, I responded to her, stating as much, albeit with a somewhat nicer tone. She of course ignored this, as she often did emails I sent where the answer would invariably require that she either concede something to me, or put her foot in her mouth. While other writers would hear back from her in hours, I would never get a response as soon as the circumstances forced her hand, even if I sent two or three emails on the same topic over the course of a week or two. To do otherwise would require that she be less paranoid about protection authority nobody ever sought to challenge. And that inclination seems absent from her DNA.

Ultimately, I do not believe that the sad state Forum, and to a lesser extent other sections of the paper, currently find themselves in is necessarily a permanent condition. Past leadership has demonstrated that within our student body there are a perfectly sufficient number of capable individuals to run a high quality campus newspaper. But those presently in power, especially Gaertner, have done considerable damage in the present to our paper’s quality and reputation. If, when the next staff re-assignment comes around serious changes are not made, with more qualified individuals being given greater authority, I fear that what is presently just a dark period for the paper will become something more permanent and more destructive. Its longterm viability, if present conditions persist, is questionable. And, even if it were to continue on, in its present capacity that would serve only as a blight on this fine institution.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

It is with great reluctance that I am hereby resigning as a columnist in the Forum section of Student Life. My decision to leave was not easily reached, for I feel that my column helped to provide a small semblance of balance in presenting the only regular right-of-center column in the paper. However, my disinclination towards continuing this turf war with you, and generally having to deal with the petty politics that seem to be dreadfully linked with your section of the paper, has left me without any other choice.

With two years as a regular columnist, I have built up my credentials sufficiently to be published in leading specialty newspapers on three continents, and to receive accolades for my work from such academic, journalistic, and media icons as Fred Taub, Julia Gorin, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer. Accordingly, I believe that I have earned the right to expect a certain level of freedom and respect that I am not presently receiving at Student Life.

Thus, rather than remaining to apply pressure and compel reform on areas of great concern such as political balance and a culture of managerial openness, I am removing myself from the paper’s staff so that I can better focus my energies on both writing for publications of greater substance, and dedicating my energies to campus issues of greater importance.

Sincerely,
Caleb Posner

—

For the record, this decision will not have an adverse impact on my writing volume, as I will simply be shifting where I submit my work.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

As the saying goes, history is written by the winners. And when it comes to the former Yugoslav peoples, that can readily be described as everybody but the Serbs. So it is unsurprising then that they have been vilified throughout the West, labeled as war criminals and butchers whose unmitigated xenophobia caused the collapse of a great multi-ethnic state and the bloodiest set of wars Europe had witnessed in a half century. Yet much as Joe Biden and other Serbophobic politicians who called for the repeated bombing of Serbia during the Wars of Yugoslav Secession might believe that summary to be accurate, the facts simply do not lend themselves to such a conclusion. This may be no better demonstrated than by looking at Srebrenica, which has long been Exhibit A in the court of world opinion in the case against the Serbs.

Officially, the story goes that around 8000 innocent Bosnian Muslims were, without any provocation, slaughtered indiscriminately by genocidal Serbs with revanchist aims, who were unmoved by the civilian status of their victims, or that the area they attacked was to be a safe haven managed by the unbiased and above reproach United Nations. As far as making a case for the bloody violence the Western allies would unleash on the Serbs, that did the job rather well, as it played to the sympathies of the emotionally-driven masses. Of course, with respect to capturing the truth, the governmental line is rather inadequate.

So what exactly is the truth? Alexander Dorin, a Swiss researcher who just recently sent his book “Srebrenica – The History of Salon Racism” to print in German (Serb and English translations are planned in the future) said in an interview that, “After 14 years of investigating events that took place in Srebrenica in 1995 I can attest there was no genocide over Muslims in that enclave — the myth about the massacre of Muslims was invented by the late Bosnian Muslim war leader Alija Izetbegović and then-U.S. president Bill Clinton.” Questionable as that allegation may sound to many, it is important to recall that the United States actively armed Izetbegović and his ragtag jihadist army during the war, applied pressure on Tudjman’s secessionist Croat government to cease his involvement in the Herzeg-Bosnia land theft, and sought actively to create a Bosniak state where one had not traditionally existed (for the land falls within the bounds of historic Serbia). Much of this, especially the sale of arms, was documented heavily even by the liberal American media at the time. And indeed, once the other factual inaccuracies become apparent, it seems quite evident that there was not a Srebrenica massacre, but rather a military engagement that, like many US operations, involved some inadvertant civilian casualties, that has been mythologized to give political cover to the warmongers that led us into battle on intelligence information more questionable than any ever utilized by the Bush administration.

For instance, the real number of dead bodies uncovered was closer to 2000. Some 3000 names of alleged victims were alive enough to vote in the 1996 elections. And many other dead bodies were found to be from previous gun battles or from non-violent ends more than a decade before the event in question. Still unaddressed though is guilt. Among the 2000 dead discovered were a very large number of soldiers who, under the leadership of jihadist Naser Orić killed some 3000 Serbian civilians beforehand. That raises perhaps the most important point: Srebrenica was not a purposeful slaughter of innocent civilians, but an effort by Serb forces to save the lives of their countrymen from an enemy army that had already spilled ample blood, and which was cowardly seeking refuge in protected civilian areas that were supposed to be unarmed, and therefore demilitarized. That there is no record of any military orders relating to civilians, or even mandating the execution of enemy soldiers is telling, in that it makes evident the aim was not to inflict unnecessary brutality, but to take control of the area such that the nearby Serb civilians they were charged with defending could go about their business unmolested instead of living with a paralyzing fear that the destruction of their village was imminent. Indeed, the size and weaponry of the Serb forces present would’ve proven insufficient for anything more grand. The physical evidence confirms as much, for of the dead Muslim soldiers discovered, a good number of them died not from execution, but from untreated wounds that came about during the two-sided military engagement.

All things considered then, we must realize that Srebrenica’s infamy is deserved not because it was home to an act of genocide in post-Holocaust Europe, but because the events that unfolded there amidst a highly misunderstood war have been so grossly distorted that the popular myth has overpowered reality, and in turn has given the Serbs a reputation for neanderthalic brutality and bigotry that is entirely undeserved. Even today, with the violence having long come to an end, the Serbs remain villainized and subject to undue scrutiny because of this and other associated lies. It is therefore important that the record be set straight and that the Serbs cease to be made a pariah simply because they were on the losing side of a war our country made much worse.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

You may click here to play the show, or right to save it.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

First, looking at Sotomayor’s past, it appears that during those years she was earning her prestigious Ivy League credentials, she was also cutting her teeth in the world of radical leftist activism of the racialist variety. During her time at Princeton, she submitted a number of letters to the editor that were run in the Daily Princetonian. Among them is one where she decries the racism of her institution towards “Chicano” and “Puerto Rican” students. And what sort of discrimination was she speaking about? Not the sort witnessed at truly concerning universities such as Case Western, but one of affirmative action, or rather a lack of it. It seems that Sotomayor was, and it seems still is, of the opinion that being Chicano entitles somebody to special benefits and preference, so much so that institutions must actively recruit such candidates. Never mind that institutions like Princeton are, when positions exist, already overwhelmed by a number of qualified applicants for the position(s) in question, and thus would normally have no reason to actively recruit candidates. And for that matter, don’t bother considering how absurd it is that race, ethnicity or other irrelevant details that ought not define a person are being called for as a selection criteria, when if Caucasians were to demand such benefit anywhere (even at an HBCU), they would be branded racists and publicly shamed. Instead, what must be realized is that Sotomayor got her way and remained unhappy.

