what if?

If You Love Farm Supports

Then this propose ought to be right up your alley: subsidies for struggling newspapers.

To survive, journalism and journalists need to let go of their aversion to Uncle Sam. “The founders never held the view that if rich guys can’t make money off journalism, then we just won’t have journalism,” says Robert McChesney. “The nation was built on the idea that we have to put into place policies that guarantee journalism no matter what.” As Overholser puts it, “There are clearly roles that the government’s going to play, and I think we need to be smart about how we stand up to the ones we don’t want them to play and also how we can think creatively about constructive roles.”

Journalism can't survive without government supports?  Please.

All I know is that if every other business and industry that struggles at some point should get public monies - I want to know when checks for beleagured Realtors are coming out!

Not really - but you get my point.  Let the market allow businesses to create, survive and die. Yes; even newspapers.  Just like the rest of us - those who can better see the future of the industry will improve and last.  Those that cannot won't.

The way it ought to be.

Soul Sister

The fiftieth anniversary for an event that seared the souls of all Americans.  In particular, though, one woman; Elizabeth Eckford.

A powerful story about race, hate, depression, redemption, friendship and more in these United States.

"This little girl, this tender little thing, walking with this whole mob baying at her like a pack of wolves" was how Benjamin Fine later described the scene. Once she reached the bus stop, Elizabeth sat herself down at the edge of the empty bench, as if not wanting to take up too much space. "Drag her over to this tree!" someone shouted. A small group of reporters—Jerry Dhonau and Ray Moseley of the Arkansas Gazette, Paul Welch of Life—formed an informal protective cordon around her; it was all that they, as professionals, felt they could do. But Fine sat himself next to Elizabeth and, at a time and place in which whites simply didn't do such things, put his arm around her, then lifted her chin. "Don't let them see you cry," he said. The move inflamed the crowd, made Fine a target for the rest of his stay in Little Rock, and probably hastened his departure from the paper. Years later, he was asked if he'd stepped beyond his assigned role. "A reporter has to be a human being," he replied.

 

Missing in Action

The Republican front runners screwed up.  No more delicate way to put it than that.

This column pretty much says it all.

We start with a tip for those who seek elective office: In order to be successful in politics, you try to get every vote you can earn while making sure that your opponent earns every vote he gets.

Many Republican candidates for president have forgotten this rule. They seem to think it's better to give than to receive, as illustrated by their willingness to give up on attracting many minority voters.

With their support for freedom and economic fairness, Republicans have a message that those voters need to hear. Ronald Reagan understood that, and so did George W. Bush. Both men did very well with Hispanic voters. But you can't share the message if you don't even begin the dialogue. And for some reason, many in the current crop of Republican presidential candidates are staying away from specialized debates that might give them an opportunity to speak directly to Hispanic and African-American voters.

And

Whatever the reason for these snubs of minority voters, they don't represent a very smart strategy. But they are helpful to Democrats, who probably just underwent a bump in their popularity with some of those voters. Judging from the last presidential election, the Democratic Party already enjoys a nearly 9-to-1 advantage with black voters, and a 3-to-2 advantage with Hispanics. But it could always get better for Democrats – just as it can always get worse for Republicans.

In fact, Democrats might now be so confident that they've got minority voters in the bag that they can ignore them and focus on winning the support of other voters. This sort of benign neglect, for which Democrats are famous, wouldn't be good for anyone, especially the voters.

It certainly wouldn't be good for the political process, which works best when votes are competed for and not conceded.

UPDATE:  Another pundit offers more of the same.  Big mistake.

Not Invited to Speak

I have never been invited to speak at Columbia. This young woman will never be, either.

Solutions Day

Instapundit I ain't.  My blog receives a tiny sliver of visitors in contrast to that behemoth - and while I'm sure Glenn is glad for all who stop by, at what if? every reader is an appreciated guest.

In particular, I am gladdened when visitors who might see the world from a somewhat different political perspective than myself, enjoy what they read here.  Such was the case when I recently posted about Jim Ramstad's announcement that he would be retiring from Congress.  Nancy Sabin, the director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, not only made some nice comments on the post, she followed up with several pleasant emails back and forth.

