Is Sarah Palin Gunning for 2012?

This is a rather humorous news article about Sarah Palin, I believe from Taiwan. On the one hand, the news presented orally (see the translation below) is straight-forward and non-partisan. However, the animation on screen mocks Palin and her family mercilessly from start to finish. I particularly liked the "notes" scribbled on Palin's hands: "abstinence," "small government" and "obama sucks" on her left hand, and "drill, baby, drill," "Dutch have dikes" and "Norwegians = Dutch sorta" on her right hand.

Sarah Palin was a virtual unknown, even in the US, when John McCain picked her as his vice-presidential running mate in August 2008.

But after parting ways with McCain, Palin has since become the standard bearer of the Republican Party and the conservative right in the United States.

Her opinions are sought after by a highly respected broadcast news organization.

Her family life is the subject of much fascination. There have been rumors her daughter and future son-in-law could feature in a reality TV show.

With her rising political profile, Sarah Palin has waded into New York City politics and in the process, invented new words. She compares herself to William Shakespeare.

She has used her popularity to raise US$1.3 million so far this year for her political action committee, SarahPAC.

This fund-raising largess has raised speculation that Sarah Palin could be preparing to run against President Barack Obama in 2012.

If she wins, that would indicate the American people have "refudiated" Barack Obama and chosen conservative values.

The Only Video of Anne Frank

The Anne Frank House, the museum which was the hiding place for Anne Frank, her family, the Van Pels family and Fritz Pfeffer during World War 2, has uploaded the only known film footage of Anne onto Youtube. The film was taken on July 22, 1941, and shows a newly-wed couple walking out of the building (No. 37 Merwedeplein, Amsterdam) adjacent to the home Anne was living in at the time (No. 39 Merwedeplein). (This was about one year prior to the Frank family going into hiding.) Anne, who was 13-years-old at the time, appears at the nine-second mark of the video, and can be seen leaning out of the window to take a look at the couple.

The Anne Frank Channel on Youtube can be subscribed to here.



HT: Mashable

Dutch Anti-Discrimination Ad

The Netherlands haven't received much good press over the past few years with respect to Dutch-Muslim relations, and for good reason: xenophobic politicians such as Geert Wilders and the late Pym Fortuyn have tarnished The Netherlands' image. So when the Dutch do something right in this area, they need to be congratulated.

Above is one of three new ads that have been produced for Discriminatie.nl, the anti-discrimination agency (along with the below video).



To view the other two ads, see here.

The Economist: Arming Up

This was a very interesting (if extremely short) article in The Economist about military spending per capita:

Israel spends most on defense relative to its population, shelling out over $2,300 a person, over $300 more than America. Small and rich countries, and notably Gulf states, feature prominently by this measure. Saudi Arabia ranks ninth in absolute spending, but sixth by population. China has increased spending by 10% to $85 billion to become the world's second largest spender. But it is still dwarfed by America, whose outlay of $607 billion is higher than that of the next 14 biggest spenders combined.

That Singapore comes in at #4 is a little surprising (I would have expected it to be a little lower down on the list), but I'm not surprised that it and some of the other small countries (Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Oman, and Saudi Arabia) are there: all have valuable assets (mostly oil, and a very modern economy in Singapore) that would make nice war prizes for neighboring countries (witness Iraq's attempted grab of Kuwait back in 1990). Israel's there for the obvious reason (let's not forget that much of that military spending goes for the occupation and oppression of the West Bank and Gaza). The bigger surprise for me is the listing of some of the European countries: Denmark, Greece, Norway and the Netherlands. Is it because the cost of participating in NATO is that high or because owning the best military hardware is that expensive?

Dutch to Rent Out Prison Cells

An odd story out of the Netherlands. The US should be so lucky!

The Dutch justice ministry has announced it will close eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty.

During the 1990s the Netherlands faced a shortage of prison cells, but a decline in crime has since led to overcapacity in the prison system. The country now has capacity for 14,000 prisoners but only 12,000 detainees.

Deputy justice minister Nebahat Albayrak announced on Tuesday that eight prisons will be closed, resulting in the loss of 1,200 jobs. Natural redundancy and other measures should prevent any forced lay-offs, the minister said.

...

Some reprieve might come from a deal with Belgium, which is facing overpopulation in its prisons. The two countries are working out an agreement to house Belgian prisoners in Dutch prisons. Some five-hundred Belgian prisoners could be transferred to the Tilburg prison by 2010.