How do we know this? In 1974, Princeton hired a new minority dean. And by that, I don’t mean a dean that happened to be a minority, but rather a dean who was chosen in large measure because he was a minority (it was part of an affirmative action hire to calm down the campus radicals). The student committee, which was tasked with helping the university to make their selection, had six members. The race of sixth member was not noted, so based on the university’s demography, it is likely they were Caucasian. We do however know that the other members were three Blacks and two Latinos. And for the position, they chose a Latino candidate. Of course it should be noted that Sotomayor and a fellow racialist activist constituted the two Latino members, though she remained dissatisfied, marginalizing the substantial student input Princeton administrators solicited by way of her committee, and claiming that the position was scrutinized more closely than other hires. It goes without saying that these are both absurd claims on her part, especially with regards to the latter, for even if true, it would be appropriate. That is to say, in a normal hiring situation, where all interested individuals may seek a position, it is inevitable that qualified applications will appear, and the university will have multiple strong options to fill the existing void with a candidate for the aforementioned job. But, where the pool is restricted by artificial and superficial criteria that don’t speak to the relative merits of those in it (such as minority status), the quality of applicants is far less certain, and thus greater efforts must be made to ensure that even with the restrictive criteria in place, a suitable candidate can still be found.

Of course, one might ask why it is that Sotomayor, a clearly radical racialist, would be appointed to such a prominent position by the university. To answer that requires only two words: Accion Puertorriquena. Founded around the time she began her studies at Princeton, Accion Puertorriquena remains active on Princeton’s campus to this day, and it played a major role in expanding the academic offerings of the university relating to Latino culture and history. Whatever merit this is to that, its importance as a Latino student voice on campus, and more importantly as the Puerto Rican student voice on campus, is apparent in its use as a vehicle to harass Princeton into extreme affirmative action. That is, the group (or at the very least Sotomayor) was not so much interested in giving admissions preference to Latino students as much as it was actively recruiting said students. So important was race-based preference to the group that they insisted the university was obligated to incur substantial expense actively hunting for Latino candidates, even when they already had far more qualified applicants of numerous racial backgrounds than spaces. This of course is on top of their involvement with the Coalition Against Proposition 187 (Proposition 187, a 1994 California ballot measure (which seems strange for a New Jersey university group to be focused on…), was a ballot initiative designed to disallow welfare and other social aid benefits to illegal immigrants), which proves beyond a doubt their disturbing dedication to Latino racial radicalism.

Though political extremism is often a hallmark of youth soon abandoned, it seems that Sotomayor never changed. In 1980 she became a member of the Board of Directors for Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (now called LatinoJustice PRLDEF), which has also always been driven by an agenda of advancing the situation of Puerto Ricans and other Latinos when they were not otherwise being mistreated or in need of help. Their origins however center on ensuring that Latinos need not learn English, as their first lawsuit in 1974 was Aspira v. New York City Board of Education, which resulted at the expansion of failed bilingual education programs over English immersion classes. And much like Accion Puertorriquena, their history is one of fighting for racial preference in admissions and hiring, and in the extension of social aid benefits to illegal and undocumented immigrants.

To this very day she is (or at least through 2000 when the American Bar Association profiled her was) a member of the National Council of La Raza. As with the other radical Latino organizations mentioned, they support racial preference in admissions and employment, social benefits (and drivers licenses!) for illegal immigrants, and substantial accommodation for those immigrants (legal or otherwise) that cannot speak the language. Disturbingly, that isn’t the worst thing about La Raza. They actively support and help run Latino charter schools that are hostile to the United States as a country, and non-Latino peoples in general. Take for instance Marcos Aguilar, Principal of La Academia Semillas del Pueblo (one such school they are connected to, who said who said “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain. . . . We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”

That she has been involved in not one, but three radical Latino organizations, all of them racist in their politics, is outright disturbing. That it was not merely a phase in her youth for which she has since apologized makes her an unacceptable candidate for the Supreme Court. Just as she was worried about diminished law enforcement credibility in the case of Thomas Pappas and his anonymous hate mail sent from his home, she should be worried that any verdict related to civil rights, immigration, or race will be viewed as suspect (with good cause) based on her own actions, which she does openly and without shame (thus making it problematic in a way that didn’t apply in the case she misruled on before).

What Others Are Saying
Atlas Shrugs: She has all the bells and whistles of a leftist candidate – Hispanic? Check! Female? Check! Compelling narrative that tugs at the heart? Check! Brain power? Irrelevant! The left doesn’t like too much brains, too much reason and intellect. It confuses them.
Liberally Conservative: Sotomayor is able to get away with her racist comments because she is a female minority. Imagine Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito making similar comments and not facing hell on earth in the press and at confirmation hearings.
New England Republican: It looks like Barack Obama was listening to Jeremiah Wright when the later was spewing his racist rhetoric those 20 years.
Neocon Express: To take a page from Jenine Garafalo, President Obama appointed a ‘stone cold’ racist and intellectual lightweight to the US Supreme Court this morning.
Stop the ACLU: If the Senate does not question her on her membership to a radical organization advocating racism, there will be a major outcry. Republicans better step up and grill this women before handing her one of the most important positions of power in the U.S.
Sultan Knish: By nominating Sotomayor, Obama is very clearly looking ahead to 2012, by first nominating an Hispanic Woman, secondly a left wing judicial advocate, more specifically one whose views on ballot access will help open up that golden box of millions of votes, and in the case of a Bush vs Gore type Supreme Court case, will always argue on the side of inadequate access.
Thomas Sowell: If you were going to have open-heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is, or by the best surgeon you could find — even if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that money and social position could offer? [...] The Supreme Court of the United States is in effect operating on the heart of our nation — the Constitution and the statutes and government policies that all of us must live under.
Tom Tancredo: I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context, that’s exactly how we would portray it.
Tundra Tabloids: Obama is just doing what comes naturally, as a devout Leftist, he seeks judges that are activists in robes. If the congress won’t pass laws that socialists want, he’ll plant activist judges on the bench that will insist on by-passing the will of the people to placate the will of the few, the privliged of the Left.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Undoubtedly, Sotomayor looks impressive at first glance, in that she graduated at the top of her class at Princeton University, and then when on to graduate from Yale Law, where she was editor of the Yale Law Review. But that’s about where her merits as a potential Supreme Court justice end. Cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, Pappas v. Giuliani, and Doninger v. Niehoff make evident that her rulings either willfully disregard the Constitution, or hinge on indefensible misinterpretations of it.

Let us begin with Ricci v DeStefano, the case most likely to trigger controversy as her nomination is considered (by the Republicans that is, since the Democratic party and most of the media seems to have already okayed her). In it, the city of New Haven, Connecticut was bound by union contracts with respect to the fire department, mandating that exams were to be used as the determinant for promotions. Specifically, the individual chosen for promotion had to receive one of the top three scores on the exam. Black candidates however performed inadequately, with a failure rate twice that of their white cohorts, meaning that none were among those first eligible for promotion after this new advancement exam was rolled out in 2003. This resulted in the city’s independent exam review board questioning whether it was a racially bias exam that could not be certified as valid in determining who would receive promotion. A competing test development company stated when asked that he believed the exam was not so problematic as to be illegal or outright invalid, and veteran firefighters noting that the exam was rather similar to what they had taken in the past. So, logically speaking, the exam ought to have been certified, after which the promotions would be issued. However, the review board was split 2-2, leaving the exams uncertified. A group of Caucasian and Hispanic firefighters who had scored well enough to earn the promotions in question thus opted to sue, claiming that New Haven’s actions violated Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. Though she did not author an opinion in this case, we must recall that when first tasked with rendering a verdict, Sotomayor voted to uphold the District Court ruling, which sided with the city against the hard-working fire fighters on the basis of their skin color.