Now, I do not know Nancy personally.  But, just a guess is that she might be to the left of me on some policy issues.  So what?  I strongly believe that she and her organization have admirable goals, work diligently and are trying their best to improve the lives of children.  If I perhaps disagree with some methods, should I slam her and her foundation?  Of course not!  Offering constructive criticism, with a cogent explanation of why I think another course might be superior is the way to go.  (And likewise, she with me!)

Which is a long winded way of coming to the nut of this post:  Solutions Day.  Ed Morrissey attended this bi-partisan gathering yesterday.  People of most disparate belief systems came together with an aim at finding solutions to some of the thorniest issues plaguing us today - rather than to do battle and work to find nasty insults for one another.  Here is the beginning of the event:

7:06 - The invocation was delivered by Deacon Joseph Ruberte. That was followed the Mayor of Atlanta, a Democrat who "believes Gingrich is right ... The best ideas will come from across the country, from many different voices, from people who want to be real solutions providers."

7:11 - Saxby Chambliss also joins from video, again underscoring the nonpartisan nature of Solutions Day. "We have gotten way too partisan with our politics." At least this event puts its money where its mouth is. We have enough representatives from both parties to make the claim.

And at the conclusion of the day?  Here are Newt's words:

8:14 - Gingrich tells the story of Valley Forge, a story he includes in many of his speeches. You could hear a pin drop as he related the desperate nature of the Revolution at that point, and how the password for the attack, Victory or Death, represented cruel reality to Washington's forces. With their backs against the wall, they prevailed -- and citizens rallied to their cause by the thousands. If we could do that then, why not now?

8:17 - "Politics is not about cynicism ... shallow, cheap tricks; politics is a process in which we come together and help govern this great nation. If we can't do that, then we can't lead the world." An excellent valediction for his launch. He also invited his grandchildren and their friends to the stage, and said, "This is what it's all about."

Most liberals, conservatives and those in-between want what is best for our country and for future generations.  Let's hope we can begin down a path where more of us will listen to what the "other side" is thinking, in an effort to make real progress.  Let's bury bitterness and rancor and remember we really do have similar goals - and want solutions.

No Shows

No good sense.  No class.  No thinking ahead.  Booker Rising has the details, plus half a zillion comments.

Just as I took black Republican no-shows to the 2006 State of the Black Union (another CWBA themed event) to task, I’m doing the same for the Top 4 — especially Fred Thompson, whom I support for the presidential nomination: Show up anyway. Yes, you’re damned if you do (and of course damned if you don’t), but you’ll earn a lot more respect from those who may not necessarily agree with you. Some may even open their minds and consider your plans and proposals for the future. And just maybe some of those who consider your arguments may come over to your side, lend you their support, and even cast a vote for you. Well, at [least] such sincere efforts convinced me a few years ago. I exhort the Top 4 (especially Thompson) with the following from last year: Hold your head high, present your case, and take the high road. If you’re drowned out by ad hominem attacks and epithets masquerading as 'civil dialogue', then shame on Tavis (and double-shame on the 'open-minded', 'tolerant', and 'peace-loving' left-wing intellectuals). Don’t back down — and don’t get intimidated by the haters. For the sake of political diversity among blacks, browns, and for all Americans who make up our republic, step up and represent. 

DC Thornton (Whose blog I cannot access right now, for some reason- grrrr!)

My own letter to the Rudy campaign:

Dear Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee:

I am supporting Rudy for the next election.  But - I am bothered by the fact that Rudy (and the other front runners) are not attending the debate with Tavis Smiley for the GWBA on September 27th.  I have read that there were "scheduling conflicts" - but, this does not ring true for me.

That Republicans demonstrate they are concerned about black citizens and black concerns is important to me.  In my mind, it was quite important that as many Republicans as possible attend this event.

While I realize that the Giuliani campaign cannot speak for anyone else, I would think that they can speak for Rudy.  Why is he not attending?

Some friends of mine state that it is because Rudy is catering to racists.  If this is not so, then please explain Rudy's position.