The Netherlands would get 30 million euros in the deal, and it will allow the closing of the prisons in Rotterdam and Veenhuizen to be postponed until 2012.

HT: Moon of Alabama

Keepin up with the van den Bergs?

An odd economics study about Dutch lottery winners, what they do with their money and, most interestingly, how non-winning neighbors react when a winner lives nearby:

Each week, [the Dutch Postcode Lottery (PCL)] allocates a prize to participants in a randomly chosen postcode (containing 19 households on average). About one third of the Dutch population participates in the lottery. A participant wins €12,500 per ticket. In addition, one of the participants wins a BMW. From an experimental design perspective, the lottery provides PCL participants in the winning code with an unexpected temporary income shock equal on average to about eight months of income, while leaving all other households’ incomes unchanged. In addition, a randomly chosen subet of those households receive a significant part of their transfer in kind (in the form of a new BMW).

...

[W]e find that the vast majority of BMW winners trade their BMW for cash, despite significant tax or transactions costs associated with this. Consistent with a simple life-cycle model of consumption, we do not detect any own effect of winning the postcode lottery on most components of households’ expenditures, including food at home, transportation, and total monthly outlays. Own effects are, however detected for durables expenditures and car consumption.

Meaning, winning the lottery doesn't necessarily change how much food the winners eat at home, the amount of travel - presumably local - that they do, or how much money they spend in any given month. However, they do use their lottery winnings to buy durables (cars, refrigerators, stoves, furniture, etc.).

We also detect an effect of temporary income shocks on food expenditures away from home

Lottery winners also eat out at restaurants more often.

Turning to social effects, we detect statistically significant effects of neighbors’ lottery winnings on car consumption and exterior home renovations. For example, PCL nonparticipants who live in winning codes are more likely to acquire a new car in the six months after the lottery win than nonparticipants living in non-winning codes. Further, we find that non-winning households who live next door to PCL winners are significantly more likely to purchase a car in the six months after the lottery than non-winning households located elsewhere, and that non-winning households living in postcodes where a large number of households won the PCL are more likely to start a major exterior home renovation in the six months since the lottery than non-winning households located elsewhere.

...

In addition to the monetary prizes, one of the street-prize winners wins a new BMW. The BMW winner is chosen by randomly selecting one of the winning lottery tickets. BMW winners have the option of receiving the cash value of the BMW in lieu of the car itself. This however involves a substantial tax penalty, since the PCL authority pays the 25% lottery tax for winners who accept the BMW in kind, but not for those who choose the cash equivalent (about €25,000). Of course, winners also have the option of selling their new BMW, and incurring any associated transactions costs.

What I find interesting is that despite having a car that is, presumably, less expensive and less "nice" than a BMW, most winners of the BMW trade in that car for cash, even though it costs them more money to do so (in the form of a 25% tax and transaction costs), even though they could have chosen to take all of the money (instead of the car) without any penalty. Why is this? Are the BMWs too expensive to operate over time (e.g., gas, insurance, maintenance, etc.)? Are the BMWs more subject to theft? Or are the winners "bored" of the Beemer after the neighbors (and themselves) have been sufficiently impressed?

We do detect social effects of lottery winnings, but only for two goods: car consumption and exterior home renovations, both of which are likely to be easily, and repeatedly, visible to a household’s neighbors. While we observe a strong cross-sectional association between (non-lottery) income and self-reported happiness in our data, lottery winnings do not make households happier, nor do they make neighboring households less happy. Together, these results are consistent with a scenario in which (a) happiness is more linked to permanent than to short-term increases in income, and (b) at least in the short term, income comparisons with one’s residential neighbors do not affect happiness.

What simple models of consumer behavior might explain the social effects estimated in our data? While it is tempting to interpret our estimates as reflective of a psychological need to (be seen to be?) “keeping up with the van den Bergs”, we note that they could also be driven by other factors. For example, our results for home renovations are also consistent with a scenario where a simultaneous lottery win provides a focal point (and perhaps eases liquidity constraints) for voluntary contributions to the local public good of neighborhood (or even building) appearance. Social spillovers in car consumption in our data could be driven by information-sharing about cars and/or dealers..., or by something as simple as households passing money to immediate neighbors, who might be family members. Also, it is worth reemphasizing that our estimates do not distinguish ‘imitative’ consumption patterns (I buy a car because you buy one) from more general effects of neighbors’ incomes on a household’s consumption. Still, we do find that households’ consumption of visible, durable goods (and only such goods) are affected by genuinely exogenous shocks to their neighbors’ incomes. We find these effects intriguing and deserving of further study using lottery-based or other research designs.