Pappas v. Giuliani, where her involvement is quite a bit more clear, is perhaps even more disturbing. That case deals with Thomas Pappas, a New York City police officer who was fired from his job because, outside of the office, on his own time and with his own money, he mailed hate material to an assortment of organizations that had first mailed his solicitation requests. Also important to recall is that he did so anonymously, meaning that there was an intent to avoid creating the sort of negative public image that might inspire questions about his biases with regard to police work. Further, he asserted, and this cannot be disproved, that his actions were a form of political protest. Thus, being that the material he sent out was not unlawful in the first place, that it was purposeful political speech, and that he did so without involving his employer in any way, one should think that the Court would side with Pappas, who even if genuinely racist and of poor character, has done nothing that ought to have rendered his at odds with law, or resulted in the termination of his employment in a country where there are substantial limits on the grounds over which an employee may be terminated. But Sotomayor and her liberal ilk disagreed, ruling against Pappas at the expense of the political expression rights.

Of course, her utter contempt for the First Amendment and its promises of free speech rights does not end there, as shown by Doninger v. Niehoff. I’ll spare you the overwhelmingly long version of this story, instead directing you to an article on the matter by Mark Kernes if you are so inclined. Put briefly, this was a case of Avery Doninger, a student government member at Lewis Mills High School, using some off-color language on her livejournal to describe her feelings about certain school administrators that were making every effort to impede or cancel a “Jamfest” event that the students had (with prior school authorization) been planning for quite some time. While this was going on, Doninger was up for re-election, seeking the position of Senior Class Secretary, having previously held the equivalent position for her class junior year. Having failed to display the “good citizenship” expected of candidates running for positions in student government (by using the aforementioned off-color language on her livejournal), Doninger was denied administrative endorsement, ensuring that she would be left off of the ballot, and all but guaranteeing that she would lose the election. But a funny thing happened. The students, who were impressed by her past performance and her willingness to advocate on their behalf, voted overwhelmingly for her. In fact, she won a substantial 2/3rds of the vote. But the school, so concerned about a student using the word “douchebag” on a livejournal entry that they felt the need to attempt (unsuccessfully) to silence Doninger, proceeded to disregard the results of the election and give the position to the second place candidate. And Sotomayor agreed with their actions. In the unanimous court opinion, of which she was a signing justice, Tinker’s principal that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” was acknowledged, but then rendered irrelevant by what followed. Instead, she regarded the school’s mission (something which, I might add, had no constitutional basis to exist) of imparting a “proper respect for authority” as being more critical than allowing for dissent. That the somewhat crude language was used outside of the school, and in the context of political dissent over the decisions of those in power at the school, was deemed inconsequential. Not only then was free speech dealt a serious blow, but the verdict seems to suggest that dissent is improper and should be disallowed if it is at odds with respecting the authority of people who have done little if anything to earn said respect.

And of course in her past there are a number of other disturbing verdicts, though none as important as the above. Litmus test for appointments or not, a judge who consistently makes irrational, freedom-limiting decisions should, on that basis alone, be rejected as a potential candidate for the forthcoming vacancy. But, even were one sympathetic to her politics, it is not otherwise clear that she belongs. Disregarding the absurd controversy surrounding her comment that judges make policy from the bench (which is a provable fact, and thus does not reflect something meriting further review by those of us opposed to her nomination), there are questions being raised about her fitness for the position. Famous legal scholar Jonathan Turley said of her nomination, “My main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions. I have read about 30 of the opinions and they do not support the view that she is a natural pick for the Court. She is without question a historic pick — like Thurgood Marshall. However, Marshall was not a lasting intellectual influence on the Court.” And his point is well taken. Having the right heritage and an atypical success story does not render qualified. But if asked, Sotomayor seems to feel strongly that such details do make a difference, for speaking at UC Berkeley she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That of course is a reflection of the “empathy” that this token candidate is expected to bring with her. That’ll mean a great win for identity politics, and an even greater loss for the Constitution and American individualism.

What Others Are Saying
Bench Memos: Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.
Cato @ Liberty: In nominating Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, President Obama chose the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.
Crunchy Con: Given that we were certain to get a liberal justice out of Obama, I suppose one has to take comfort in knowing that Obama made a quota pick too, and did not choose a liberal justice who can match intellects with Roberts and Scalia.
JammieWearingFool: Great News: Obama Picks Radical Hack for Supreme Court.
Libertarian Party (USA): By nominating Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama has made it clear he prefers an activist for his personal causes over a rational interpreter of law.
Michelle Malkin: Identity politics triumphs.
Patterico: Sotomayor will almost certainly be confirmed, but she does appear to be one of the more leftist of the nominees that had been under consideration. Empathy über alles, dontcha know. Republicans should (emphasis on should) be able to have a field day showing how she’ll move the law to the left.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

I hope also to launch a podcast of yet-to-be-determined length and frequency starting in September, dedicated to in depth discussion of international affairs, and I am currently reviewing the technical requirements with my would-be co-host.

That aside, I am also happy to announce that my article on Israel-US relations, which ran in Studlife earlier this month, was recently also run by Arutz Sheva, my favorite Israeli news website. And it seems that Google News has indexed said article.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

According to TNS Nipo (a marketing and statistical research firm), Geert Wilders and his Partij voor de Vrijheid enjoy 40% popular support in the Netherlands, and will take the plurality of the nation’s 25 seats come June. Indeed, even the most out-of-date and statistically questionable polls show his level of support at approximately 18%. In other words, Wilders will be one of this election’s biggest winners, which is excellent news. The PVV is one of the only parties that is steadfast in its commitment to defending Western civilization from the Islamist threat without relying on Christianity as a crutch. Though Wilders has given an expected nod to the Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe more than once, he has just as readily noted the humanist character of the continent that is rooted in pre-Christian Rome and Greece. Equally important, in his view defending Europe means standing up for minority rights, enhancing economic liberty, and reducing the size of the EU. One particular platform point often overlooked, yet really quite positive, is the PVV’s aim of having Bulgaria and Romania, both politically represive economic wastelands, booted from the EU.

Likewise, Czech voters appear prepared to vote in their finest, with opinion polls showing the Občanská Demokratická Strana likely to receive 1/3 of the nation’s 22 seats. The party of Václav Klaus and Mirek Topolánek is one of the only parties in Europe boldly fighting the anti-civilizational eco-hysteria that is currently en vogue, while simultaneously advocating loudly for economic liberalization, EU devolution, and Russoscepticism. The party is keenly aware of the threats that communism, Russian agression, and loss of sovereignty to outdated institutions and new liberal fads pose to the Czech Republic as a nation, and Europe as a continent. And so their continued electoral support at home, which by all accounts should be sustained through the European Parliamentary Elections, is a very encouraging sign.

Unfortunately, not all of the EU members seem interested in building a better Europe or even standing up for their own true interests. Most visably, the UK is preparing for a return to the dark ages by welcoming the anti-semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay British National Party into the European Parliament for the first time ever. The anti-capitalist, pro-conscription lunatics have thus far always fallen short of entry, but are projected to earn at least 3 seats, and by some accounts even more. The BNP bears the rare distinction of being branded by the European Parliament as an “openly Nazi party.” What is especially disturbing is that they, alongside some of the offensively liberal British parties, are gaining at the expense of the UK Independence Party, which has been an exemplary defender of British sovereignty, individual liberty, and reduced taxation.