Many other conservatives I know are quite critical of Rudy's failure to show up.  Again - I hope that you will respond to me, and to the many others who are concerned and unhappy with this.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Peggy Kaplan

Minnetonka, MN

File Under "D"

For really, really dumb.

Will many, as my black attorney friend Lew thinks, chalk this up to racism?  Some surely will.

While I think that these decisions were racist, and most likely based upon the fact that today, most blacks do vote for Democrats - all the more reason to show up at this debate!  Minds and attitudes are not changed overnight.  Repetition, continued attention, listening - all make a difference.  Can anyone say "marketing?"

I don't know, obviously, for certain what the reason was behind the decisions of the candidates to do this.  I am quite sure, however, that avoiding the evening was D-U-M-B!!  As the Captain says:

I don't think that the refusal to attend the PBS debate has to do with inherent racism, but rather a sense that no short-term benefit will arise from engaging blacks during the Republican primaries. It's an unfortunate calculation. We have messages of empowerment through free enterprise and market-based solutions for education that could resonate, if only our leadership would engage African-American voters early and often. It may not help elect a Republican president in 2008, but it could generate enough interest to replace J.C. Watts as our only black Congressman within ten years of his retirement.

Many CapQ commenters note that black voters are unlikely to abandon the Democrats simply because we show up for one debate, and that people like West, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson will not give Republicans any credit for engagement. That, however, is the point. Because Republicans don't engage, we allow the Jacksons and Sharptons and Wests to define the GOP rather than define ourselves. We have to get aggressive in engaging black voters so that we don't leave a vacuum. And if we ever want to gain their votes, we have to answer the barbs tossed at Republicans and get past the self-appointed gatekeepers with our answers.

That will take some time, to be sure, and it won't happen in one electoral cycle. The longer we wait, the longer it will be before we achieve any kind of success. So why do we continue to wait?

The Importance of Being Honest

Some may think that the nut of the NYTimes Moveon.org imbroglio is the insult to a decorated general currently serving.  Some may think it is cutting a better deal to a far left group than to a Republican candidate.  Others may think that it was the failure to disclose that an employee of the paper had taken this action.

But.  Although all these are issues of note, to me, they are not the crucial underlying issue.  That would tie back to an issue of recent history, which is still with us, like the spector of Christmas Past:  McCain-Feingold.

As far as I'm concerned, we have free speech rights in this country.  If the Times wishes to charge Moveon.org $11.79 for the ad - and Giuliani $150,000 - it is their right.  If they think that printing this Be-Tray-Us ad is fine, and not allowing pro-life groups to show realistic photos of aborted fetuses - that, too, is their right.  It's their paper; they ought to do with it as they wish.  If people continue to view it less and less as The Paper of Record, and more and more as an arm of the far left wing of the Democrat party; their choice.

But what should not be their choice - nor the choice of anyone else - is to squelch the voices of those who don't own a metropolitan newspaper or cable news show.  If I wish to band together with like minded people, and get the word out about what I believe, be it about the war in Iraq or abortion or gay rights or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney - I and the rest of us should have the right to do so. 

Why should only those with the tremendous power of owning a New York Times be able to say what they wish - but the rest of us should not?

The answer is that they should not. Here is an excellent explanation of why.

Change

Thomas Jefferson:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Balancing what we "know" to be true, and keeping an open mind is one of the most difficult tasks we face as humans.

Those who read my blog know that I am most supportive of equal rights for those who constitute a minority sexuality:  gays and lesbians.  Thus, you will understand why I found this commentary in the Star Tribune today a viewpoint toward progress - and hope.

Until my mid 40s, I had only one solitary conversation with a gay person -- a student who wanted advice and counsel. I suggested that he pray and see a clinical psychologist. I was certain he would become "normal." When he left campus a week later, I wrote him off as a failure. I was certain he could have been "cured."

In 1976 all this began to change. I was elected bishop of the Minnesota Synod of the Lutheran Church in America. One of the first issues to hit my desk was a referendum in St. Paul about civil rights for gay and lesbian persons. What stance should I take? Though I was somewhat reluctant, it seemed only fair to support the cause.