I don't know. On the one hand, I agree that there are probably a lot of other factors that may be influencing the purchase behavior of the non-winning neighbors. On the other hand, I think there's a lot to be said for the idea of "keeping with the Jones" (or, as the authors of this study put it, "keeping up with the van den Bergs") as a psychological motivator.

HT: Economist's View

Leon on Geert Wilders' "Fitna"

Leon in Amsterdam cuts Geert Wilders down to size over Fitna (which, by all reviews I've read so far, rates between "quite boring" and "a yawn"). Be sure to read the remainder of the post; it's fairly short.

Geert Wilders has managed to do what few people thought would be possible: to make himself look even more ridiculous.

I do wonder though, if the targeted community's reaction was something like 'lame', what would the few (yet very vocal) supporters of Geert Wilders feel?
Disappointed?
Silly?
Irrelevant?

"Christian Ramadan"

An odd story out of the Netherlands:

To motivate young people to observe fasting and prayer during the 40-day Lent, Catholics are promoting the religious occasion this year as a "Christian Ramadan", the Daily Telegraph reported on Tuesday, February 12.

...

Der Kuil said the idea of "Christian Ramadan" was spurred by concerns that the Lent has become less important for Dutch over the last generation, especially since the Vatican loosened fasting strictures in 1967.

He notes that of the four million Dutch who describe themselves as Catholics and the 400,000 who attend Mass every week only a few tens of thousands still fast Lent.

Most Catholics now focus on charitable work during the 40-day feast.

Through the "Christian Ramadan" campaign, the organizers hope to bring back spirituality and sobriety to the Catholic tradition.

...

Der Kuil said they wanted to benefit from the increasing familiarity and popularity of the word Ramadan.

"The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent."

...

Der Kuil recognized that through the campaign they came to realize the amount of similarities between Muslims and Christians.

"The agreements are more striking than the differences," der Kuil maintained.

"Both for Muslims and Catholic faithful the values of frugality and spirituality play a central role in this tradition."

(Source)

Several thoughts come to mind:

Does this mean that Christianity is so weak in Europe that a Christian concept such as Lent can only be understood by defining it through the terms of what many view as a rival religion?

If you have to define your own religion in terms of another's, then it's time to admit that the other side has "won," that Dutch Catholics should admit the truth and become Muslims.

That if your religion is so weak and your culture doesn't practice - literally - what you preach, then maybe it's best to get on the cases of your lapsed brethren for their own faults rather than bad-mouthing people from other religions who are more pious than you.

The real problem in Europe isn't "Multiculturalism" or "Shari'ah" or "Jihad" or "Eurabia" or any of the other bogey words that have come to symbolize the West's Islamophobia. The real problem is that most Muslims practice what they preach, that they live their religion (as we are supposed to), and that just scares the crap out of them. Because Europeans are afraid of religion. Because living a religious life will take them out of their comfort zone, introducing them to new routines and a new lifestyle. But especially because they realize that they live in a religious backwater. That despite all their material achievements and economic success, they've become spiritually backwards. The Quraish were in a similar situation during the last stages of the Age of Jahiliyah: economically successful, spiritually impoverished. Allah (swt) was merciful to the Quraish: they realized the truth before it was too late and became Muslim when they had the chance. The question now is whether Europeans (in particular, and the West in general) will do the same.

Insha'allah.

Geert Wilders, Coward.

The principles of The Party of Hate and Cowardice™ extend beyond the borders of the U.S., including various countries in Europe. The Islamophobic Dutch politician Geert Wilders has recently shown us his true color (yellow). For those not familiar with Wilders or his story, he's the head of the Dutch Freedom Party PVV, which holds nine seats out of 150 (6%) in the second chamber of the Dutch parliament (Tweede Kamer). Like other tiny extremist political parties, Wilders is trying to exploit an incident to raise publicity for himself and his party through demonization of "the other," this time through attacks on the Holy Qur'an.

On August 8th, Expatica reported that Wilders proposed to ban the Qur'an in the Netherlands; the Qur'an could only be used as "an object of study," but to own or use the Qur'an in a masjid or the home would be "punishable." (This, despite the fact that Adolph Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" which, while banned from being sold in the Netherlands, is freely available to read in some libraries and is legal for private citizens to own.)