With the elections still six weeks away, there is ample time for popular opinion to shift. But, at least with the information we currently have, it seems reassuring that several nations seem intent on enhancing the quality of the alarmingly powerful EU. We can only hope that in those nations instead inclined to shift support towards parties that embarrass the human species, a last minute change of heart will prevent them from making such egregious errors.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Let us proceed by establishing the purpose of an age of consent. Two primary reasons exist. First, the goal is to prevent child exploitation by disallowing intercourse with those who lack the capacity to issue informed consent. And second, it is a means of controlling the abuse of authority that can sometimes exist when there is a profound gap in age between to potential partners. At face value, both seem to be entirely noble aims. However, upon further scrutiny, their use as justification for intrusive and non-nuanced law becomes quite obviously invalid.

I will address the latter issue first. Positions of authority are not merely a question of age. A boss has authority over his employees in a far greater capacity than a teacher might over a student. Yet there is no law forbidding their fornication. Instead, the issue of authority is dealt with at the institutional level, with many companies having strict rules regulating sexual and romantic conduct in the office or between those it employs. It seems reasonable that such mechanisms might just as easily work in schools, religious institutions, or other areas where adults potentially have authority over minors. That provides for this first aim, for arguing that the age gap is problematic in and of itself is irrational. This is evidenced by the fact that it is perfectly legal, as it ought to be, for a senior citizen to have sex with somebody old enough to be his grandchild. Such sexual relationships rarely develop however, based on disinterest of one (or both) of the parties, as would generally apply here too.

The bigger question thus becomes about the ability to consent. What benchmarks are to be used to determine if a person is capable of issuing consent? I believe that the knowledge base must be there, and the physical development must support it. In other words, I would argue that consent may be issued as soon as the minor (of adequate mental capacity) has entered puberty and received some sex education. Once they understand the mechanics, proper safety, and the potential consequences of their actions, why are they not believed to be responsible enough to have control over their behavior? Surely if children are taught of law and bound to it, they can be taught about sex and entrusted to control their own experiences thereafter.

Logic thus lends itself to abolishing the age of consent, and instead applying the above. In doing so, we become free to emphasize the real issue: a culture-specific disregard for the notion of informed consent. I speak of course of the situation in the Persian Gulf, which includes a number of oil-rich nations that fancy themselves as modern and Western-oriented, where marrying girls aged 10 and under is still rather common. To varying extent, this finds legal sanction in those nations because men like Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, endorse such sex-inclusive unions. Lest one write this off as the rantings of a closeted pedophile who has been unnaturally elevated to such heights, I feel inclined to note that his position is supported within Islamic scripture. For as Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 states, “Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).” This practice is then considered exemplary because Muhammed is the uswa hasana, al-Insān al-Kāmil, essentially “the perfect man and role model” (see Qur’an 33:21). Thus, his decision to have intercourse with a nine year old girl, who we have no indication entered puberty, is sanctioned practice, and allows for such consent-devoid arrangements to this day.

While the standards of conduct were quite different in seventh century Arabia than 21st century Western civilization, such practices continue worldwide, and ought to be the focus of our concerns. After all, these girls are not only uninformed, but underdeveloped and left without choice. Thus, they cannot give or deny consent. It is that, not the ability of a 17 year old in North Dakota to have intercourse without fear of legal consequence, which threatens basic human rights and the very reasonable underlying aims that our outdated age of consent laws seek to protect.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Every week, I write an article for Student Life, the main campus newspaper at Washington University. The overwhelming majority of the staff is quite liberal. There is, as I understand it, one other non-liberal columnist, and his articles tend to be quite a bit less controversial. Last week however, the other non-liberal found that his column had been substantively altered before running, and he had been given no notice of the changes. His editor, the same as mine, said that he hadn’t made the changes to the column, but rather that our Senior Forum Editor, Kate Gaertner, had. She claims the changes were a matter of length, but this obviously false. While the length was cut, most of the changes made involved either the removal of contextually-necessary facts or a major softening of tone. Comparing the two versions, there is no question that the one ran was inferior, and a discredit to the author’s name.

So imagine my displeasure when this week I opened up a copy of the paper to find that I was Gaertner’s latest victim (something she confirmed via email after getting wind of my reaction). The old editors, whose term ended in April, never once made a substantive change to any of my articles, instead only making minor grammar or syntax tweaks as they deemed necessary. While I happen to have disagreed with some of their alterations, I was never truly ashamed to see my name attached to the columns as printed. That is unfortunately no longer the case. On Wednesday, I submitted my latest article about Alberto Fujimori, and saw a disturbingly different version run on Friday.

Here’s how the two versions compare (excluding the sort of minor changes I didn’t find particularly bothersome):

Original:
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70 year old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder and other less serious offenses by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima, and was given a 25 year prison sentence.

Altered:
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70-year-old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima and sentenced to a 25-year prison sentence.

Changes:
Dropped “lesser charges” to make the sentence factually erroneous.
“Sentenced to a sentence” is terrible wording.

Original:
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger, but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The veracity of this assertion still unproven to a sufficient extent that he deserved conviction aside, let us consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.

Altered:
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The degree to which he deserved conviction remains questionable, but aside from that, it is imperative that we consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.

Changes:
Massive meaning change. It goes from questioning the allegations themselves to how fair his convition was, and based on the rest of the article, it would seem to imply the question hinges upon his job in office. However, his excellence as President and his supposed guilt are largely different questions and I tried to separate them (still answering both), in the article.

Original:
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980 (after a dozen years of military dictatorship), at which time the student-driven Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…Indeed, in 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed the practice enforced the capitalist system they so violently rejected.

Altered:
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980, after a dozen years of military dictatorship. At this time, the student-driven, communist Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…In 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed that voting enforced a capitalist system that they found despicable.

Changes:
Addition of the word communist before Maoist, which is not only redundant (being that it is a school of communist thinking), but unnecessary, in that anybody who is unfamiliar with Maoism had no business reading this article. And I should hope that WashU students have learned such basic information by this point in their lives.

Further, to find an ideology “despicable” is not problematic. The problem comes in the violence. By removing the “violently reject” phrase, the sentence is too mild in its approach to the Shining Path.

Original:
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the massive communist insurgency.
Altered:
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the communist insurgency.

Changes:
Removing massively again gives the Shining Path too little blame. They controlled large sections of the country, and for years were one of the most violent and threatening insurgencies anywhere in the world.

Original:
And, not only did he drain the national reserves, but he left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations, the cost increasing greatly through interest because he refused to service the massive debt he helped create.

Altered:
In addition to draining the national reserves, Garcia left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations.

Changes:
First, it makes Garcia seem less at fault, since it fails to make clear that he was the source for much of the debt. That becomes especially important given the essay’s conclusion. Beyond that, the refusal to pay debts is important, because again that caused great problems for Peru that Fujimori had to overcome. So this change ultimately serves to advance Garcia at the expense of Fujimori, which is unacceptable.

Original:
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians, that the group or splinter factions of it have begun to once more function.

Altered:
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians that the splinter factions of the Shining Path organization have begun to function once again.

Changes:
This sentence was rendered factually incorrect. While the splinter factions are most active, technically speaking there is still a Shining Path, which the original acknowledged and the altered version does not.

Original:
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale by the crippling blow Fujimori delivered to the terrorist organization.

Altered:
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale thanks to the measures taken by Fujimori.

Changes:
This again gives Fujimori too little credit. He didn’t passively make a few changes in law and happen to succeed. He instead put forth a massive military effort to crush the infrastructure of the organization, similar to what Sri Lanka’s government is doing to the LTTE.

Original:
That he also managed to save Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the very least.