That led to a life-changing event. A group of young Lutheran men invited my wife and me to meet with them at a lovely older home in St. Paul. We didn't really want to go. But we had no good excuse not to do so. After all, they were members of Lutheran congregations in our synod.

That night we listened to heart-wrenching stories we have heard a thousand times since.

• No, they did not choose to be gay.

• No, their mothers were not domineering.

• No, they had not been abused.

• Yes, they had pleaded with God for change.

• Yes, they had tried marriage as a "cure."

• Yes, they had spent thousands of dollars on reparative therapy, to no avail.

Over the next decade I worked hard to try to engage congregations in the synod in study of the issue, to meet gay and lesbian persons, to study the Scriptures. It was a discouraging venture. At times the volatility in the room was so intense that my wife feared for my safety. But I pressed ahead, certain that we needed to face the issue head-on.

Hillary and the Razor?

Occam's razor is a bedrock principle in my calculations.  What is Occam's razor?

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

When we look at the very curious Hsu fundraising, we can go the route of my hometown paper.  Today's report on Hsu has a headline that blares:

Hsu's case: Less about politics, more about fraud

And so - perhaps it is.

Yet, Occam's razor seems to demand that we ask a few more questions.  Why if hardly any politics were involved, were all of Hsu's donations to Democrats? 

Via Captain's Quarters, we learn of a myriad of strange connections.

Most people who puzzle over the efforts of Norman Hsu focus, and rightly so, on where Hsu came up with the boatloads of money that went to Democratic candidates and organizations. Flip Pidot at Suitably Flip decided to ask another question -- why did Hsu donate to certain candidates and not others?

Who is Fred Hochberg? He's a fellow Hillraiser, and thanks to the serendipity of alpabetization, his name appears adjacent to Hsu on the Hillraiser roster. Hochberg also served as Bill Clinton's Small Business Administration administrator, a position which Clinton subsequently raised to Cabinet level (and Bush demoted). Hochberg also appeared on the infamous "White House Coffee" guest lists.

Now, please understand that I am not accusing Hillary Clinton nor anyone in her campaign of doing anything either illegal or unethical.  (I might accuse someone of not being very careful of checking on from where the cash is coming - but - that is another issue.) 

Still, I find it quite curious that so many in the MSM seem delighted to jump on the "it was a fraud; it wasn't political" bandwagon, rather than asking the simple Razor questions.  Why was Hsu giving this money to Democrats and Hillary?  Was it really random?  Or - were there good reasons why the money was flowing in this direction?

A little sad that we have bloggers on the job digging through all these records - and not "professional journalists."

Requiem For Alex

I know he's "just" a parrot.  But; indulge me.  Parrots are one of my passions.

The Economist remembers Alex.

Using a training technique now employed on children with learning difficulties, in which two adults handle and discuss an object, sometimes making deliberate mistakes, Dr Pepperberg and her collaborators at the University of Arizona began teaching Alex how to describe things, how to make his desires known and even how to ask questions.

By the end, said Dr Pepperberg, Alex had the intelligence of a five-year-old child and had not reached his full potential. He had a vocabulary of 150 words. He knew the names of 50 objects and could, in addition, describe their colours, shapes and the materials they were made from. He could answer questions about objects' properties, even when he had not seen that particular combination of properties before. He could ask for things—and would reject a proffered item and ask again if it was not what he wanted. He understood, and could discuss, the concepts of “bigger”, “smaller”, “same” and “different”. And he could count up to six, including the number zero (and was grappling with the concept of “seven” when he died). He even knew when and how to apologise if he annoyed Dr Pepperberg or her collaborators.

And the fact that there were a lot of collaborators, even strangers, involved in the project was crucial. Researchers in this area live in perpetual fear of the “Clever Hans” effect. This is named after a horse that seemed to count, but was actually reacting to unconscious cues from his trainer. Alex would talk to and perform for anyone, not just Dr Pepperberg.

There are still a few researchers who think Alex's skills were the result of rote learning rather than abstract thought. Alex, though, convinced most in the field that birds as well as mammals can evolve complex and sophisticated cognition, and communicate the results to others. A shame, then, that he is now, in the words of Monty Python, an ex-parrot.