Wilders hopes that the ban "will send a signal to radical Muslims who use the Koran to justify violence. He cited the 'attackers' of Ehsan Jami as an example. They assaulted the chairman of the committee for ex-Muslims last Saturday – presumably because of his controversial statements on Islam. Wilders says that the perpetrators found an excuse for using violence against Jami in the Koran."

Wilders realizes, of course, that his proposal would never pass: "Unfortunately our proposals are often rejected with a vote of 141 against 9. But if I were to let myself become dissuaded by that then I would be better off just stopping my efforts. This book incites hate and murder, and therefore does not fit in with our rule of law. If Muslims want to participate, they must distance themselves from the Koran. I know that is asking a great deal, but we have to stop making concessions."

(This is not the first time Wilders has spoken against the Qur'an, either. Earlier this year, Wilders had stated that Muslims who want to stay in the Netherlands should tear out and discard half the Koran. These comments led to commotion both in the Netherlands and abroad. Saudi Arabia and Iran made their displeasure at the statement clear.)

The Dutch government swiftly rejected Wilders' proposal. On August 9th, the government said Wilders' comments were damaging to integration.

The cabinet and Parliament rejected Wilders' call. "It must be entirely clear that the cabinet has no intention of banning the Koran in the Netherlands and that it will never consider this in future," said Integration Minister Ella Vogelaar. She said Wilders' comments were "damaging to Dutch social relations because he is portraying one population group in a bad light and could drive even more of a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. This urging is insulting to the large majority of Muslims."

Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen has also openly distanced himself from Wilders' statements. He thinks that the PVV leader oversteps "the bounds of what is decent." Both freedom of religion and freedom of expression are foundations of the Dutch constitutional state, Verhagen said. Minister Verhagen sent a letter in which the cabinet distances itself from Wilders' comments to the Dutch embassies abroad on Wednesday, in case they are questioned about the matter.

Liberal VVD MP Halbe Zijlstra thinks that "Wilders has lost his way." "He claims to stand up for Dutch standards and values, but at the same time he puts one of these values out with the rubbish: the freedom of religion." Christian democrat CDA MP Madeleine van Toorenburg also said Wilders' disregard for this freedom was remarkable.

Religious representatives also condemned Wilders:

Representatives of Dutch Muslim organizations responded stoically to Wilders' most recent attack on their religion. Chairman of the Dutch Muslim Council Abdeljamid Khairoun: "Wilders suffers from a religious syndrome. He has said repeatedly that the Koran is a bad book. I expect he will also ask for a ban on the Torah and the Bible." Khairoun felt that Wilders had pulled passages from the Koran out of context.

Secretary of the Advisory Body on Muslims and the State (CMO) Nasr Joemman says Wilders is primarily trying to garner more support. Joemman suspects that the PVV leader is trying with his rhetoric to push Muslim youth to become more radical so that he can take a stand against them.

Cardinal Ad Simonis said the proposal to ban the Koran was "too ridiculous for words." "Just the idea! Every word that is wasted on proposals like this is one too many."

Still, the Dutch Muslim Council extended its invitation again to Wilders and his party to "take part in a 'constructive dialogue' aimed at putting an end to the polarization and feelings of fear in Dutch society."

The council understands the concerns of Wilders and the many Dutch who voted for his party, but feel that the PVV leader cannot blame the Koran for the violent actions of individuals or groups.

And this is where Wilders shows himself to be the gutless coward. Eleven days after Expatica reported the invitation made by the Dutch Muslim Council, Wilders has refused to engage in any dialogue with the group out of hand.

The PVV leader said in the AD on Saturday that he was not interested in a talk with the organization. "I will refrain from doing that not because I don't want dialogue, but because a debate on this is not possible. It is pointless," says Wilders. The Muslim Council has proposed a "constructive dialogue" to combat polarization and feelings of fear in society.

Wilders contests in the AD that he is sowing hate. "That is what the Koran does. It is a fascist book. That is not a book we should have here. Maybe if you take all the harmful verses out of it, but then there wouldn't be much left. Then the Koran would be about as thick as a comic book."

What are you afraid of, Geert? Are you scared to talk to Muslims? Can't you defend your position to those people whom you would adversely affect the most?

No, I guess not.

Geert Wilders, coward.


Update: Daniel Pipes argues against Wilders' proposal to ban the Qur'an. Shocking, ain't it? Of course, Pipes remains a goof, but it's a step in the right direction. HT: Islamophobia Watch