Altered:
Moreover, the way Fujimori salvaged Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the least

Changes:
The original phrasing treats the preceeding as true, and commends him greatly for ALSO fixing the economy. The new phasing, coherence issues aside, suggests that even if the above is false, he saved the economy. In other words, it undermines my entire tone and defense.

Original:
But in view of the highly questionable nature of much of what he was found guilty of, and the exceptionally positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is entirely inappropriate.

Altered:
But in light of the questionable nature of the accusations brought against him, and the positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is inappropriate

Changes:
Again, the tone is muted by removing my zeal. Words like “highly” before questionable, “exceptionally” before positive, and “entirely” before inappropriate are important in conveying the utter absurdity of the conviction, which was the entire point of the article.

Original:
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing.

Altered:
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing so.

Changes:
Adding “so” at the end of the sentence is unnecessary, and makes the sentence less coherent.

So as you can see, the changes were extensive. And if she tries to claim it was a length issue (when I meet with her, which I’m scheduled to do), as she did with the other non-liberal columnist, that will not stand. Under the old staff, I ran four articles exceeding 850 words. I never had a hard word limit, just a suggestion that the be under 1000 words. Last week, my first article under the new editors ran uncensored and was 930 words. I was however warned about keeping future submissions under 800 words. The Fujimori piece, as submitted, was 666 words long. As ran, it was 647 words. I somehow doubt a 19 word reduction for a column well below the upper limit was needed. And certainly, such changes didn’t have to fundamentally alter my tone and argument, as Gaertner’s atrocious version did.

I find it concerning that in two weeks both non-liberal writers have suffered the same fate at the hands of an editor that has only been in charge since the start of April. Her predecessors has the good sense to treat non-liberal writers fairly, so as not to force their resignation and render the paper entirely devoid of any shred of ideological balance. While the paper was (and is) overwhelming liberal, those previously in charge were never so boldly hostile to differing opinions. I can’t imagine how Gaertner will attempt to justify this, or how further the quality of the paper will decline under her control, but I suppose I’ll find out soon enough.

UPDATE: I met with the Senior Forum Editor to discuss this issue. Some highlights:

* I presented her with a list of changes and notations of why they were unacceptable (see above). She tried to argue with one or two of them, generally conceded that I had a valid point, and apologized for the errors made.

* I noted that my biggest issue was that many of her alterations changed my tone, and this was completely inappropriate. She stated that she had intended as much, because being the only international issues writer for Student Life, she wanted to make sure the position taken wasn’t too extreme. I told her point blank that I’d soon tender my resignation than moderate my tone to whatever it was she regarded as acceptable.

* Evidently disinterested in that scenario, she then proposed that I move online only, which I quickly rejected. Print may be a dying media, but I refuse to be chased out of it for not towing the liberal line.

* Next, she proposed that every week she writes a response to my column to provide balance. I made clear to her that I cover a broad range of material, some it quite obscure. So, while I wouldn’t feel the need to stop her from responding to my articles, I wouldn’t feel compelled to go mainstream either. And that would translate to substantial additional research on her part, especially on occasions where the topic of choice pertains to my areas of expertise (Israel and the Balkans).

* She then asked about doing that just when bigger international issues arose. As I noted, I generally avoid such stories, but were I to address them, her rebuttal would be fine. I did however make clear that I objected to her efforts to essentially provide “balance” against my column and not the vast multitude of liberal columns. After all, I am one of two conservative writers total, and by far the more controversial and hawkish of the two (being that the other is a libertarian).

* Ultimately, it ended with her promising to only make grammatical changes in the future, with my continued contributions hinging upon her keeping her word.

I’m still extremely concerned about the direction this paper is headed given some of her answers/suggestions, as well as those issues detailed above, though for now I’ll continue writing. But, if ever again I should see my article so butchered, then said piece shall be my last.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980 (after a dozen years of military dictatorship), at which time the student-driven Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public. Instead, they began a ruthless campaign of guerrilla warfare, which by 1992 had resulted in more than 20,000 unnecessary deaths. Indeed, in 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed the practice enforced the capitalist system they so violently rejected.

But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the massive communist insurgency. In his term as President, predecessor Alan Garcia drove businesses out of Peru through a series of anti-market actions, including his efforts towards the nationalization of private banks in 1987. By the time he left office, there had been 2.2 million percent national inflation, a decline in wages to a three-decade low, and a 20% loss of GDP. And, not only did he drain the national reserves, but he left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations, the cost increasing greatly through interest because he refused to service the massive debt he helped create.

Undoubtedly then, Fujimori was tasked with addressing two epic problems that on their own would have overwhelmed lesser men. Yet he rose to the dual challenge with remarkable ease. He crushed the Shining Path terrorist organization and restored governmental authority to all of Peru. It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians, that the group or splinter factions of it have begun to once more function. Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale by the crippling blow Fujimori delivered to the terrorist organization.

That he also managed to save Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the very least. He cut price controls and government subsidies, opened the country up to investments, and simplified taxation and tariff laws. His willingness to make drastic marketing reforms secured IMF loan guarantees, which he put to good use. In 1994, just four years into his rule, Peru was posting a 13% growth rate; the highest in the world. Total GDP growth between when he assumed office and stepped down was an impressive 44.6%, and a $10 billion foreign currency reserve was built up.

In essence then, Fujimori saved Peru from itself. He turned around one of the world’s most volatile economies and reintegrated it in the international order, thereby building a foundation for the gradual improvement in the life quality of his citizens. He also brought an end to the bloody violence and instability that threatened the social order and basic human rights of his people. It is possible that in doing so, some inadvertent violations of the law took place. But in view of the highly questionable nature of much of what he was found guilty of, and the exceptionally positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is entirely inappropriate. Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing. This is especially reasonable with his incompetent predecessor who caused so much more damage now serving as President anew.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

How is social justice being defined? After all, if it means something absurd like working for the equality of economic circumstance, being supportive of every minority or special interest groups and their right to play the role of victim, or otherwise advancing the politically correct, historically sanitized hyper-multiculturalism that is destroying Europe and to a lesser extent the United States, then the obvious answer is no. Such ideas are the product of defective liberal thought, hinging on the suppression of individual rights for the sake of an inexact common good. If however it means tolerance and open-mindedness, judging people on their qualifications and competence rather than inconsequential details such as race or gender, or supporting a system of legal and equality and an opportunity-creating free market, then there can be no bigger advocate for social justice than the conservative. In either such case, the question would answer itself. Thus, what I find troubling is that a conservative group would adopt uncritically such an outmoded liberal buzz word and offensively use it to question to the character of their own ideological brethren.

Quite why it is that the College Republicans would willingly associate themselves with the Social Justice Center to ask such an absurd question in so inappropriate a capacity is beyond me. There are, in my estimation, only two potential answers. First, the College Republicans have become so worn down by the tide of liberal ideological oppression at Washington University that they cannot remain steadfast enough in principle to distance themselves from such nonsense. Second, this is a desperate attempt to win approval and wider campus acceptance at an institution where their image is not particularly positive as a consequence of their ideology. It may well be a combination of the two. In any case, this illustrates a serious problem of the CR that extends well beyond their partisan alignment. They are doing nothing to advance conservative intellectual discourse or conservative principles, instead facilitating the myth of balance and ideological tolerance by being the useful token organization that can be cited as a conservative force, but which has been declawed and lobotomized.