Shorting Shorts

All you really need to know about economics you can find in your undy drawer.  Really; Alan Greenspan says so!

NPR’s The Bryant Park Project this morning turned to Greenspan’s affinity for underwear data. Science correspondent Robert Krulwich explained: “What he would do, is he would keep his ear as low to the ground trying to figure out — what are people really up to? Men’s underpants was the one that really got to me. He once told me that if you think about all the garments in the household, the garment that is most private is the male underpant, because nobody sees it except people like in the locker room, and who cares? Your children need clothes. Your wife needs clothes that have to change. The children grow. You need clothes on the outside. But, the last purchase that you don’t have to make is underpants. … If you look at the sales of men’s underpants, it’s just pretty much a flat line, it hardly ever changes. But on those few occasions where it dips, that means that men are so pinched that they are deciding not to replace underpants. And he said that is almost always a sort of foreshadow of ‘here comes trouble.’ … It’s not that he was right or wrong: I just loved the way he would sneak around human behavior by looking at things like that.”

Hat tip:  SCSUS Scholars

Diversity of Opinion

Universities should be places where a wide array of opinions, theories and the like should be welcomed.  My guess is that I would accept more individuals "on the fringe" speaking than some others.  Put me down as someone who believes that ugly ideas are better exposed to the light of day than festering in dark places - where superior ideas cannot combat them.

Yet, at some point, we must make choices.  And, in today's world, one can only wonder about top universities that will not allow someone like Larry Summers, former Harvard president and advisor to President Bill Clinton, to speak on their campus due to their views ... but will invite an individual who has made serious threats to Israel, our nation and much more.

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal puts it quite well; let's allow him the floor.

The original decision to kick ROTC off campus was the product of 1960s anti-Americanism, but the ostensible reason the policy continues is objection to the law, signed by President Clinton, that prohibits open homosexuals from serving in the military. Apparently some ideas are so odious that they are unworthy of answering "through the powers of dialogue and reason."

So, what is Ahmadinejad's regime's policy on homosexuals in the military? We don't know, but according to Human Rights Watch, Iran is not a terribly friendly place for gay civilians:

On Sunday, November 13, the semi-official Tehran daily Kayhan reported that the Iranian government publicly hung [sic] two men, Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A. (25 years old), in the Shahid Bahonar Square of the northern town of Gorgan.

The government reportedly executed the two men for the crime of "lavat." Iran's shari'a-based penal code defines lavat as penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts between men. Iranian law punishes all penetrative sexual acts between adult men with the death penalty. Non-penetrative sexual acts between men are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are punished with death. Sexual acts between women, which are defined differently, are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are also punished with death.

If the U.S. military executed homosexuals instead of merely discharging them, perhaps Bollinger would welcome ROTC back to Columbia.

That last sentence kinda says it all; eh?

A Change of Heart

From all of us who have family or friends or work associates who are gay - a thank you to the Republican Mayor of San Diego.  And my thanks to Andy Tobias for the alert.

Here's hoping that, one day, some of the Republican and Democrat presidential front runners will take a similar stance.

Mayor Jerry Sanders yesterday:

       With me this afternoon is my wife, Rana

I am here this afternoon to announce that I will sign the resolution that the City Council passed yesterday directing the City Attorney to file a brief in support of gay marriage.

My plan, as has been reported publicly, was to veto that resolution, so I feel like I owe all San Diegans an explanation for this change of heart.

During the campaign two years ago, I announced that I did not support gay marriage and instead supported civil unions and domestic partnerships.

I have personally wrestled with that position ever since.  My opinion on this issue has evolved significantly -- as I think have the opinions of millions of Americans from all walks of life.

In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election, I intended to veto the Council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.

The arrival of the resolution -- to sign or veto -- in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do.

I have decided to lead with my heart -- to do what I think is right -- and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.

For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community.

As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage -- than anyone else -- simply because of their sexual orientation.

A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years.

I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and certainly it is true in my case.

Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have since changed.

