Freedom in Iraq, as measured by academia
The state of intellectual and academic freedom in Iraq can be used to measure forward progress. That’s assuming any forward progress is happening. EDIT: Arif has weighed in down in the comments section and he seems to think there is positive progress happening in Mosul, at least. I spent a week in Mosul in mid-2006 and the city felt dangerous as hell from where I stood (I was in uniform and an occupier). It would be nice to be invited to go back and see how things have changed for the better. I would welcome an opportunity to see higher education as it exists in 2010 and to participate in any civic activities going on.
Scholars in Iraq are still relatively isolated from the outside world, Kadhim said, citing the pertinent example of the difficulty of securing a visa for foreign research. Domestically, he added, most have severely limited and unreliable Internet access, if they have access at all.
Though not to the extent that it was during the Saddam regime, Kadhim said, academic freedom is still constrained in Iraq. Inside the classroom, he said, the free flow of ideas between student and professor is limited by former customs. For example, he noted that many Iraqis consider the questioning or challenging of a professor publicly an “act of hostility.” Even the wider academic curriculum cannot offer a diversity of interests or values to students, he said, noting that degrees are “cookie cutter” by design and leave no room for electives.
Scholars are similarly constrained by administrators and government officials, Kadhim said, calling the university just another “mini dictatorship.” Though Saddam has been deposed, he said many “Saddamists” still exercise their control over academe. He noted that many unfairly awarded degrees were given to some academic administrators now in control in Iraq. Some, for example, wrote their dissertations on topics such as the “economic genius” and the “eloquence of the speeches” of Saddam Hussein.
The United States’ failure to grant academics visas is tragic and short sighted. Discourse, visitations and relationships between academics and intellectuals should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Encouraging to some is the increase in educational opportunities for Iraqis. Amal Shlash, director of the Bayt al-Hikma Research Centre in Baghdad, described higher education as the “only achieving activity in the country.” In 2002-3, the academic year of the United States invasion of Iraq, there were 19 public universities and three private universities in major towns throughout the country — four of which were in Baghdad. Now, the country hosts 23 public universities and 23 private universities. The country went from educating 322,000 students in 2002-03 to educating around 370,000 students this year.
Shlash said that, during the Saddam era, universities were only allowed to be built in cities with populations greater than one million. Now, she said, universities can be built anywhere in the country. This has resulted in a higher number of female enrollees than ever before because many young women now no longer have to leave home to attend a university. At Baghdad University, the enrollment is 57 percent female. Even more striking, in the southern city of Nasiriyah, the university’s enrollment is 71 percent female.
Long term, Iraq may see more intellectual freedom, but only if the more radical Islamic fundamentalists are restrained. Iraq is a long way from being a good place to raise a family, and a long way from most other desirable measures of quality of life. Educational choices are one key measure of quality of life. The fact that Iraq has more universities is hopeful.
I will say that Iraq has become free when I can book a ticket to Baghdad on the Internet to attend a fine arts photography class at one of the city’s universities. Hopefully by the end of the century.
Chipping away at rule of law from the inside out
Some entities are so strong that they can only be defeated by themselves. The United States of America seems to me to be one of those. Idealistically and technologically, the United States has dominated for as long as I’ve been alive. Those days are drawing to an end though, through the magic of bureaucratic stupidity.
Rule of law is an important concept in any society that bills itself as free. Unfortunately rule of law, the idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of the judicial system, becomes a joke when the law itself is so farcical as to become disrespected by a large majority of the citizenry.
We have a prime example of such a law in my state of residence, Georgia.
Wendy Whitaker, 29, has been on Georgia’s sex offender list for more than 12 years. Her crime? She performed oral sex on a high school classmate just after turning 17. The boy was just shy of his 16th birthday. Both were sophomores. Whitaker is now suing, claiming that given her crime, her sex offender status is cruel and unusual punishment.
Laws related to sex offenders fail at both the state and federal level in this country. Too many people are arbitrarily given a virtual scarlet letter that severely distorts and detracts from their quality of life forever after. Wendy Whitaker is a felon because as a teenager, she decided to give another teenager a blowjob. This happens thousands of times a day in my state. If the law was being enforced across the board in the same way that it is with Wendy Whitaker, a significant percentage of the population of Georgia would be felons.
When you tell a 29-year-old woman that she cannot live in her home because of a consensual sexual act that occurred when she was 17 – an act that should never have become the business of the state in the first place – you chip away at the rule of law. For each Wendy Whitaker a society creates, there is a ripple effect that weakens the authority of the state. Create enough non-violent felons who have hurt no one and then harass them for the rest of their lives. Rule of law erodes. Authority is undermined by unjust decision making. The fabric of society becomes stressed.
Applied law is force. Force is a blunt instrument that should only be used as a last resort. If we continue to make thousands of bad laws every year and if we continue to ostracize and fetter segments of our population for made up crimes that haven’t actually caused anyone any injury then don’t be surprised when Atlanta burns. Don’t be shocked when the bombs start going off in D.C.