The CLA was offered the opportunity to be involved with this event, but the scant details and inappropriate name immediately turned us off. This is a decision the group made of which I am especially proud. After all, dialogue across ideological lines has its place, but playing the patsy for an exceptionally liberal organ of an overwhelmingly liberal institution as they treat conservatism in monolithic terms and subsequently evaluate it by their own warped rubric does not. If the left wishes to discuss true conservative philosophy and its aims, they must first realize that the Republican Party is by no means conservative, and that the College Republicans do not speak for us. They must further understand that such discussions will not be held on their lopsided terms over which we lack control, but in a way that treats conservatives and our ideologies fairly. There is certainly a place for such discussions, and I believe the CLA can and should play a vital role in them. But this cannot happen when we tie ideology to partisan identity and then emphasize their offshoot student groups as the chief sources of credibility in the political discourse.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

Unpopular as it may be to say in the United States, increasingly those on the Israeli right, for perhaps the first time since Kach was disbanded, are suggesting that Israel is disadvantaged by its relationship with America, and needs to redefine the terms of association if bilateral relations are to be retained. And indeed they have a compelling case. Historical precedent shows us that land won in a defensive war, as Israel fought in 1967, need not be restored to the losers or be given independence of any sort. Israel made the mistake of not formally annexing the territory at that time, but it did not become a problem until President Carter, who has proven himself to be deranged on all matter of Mideast policy, strong-armed the “right wing” Begin into surrendering a massive portion of territory to Egypt in the name of peace. Never mind that four consecutive military defeats would’ve sufficed as a deterrent against open warfare. Instead, let us ask whether the peace Israel supposedly has with Egypt is of any value. When it so readily facilitates arms smuggling for the fifth-column Palestinian insurgency and could readily fall to the increasingly powerful domestic Islamist factions, what good did such massive concessions do?

If you answered “paved the way for yet more dangerous land concessions,” pat yourself on the back. Using the return of Sinai as precedent, Clinton was able to compel Rabin, who to that point was not nearly so enthusiastic about displacing hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes to create a new enemy state, to sign the Chamberlain-like Oslo Accords. Rather than rise to crush the violent Muslim threats as Israel had so often needed to do in decades past, Oslo marked Israel’s loss of credibility, in that it began Israel’s formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority and their territorial claims on Israeli land. Even when Palestinian violence prevented the agreement from coming to fruition, Oslo went on to serve as a pretext under which every post-Rabin Prime Minister has made efforts to displace citizens for the purpose of creating yet another hostile regime in the region. And under the Bush-backed Sharon government, the very first steps to creating a new jihadist state were taken.

In the more than three years since Israel expelled its own citizens from Gaza, destroying 21 established communities to create a Hamastan where crucifixion is now a legally authorized form of punishment, Israel has suffered the consequences. Those terrorist organizations that seek to destroy it can now more easily arm themselves, and have added yet more population centers to the total territory they can rain their rockets upon. This surrender of land has of course done nothing to placate the international community, the United States included, which still refuses to recognize Israel’s capital city as Jerusalem. After Costa Rica and El Salvador moved their embassies to Tel Aviv, the international norm of allowing a country to choose its own capital within its territory is globally violated only for Israel. And indeed, that is but one of many examples of the unequal treatment Israel faces on the world stage. At best, the US occasionally votes against anti-Israel UN resolutions, usually along side the South Pacific island nations it heavily subsidizes. In practice though, this does little other than create a false illusion that the US-Israel relationship is vital only to the latter, and that Israel should be grateful for what little it gets. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel, for its part, has always offered military assistance to the United State, who rejects it routinely, and has served as the only trustworthy and powerful ally in one of the globe’s major powder kegs. And, at least under the present system, Israel essentially obeys the suicidal commands that its American master gives it.

So what is it that Israel gains? Chiefly the benefits are financial, and truth be told, not nearly as vital in the present as might have been true decades ago. Given the global financial recession and the hostile nature of the current American government, that number can only shrink, thereby reducing the value of such an alliance for Israel. While mutual technological development, commercial exchange, and military cooperation are all part of the bilateral relationship and are worth preserving, they are far less valuable than having the freedom to set its own policy and respond properly to the grave security threats Israel faces. So until the United States is willing to redefine its relationship with Israel as one between equals, it may be better for Israel to terminate the alliance and begin to more proactively seek out different partners around the globe.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

As Robert Spencer, the noted expert on Islamic theology who wrote Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, remarked in a recent interview, “Obviously ‘the problem’ is rooted within Islamic texts and teachings that mandate warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. Ibn Warraq’s observation that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam is absolutely true….” Realizing that, the natural question arises as to what forms this effort of subversion for the purpose of caliphate building is permitted. Dr. Walid Phares, terrorism expert and professor at the National Defense University, points out that while the jihadists often employ violent tactics, many instead have utilized the Islamic concept of taqiya (a false front, or concealment of belief) to present a moderate image while still retaining Islamist ideological aims. In other words, realizing that jihad cannot be fought only on the battlefield, especially when militarily speaking the ummah (Islamic community) is overwhelmed, many Islamists rely on liberal Western multiculturalism and political institutions to advance the same agenda without spilling blood.

The disturbing truth is that there are a great many examples of stealth jihad, most of which never get adequate mainstream attention. For instance, the Council on American Islamic Relations, often regarded as the Islamic NAACP, is a proponent of a thoroughly anti-Western agenda, and it associates readily with organizations who regard us as evil incarnate. Speaking to a crowd of Californian Muslims in July 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad stated, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” Similarly, their Executive Director Nihad Awad participated in a conference for Hamas members and supporters in 1993. Fundraiser Rabih Haddad was convicted of helping transfer money to a Hamas front group, and other CAIR members members including Randall Royer and Ghassan Elashi. The head of their Michigan chapter Muthanna Al-Hanooti has been charged with spying on behalf of the Iraqi government. And that is just the beginning of a laundry list of disturbing details about CAIR that implicate them as a force for stealth jihad. In the United States, they are perhaps the most influential group, though it would be a great mistake to disregard the many other powerful forces for the non-violent destruction of Western civilization, including their indirect parent the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizb ut-Tahrir.

It is therefore critical for the success in the misnamed War on Terror, which should instead be relabeled the War for Western Civilization, that we understand these there are links between the ideology and the violence, and often times said connections are the “moderate” front groups operating here and abroad. Such organizations, if not watched and held accountable for their cooperation with jihadists, threaten our very civilization. If their aims succeed, though the results may not be quite as bloody, the outcome is unthinkable. To live in a society where a woman has half the legal worth of a man, where homosexuals are executed by the state, and where the kuffirs (infidels) are forced to pay an extortive protection fee to continue living (the jizyah) is a prospect that should alarm any decent person. The best step then is to educate ourselves, and demand our political leaders to the same. To start, I strongly recommend that you attend Robert Spencer’s talk on Stealth Jihad on Tuesday, March 24 at Graham Chapel, beginning at 6:30 PM.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:

On February 17, 2008, the Albanian-dominated autonomous province of Kosovo seceded from Serbia in violation of international law at the encouragement of the United States and many of its Western European allies. More than 50 nations, nearly two dozen of whom are EU members, have extended full recognition to Pristina. The bloodied and much coveted region (often called Serbia’s Jerusalem) is 88% Albanian, 7% Serbian, and 5% other (mostly Bosniaks, Turks, and Roma). Serbia, for its part, maintains that Kosovo is an integral component of its territory, in view of both history and international law. The Albanians, through a mixture of historical distortion and post-cleansing ethnic demography have suggested that Kosovo is not Serbian, and thus must be recognized as an independent nation (or, as some Albanian nationalist politicians suggest, a part of Greater Albania). Disputed legal status aside, one thing that is clear is that since NATO bombed Belgrade into submission and turned control of Kosovo over to the United Nations, what little authority Serbia had over the long autonomous province was lost. In the years since the transfer of power the status of the Serbs and other non-Albanian minorities living in Kosovo has declined dramatically, even when compared to the already abysmal treatment they were afforded under the Tito regime. Now regarded as independent by many Western nations, Pristina has a free hand to manage its own affairs, or as the case may be neglect them and thereby facilitate the further victimization of ethnic minorities. The situation is thus one which ought to be subject to far greater scrutiny by those concerned with human rights, for it could most charitably be described as tense and ideally suited for an upswing extreme violence. How is it that we have reached this point? And more importantly, how is it that justice and equality may be restored before more churches are bombed and innocent people are made victims?