The concept of a "separate but equal" institution is not something that I can support.

I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or perhaps even understand my decision today.

All I can offer them is that I am trying to do what I believe is right.

I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community. These folks include my daughter Lisa and her partner, as well as members of my personal staff.

I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones -- for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's wondrous adventures.

And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships -- their very lives -- were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana.

Thank you.

I Believe

  Earlier this year, I became familiar with Urban Prep in Chicago, and blogged about it here.  I believed in what this school is doing so much, I honored my dad for Father's Day and some dear friends with a donation to the school.

I urge you, if you are able, to consider making your own contribution.

Matt Pilon, assistant to the CEO at Urban Prep, sent me a collection of articles about his fine organization.  Please take a few minutes to read them and view the photographs.

Those who say that poor children cannot learn and excel are wrong.  Those who say that kids of color in urban ghettos cannot achieve and rise above are wrong.

Educators believe in these children.  They believe enough to demand excellence, hard work and top ethics from them - and they receive it. 

Ultimately, that the students in this school perform admirably helps not only the kids themselves - it improves all of our society.  So - a big "thank you" from me to all who support Urban Prep, and similar schools around the nation.

Let's create more schools like Urban Prep, too!

Please see the articles below.

Get Out Your Hanky

And, for a moment, think about how fortunate you are to have what you have today.

What would you say if it were your last chance to express it?

Flashing his rejection letters on the screen, he talked about setbacks in his career, repeating: "Brick walls are there for a reason. They let us prove how badly we want things." He encouraged us to be patient with others. "Wait long enough, and people will surprise and impress you."

File Under: No Kidding!

Sadly, I can very much believe that this is true.

SAVE MONEY.  LIVE BETTER.

Pictures You Have Never Seen

If a picture's worth a thousand words - then these photos are worth volumes.

Never forget; the Holocaust was not perpetrated by monsters, but by men and women.

The Death of Relativism

Put me down as a believer in tolerance.  You'll note my support a few posts ago for Jim Ramstad of Minnesota.  Here is a man who knows how to reach across the aisle, be friends with those who don't always see eye to eye with him, and to compromise.

But, tolerance does have limits.  I would be willing to converse with a bigot and try to sway his mind away from racism or anti-semitism.  I would not be willing to watch as that same bigot began to murder someone.

And so we come to the murder of Daniel Pearl.  Though once upon a time, his father seemed to be someone who espoused tolerance always, to all - it seems that Judea Pearl has had a change of heart.  How tragic that it took the silencing of a mighty heart - and all that has come along with that event - to change it.  Let's hope, nevertheless, that Judea Pearl's words sway more hearts - and minds.

This is a political version of a famous paradox formulated by Bertrand Russell. The stronger you insist on the necessity of tolerance, the more intolerant you become toward those who disagree. The moral lesson is that there is no such thing as unqualified tolerance; ultimately, one must be able to expound intolerance of certain ideologies without surrendering the moral high ground normally linked to tolerance.

am worried that the film falls into a trap Russell would have recognised: the paradox of moral equivalence, of seeking to extend the logic of tolerance a step too far. You can see traces of this logic in the film's comparison of Danny's abduction with Guantánamo (it opens with pictures from the prison) and of al-Qaida militants with CIA agents. You can also see it in the comments of the movie's director, Michael Winterbottom, who wrote in the Washington Post that A Mighty Heart and his previous film, The Road to Guantanamo, were very similar: "There are extremists on both sides who want to ratchet up the levels of violence and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this."

Drawing a comparison between Danny's murder and the detention of suspects in Guantánamo is precisely what the killers wanted, as expressed in both their emails and the murder video. Indeed, following an advance screening of A Mighty Heart in Los Angeles, a representative of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said: "We need to end the culture of bombs, torture, occupation, and violence. This is the message to take from the film."

Yet the message that angry youngsters are hearing from such blanket generalisation is predictable: all forms of violence are equally evil; therefore, as long as one persists, others should not be ruled out.

U.S. Tourist Attractions

The Grand Canyon.

The Statue of Liberty.

Mount Rushmore.