You can only repress so many people for so long before something goes boom. Trust me. We’re working hard to defeat ourselves.
Obamacare is coming; Congress will opt out
Conn Carroll writes a thought provoking essay on the inevitably upcoming “universal health care” that is going to be rammed down our throats. Most of us are like little birds with our mouths wide open, excited about the free grubs. Me, not so much.
When selling his vision for health care reform to the American people, President-elect Barack Obama promised: “I will establish a new national health plan, similar to the plan available to federal employees and members of Congress, that gives every American the opportunity to buy affordable health coverage.” The Heritage Foundation has long been an advocate for organizing a national health exchange based on the same model that delivers care to members of Congress; the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The problem is that both Obama’s plan, and the plan recently released by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), contain key differences from the FEHBP that will completely undermine its success.
Under the FEHBP, national and local private health plans compete on a level playing field for the business of members of Congress and thousands of federal government employees. The FEHBP has relatively few mandated benefits which allows for both more choice in the types of plans available and keeps a lid on costs. The Obama plan in particular moves away from this model by significantly increasing the number of mandated specific benefits all plan most cover. This will send already rising insurance premiums through the roof. Worse, the Obama plan clearly intends to bring price controls into the health care sector. Obama promises Americans will be charged “fair” premiums and “minimal co-pays.” Presumably, Congress would define these terms. This would put the federal government in the business of deciding what constitutes a fair price and a proper co-payment for benefits and services, leading to some type of centralized rate setting or standardization of payments for providers. In the FEHBP, prices are market-based. No price regulation is imposed on plans or services.
The truth of the matter is that Hillary Clinton will always received better health care than her subjects. Barack Obama has a better chance of surviving cancer or a heart attack than you do. Clinton and Obama have lives that are worth much more than yours. That is how government works. Government, a monopoly on force, naturally protects its own members first.
That is why I have low expectations and a dubious outlook when it comes to “universal” health care. There is no such thing. Different standards will be applied to the elite ruling class. They’ll have better care, more options and fewer treatment limitations.
The government-sponsored health exchange would naturally write the rules of competition to benefit the government plan. Imagine if baseball umpires and the New York Yankees both worked for George Steinbrenner. The Red Sox or Rays wouldn’t stand a chance. If you think a government entrant in the marketplace will not inevitably turn into a monopolistic financial disaster, then we’ve got two failed mortgage financing giants we’d like to sell you.
Responding to a campaign supporter in New Mexico this summer, Obama said, “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.” The Obama plan does not scrap our entire health care system in favor of a brand new government-run system, but it is definitely a deliberate first step down that path.
Mentally prepare yourself young people. You are going to grow up in a place where government, not you, will decide what is best for your continued longevity. Your diet, lifestyle choices and possibly any facet of your life that could affect your health are slowly going to be taken away from you and controlled by people who think they know better than you what is good for you. Here comes change whether you want it or not.
Wastelands: Stories of the Apocalypse edited by John Joseph Adams
Wastelands: Stories of the Apocalypse is a series of dark future tales written between the 1970′s and 2008 by some of the most talented writers in science fiction, fantasy and horror. The book is full of haunting visions of survival at the end of humanity, survival after a great change in humanity and survival after a great reshaping of humanity.
Of particular note, from my perspective was the extremely haunting The People of Sand and Slag by Paolo Bacigalupi. Without giving away the entire plot, humanity is certainly going to change – that is the only inevitable thing we can count on with the passage of time. Mr. Bacigalupi’s vision of those changes haunts me. I am a dog owner and lover. If you are as well, it is likely you will be haunted by vision of what mankind becomes portrayed in this story.
Of the 22 stories in this anthology about 18 of them were worthy of inclusion. Of particular note, in my mind, are the stories When Sysadmins Ruled the World, by Cory Doctorow and Speech Sounds by Octavia Butler. The bottom line in regards to Wastelands is that you’ll love most of the stories and probably feel a few of them were a waste of your time.
The book is a great way to pass a few hours being exposed to a really wide range of what-if scenarios with the common theme being that the world inevitable changes drastically. For us, living in the moment, it is good to step outside our tiny bubble of comfortable time/space continuum and examine other possibilities, even if it is only so we can contribute to a society in which none of them ever come to pass.
Homeless man ordered to pony up $101 million
I really don’t understand the point of ordering a homeless guy to pay $101 million in restitution. Might as well just make him an indentured servant. Maybe this is the modern day equivalent. I’m not sure.
Fifty-year-old Steven Emory Butcher was convicted in February of starting blazes in the Los Padres National Forest in 2002 and 2006.
The 2006 fire raged for more than a month and cost more than $78 million to suppress. It injured 18 people, destroyed 11 structures and was the fifth-largest fire in California history, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Maybe Mr. Butcher can get a bailout since he obviously can’t manage his own affairs. Seriously though, someone explain the legal ramifications of rendering a judgement against this guy that will never be collected? Is it done on principle? What are the ramifications to Mr. Butcher?