The History

The exact origins of the Serbs are subject to substantial dispute, though the earliest recognized reference to them was made by geographer Vibius Sequestrus in the 6th century CE. And in his book De Administrando Imperio, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus acknowledged the Serbs as having inhabited the Balkans (including among other areas, Raška: a part of modern day Kosovo) since the mid-seventh century CE, when Emperor Heraclius (reign: 610-640 CE) invited Serbs to settle in the area on the condition that they defend it from foreign aggressors. The only individuals recorded and recognized as having previously inhabited the region were the Illyrians, who were all but destroyed through barbarian attack, with survivors mixing indiscriminately among other ethnic groups in the region.

Some though, chiefly Albanian nationalists seeking to build a historical justification for their expansionist aims, have suggested that they are the direct descendants of the Illyrians. There is however, little support for their claim. Starting with the Croatians in the 16th century with scholars like Vinko Pribojević, there has been a conscious effort in the Balkans to link various ethnic groups positively with the Illyrians for political purposes. When Bogoslav Šulek definitively proved through linguistic analysis in 1844 that there was no direct link between the Illyrians and any Southern Slavic peoples, Albanian nationalists began to embrace Illyrian identity and construct highly questionable links in historical and linguistic terms to justify their claims. On its face, the Albanian claim falls flat, both because of archaeological gaps, and even more apparently through language. Of particular note is the extreme scarcity of Greek or Greek-rooted words in the Albanian language, which should have been abundant based on geography and trade had the Albanians been settled in the area constantly since the time of the Illyrians. Moreover, as Hemp pointed out, Albanian words such as Tomor (Latin Tomarus) are inconsistent with the phonological evolution of the language, suggesting that they were first modified through an intermediate language. The consequence of that would be to imply that the Albanians are not from Albania (much less Greater Albania), and do not have the historic roots many expansionists wish to present as fact.

In the early years of Serb settlement in the Balkans, their territory was, barring the occasional violent revolt, under the control of the Byzantine Empire. In 1183 however, a successful campaign by Grand Prince (of Raška) Stefan Nemanja marked the creation of a truly independent, Byzantine-free Serb state, comprised largely of territory that is presently known as Kosovo. His son continued the consolidation of territory, and by 1217 (two years before the establishment of a Serbian Orthodox Church) Pope Honorius had blessed the coronation of Stefan II (Stefan Prvovenčani) as King of Serbia. Following the papal endorsement, kingdoms across Europe recognized independent Serbia for the first time. Serious challenge to Serbian power in Kosovo was not long off, with the Battle of Kosovo taking place on June 28, 1389. It was one of the crucial early events that would lay the framework for a dramatic ethnic and religious shift in the now disputed region

The Battle of Kosovo saw the defeat of Serb forces at the hands of an Islamic army raised by Sultan Murad I of the Ottoman Empire, who had been waging many smaller attacks against Serbian lands in the preceding years with much success. Serbian territory in Kosovo was almost wholly seized, and remaining Serbian states fell in just over a century. Less than two decades before the last Serbian outposts fell to sword of Islam, then-Christian-Albania was also annexed by the Ottoman Empire. This is of particular consequence because, starting in the 17th century, Albanians began on large scale to convert to the religion of their conquerors – an option refused by the vast majority of the Serbs. Accordingly, under the sharia legal code of the Ottoman Empire, the Albanians found themselves with a newly elevated status, for they were now part of the ummah (the Islamic community), and were no longer kuffirs (infidels) subject to dhimmi (second class, a status accorded to certain non-Islamic peoples in dar-al-Islam (nations governed by Islam)) status. Having refused conversion, the Serbs staged a war for independence at the encouragement of an alliance of Christian powers. Like previous efforts, this campaign for liberation failed. With the prospect of Ottoman reprisal against the Serbs who had chosen war over conversion, many fled West to free Christian nations. The Serbians having left en mass, the Vilayet (province) of Kosovo (which includes the portion of Macedonia dominated by Albanians and considered a part of Greater Albania) was resettled by newly Islamic Albanians, permanently altering both the ethnic composition and the prevailing religious ideology of the area.

Albanian nationalism became a major force in the late 19th century, after the Russo-Turkish War, wherein the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano granted recognition to an independent Serbia, included in which was some territory occupied by Islamic Albania. In the subsequent decades as the Ottoman Empire began to collapse,war broke out in the Balkans to redraw the map, and tension between Serbs and Albanians reached new highs, with Kosovo being the focal point. After World War I, Kosovo was recognized as part of The Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (aka the First Yugoslavia), at which time the once ethnically-Serb territory of Kosovo was 75% Albanian, the overwhelming majority of whom were Muslim. They sought union with the independent state of Albania, trying diplomatic and later violent means to recreate the envisioned Greater Albania. After a failed appeal to the League of Nations in 1921, the Kachak movement arose to try and remove Serbians through guerrilla warfare. Success in their efforts would be achieved however only during World War II, when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy awarded Kosovo to their Albanian ally following the takeover of Yugoslavia.

After the Allied victory in World War II, the Second Yugoslavia was formed, of which Kosovo was a part. Specifically, it was made an autonomous province within the Serbian republic. With the 1974 constitutional reforms, Kosovo became a de facto republic under the manipulation of Tito, the purpose being to ensure a weakened Serbia, which he viewed as necessary for the preservation of the federation, and more importantly his own political power. This was welcomed by Albanians both inside and out of Kosovo, because they saw it as a step towards the rebuilding of Greater Albania. Especially thanks to Serb emigration to other parts of Yugoslavia and an Albanian baby boom, it was evident that the demographics were shifting massively to the advantage of the already dominant Albanian population. With the death of Tito presenting what many considered an opportunity to divide the Federation, violence ensued and during the 1980′s more than 20,000 Serbs were forced to flee Kosovo for fear of their lives. This particularly brutal period was characterized by figures such as Fadil Hoxha calling for the rape of Serbian women, and instances of terrorism such as the burning of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate in Pec, the center of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Under the rotating presidency system that included Kosovo, as well as the increasingly anti-Serbian republics of Croatia and Bosnia, the Serbian government failed to take a strong stand against these abuses, paralyzed by fear and the instability of the federation.

Slobodan Milosevic, sent to pacify the Serbs who were justifiably angry at the lack of action on the part of the Federal government to protect their life and liberty, broke with orders and actually allowed for a redress of grievances. This seemingly simple act brought about the start of a pro-Milosevic movement that eventually facilitated his rise to the forefront of Yugoslavian politics in any atypically democratic fashion. Unfortunately for him, this rise came at the very time Yugoslavia was disintegrating from a spike in ethnic nationalism and violence in the post-Tito era. During the 1990′s, the Wars of Yugoslav Secession began, wherein republics left Yugoslavia often through aggressive warfare. During this time of national disintegration, anti-Serb, anti-Jewish, and anti-Roma violence by the Albanian majority in Kosovo reached even greater heights, organized primarily through the Bin Laden associated, drug smuggling, organ trafficking terrorist organization known as the Kosovo Liberation Army. Despite labeling the KLA as a terrorist organization, the Clinton administration worked in partnership with them in 1999, when the NATO forces bombed Serbia and forced them to retreat from Kosovo, granting authority to newly established UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) and the “freedom fighting” terrorists that had survived the war for independence.

The Present

With Serbians displaced from Kosovo in 1999, the cause for violence ought to have ended. Albanians comprised nearly 90% of Kosovo’s population and Serbs less than 10%, and ultimate authority was with an international body rather than Serbia or the Federal Yugoslav government. But the end of war brought no peace for the Serbs that remained in Kosovo who, to this day, are victims of undeserved brutality. Examples of this include the 2001 Podujevo bus bombing that killed 12 passengers headed to the graves of loved ones to pay their respects, and the 2003 gun attack in Goraždevac that killed or injured eight Serbs, all between the ages of 10 and 20. In 2004 alone, more than 200 Serbian homes and dozens of Orthodox Churchs were burned to the ground.

Today Kosovo has just three Jewish families, individuals who survived the nearly successful 1999 effort to kill or deport all Jews in the region. Needless to say, those remaining few to not enjoy much security, and make for easy targets in future violent attacks. Roma, who before KLA tyranny numbered 150,000, have shrunk to a meager 22,000. Those still living in Kosovo have virtually no freedom of movement and are under constant threat of violence. Many have taken refuge in the remaining Serb enclaves of Kosovo, and the rest have been herded into displaced persons camps similar to those seen after World War II. Meanwhile, the power vacuum that was created in Kosovo after the war has since been filled by the Wahabists who are pouring billions into the economically weak territory. Thus, even with the Al-Qaeda linked KLA ceasing to be the de facto source of Kosovor power, Islamism has a significant role in Kosovo’s affairs, and promises to increasingly radicalize this highly explosive piece of land if left untouched.

In view of the Islamist character of Kosovo, where the post-KLA political system is still dominated by the former leadership of the terrorist organization, the future of 100,000 Serbs who have opted to remain in spite of the violence against them, is exceptionally bleak. North Kosovo, where the largest number of Serbs remain, is physically connected to Serbia and thus carries on as though it were beholden to Belgrade instead of Pristina. They are considered the fortunate ones, able to find better paying jobs in the economically less volatile Serbia proper, and more importantly able to flee to safety should violence erupt yet again. More remote Serbian enclaves like Gračanica are surrounded exclusively by Albanian communities , and are continually hemorrhaging territory to the surrounding cities that are expanding to facilitate Albanian population growth. Such Serbs are particularly vulnerable to the abuses of an Albanian government with unchecked authority, as evidenced by a February 17 report in the Irish Times of a Serb man falsely convicted and jailed for a crime so that the government could seize his land.

For the non-radical, non-Islamist Albanian the situation leaves much to be desired as well. Kosovo’s economy, when compared to Serbia’s, is downright awful. Per capita GDP is less than €1000, and unemployment exceeds 40%. Especially with UNMIK downsizing and the removal of foreign forces that spent billions annually in Kosovo, the situation promises to deteriorate even further. Education too is lacking, having post-secondary school attendance rates that are the lowest in Europe. With nearly three-quarters of the world’s nations not recognizing Kosovo, it creates problems for those interested in venturing outside the country, as their documents may be rejected. And, as the jihadist element of the population grows, the more secular Albanian Muslims may find themselves subject to the same variety of violence often witnessed in Egypt and other unstable Muslim countries, or that which they have previously inflicted on the Serbs.

The Solution

There can be no doubt that the current system, wherein the legal status of Kosovo remains disputed and it attempts to operate independently sans-recognition by the great majority of nations, is unsustainable in the long term. Should this system remain the quality of life, the financial security of the state, the the prospects of long term regional peace would all approach disturbing levels. Any solution then must take into account how to improve the rights of all affected peoples, help ease the ethnic tension that so often results in war, enhance the general quality of life, and be just. Accordingly then, the only viable option is for the international community to withdraw recognition from Kosovo and reunite it with Serbia, this time removing the autonomy that was consistently expanded until the only remaining step was outright independence.

Serbia is often portrayed as equivalent to Nazi Germany in the Western media (despite the fact that they fought with the Allies, while the Albanians openly cooperated with the Axis), based on the exceptionally biased and misleading coverage in the mainstream media that accompanied the two unjustifiable and unlawful wars Clinton launched against it. However, history shows quite the opposite. Many of the alleged Serb war criminals awaiting trial in the Hague (or who died before a verdict was rendered, as was the case with Milosevic) were among the staunchest defenders of Yugoslav unity, and remained committed to the concept until it was abundantly clear that the dissolution of the federation was immanent and war was unavoidable. Indeed, reviewing the historical record, not one of the Wars of Yugoslav Secession was the product of Serbian instigation. Serbs, more than any other peoples, sought to keep the multi-ethnic dream alive. But, at the same time, they showed a great degree of moderation when left to deal with secession efforts on their own (for it must be recalled that those earliest cases were handled by the Yugoslav government, of which Serbia was a small part), as evidenced by the non-violent separation of Montenegro in 2006. Accordingly then, we can expect a Serbian government to better uphold the rights of minority populations and to apply a truly equal legal code (a concept first conceived of and implemented by Serb ruler Dušan in 1354).

Presently, the government in Serbia is left of center, and it is becoming increasingly Western in spite of the anger most Serbs feel over the loss of Kosovo. More than 60% of Serbians support joining the EU, and the government has already signed the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. It may join the EU as early as 2012. Kosovo, given its unclear status and the ability of any EU member to block ascension (including the many who don’t recognize it), would be ineligible on its own to ever join, and accordingly to enjoy the economic, educational, and travel benefits that come with membership. Even prior to EU membership, Kosovo would stand to gain dramatically, for Serbia boasts a much higher per capita GDP of nearly €8600, and is considered a much more attractive target for foreign investment. Additionally, by holding documents for a globally recognized state, the travel, commercial, and education restrictions that might otherwise apply would be waived. This is something that advantages all Kosovors, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

The transfer of authority over to Serbia would allow for the removal of the dangerous Islamist element that threatens the internal peace of Kosovo, while still allowing peaceful Muslims to practice their faith unmolested. Also, it would ensure that those remaining Orthodox Churches in Kosovo that haven’t been burned down by Albanian nationalists would be protected. By removing the pronounced religious tension and creating a better quality of life for all of those living in Kosovo, the impending threat of violence would be greatly reduced, and the prospect of war would fade. There would be genuine incentive for cooperation, ensured by the removal of the politician devices previously abused by Albanian nationalists that caused the war in the late 1990′s.

Finally, the solution I am proposing is consistent with international law in a way the present situation is not. UNSCR 1244, which authorized a UN presence in Kosovo, also re-affirmed the territorial integrity of Serbia, Kosovo included. It further stated that any future decisions regarding Serbia and Kosovo with respect to post-war land and governance would be addressed through negotiation and would rely on a UN framework. When the US pushed for Kosovo’s independence, it did not seek UN authorization because two of the Security Council permanent members (Russia and China) vowed to veto it. They reasoned that a unilateral declaration of independence would be destabilizing, and that independence could only be sanctioned if it were the product of bilateral agreement. As the existing legal framework was craftily avoided so as not to tar Kosovo with an image of illegitimacy, officially the status of Kosovo remains that it is a part of Serbia, with any details beyond that not firmly decided in the law. So, in keeping with the terms under which Serbia was forced out of Kosovo, the only just outcome is that it be recognized as a party of Serbia, which UNSCR 1244 stipulates it must be. That it should be absorbed fully rather than made autonomous is not a question covered in international law, but is one whose answer is made apparent in view of the problems that have historically arose from its autonomy.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles: