Rescue from pirates

Captain Richard Phillips jumped overboard, and was rescued by US Navy SEALs. Three pirates dead, the other one in custody. (AP story)

Zed protests:

It's really disappointing that the Navy SEALs have no respect for the rules of international law. In terms of laws of "proportionality," the Navy SEALs killed three pirates, while the pirates killed no Americans. The casualty ratio, in other words, is infinity to one. Sure, some of those killed were militants, but that is of no consequence. 

The Navy SEALs should have waited until more Americans were dead before responding with such unacceptably disproportionate force. I hope that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International will come out with fact-finding reports on their websites soon.  /sarcasm

TMV: Civis Romanus sum!

NRO's Corner:

Some good news this Easter Day. Captain Phillips has been freed by Navy SEALS, and in the course of the operation three of four pirates were killed, which is also good news.

Why is it good news that three of the four were killed?

Late Update: Good relative to their getting away free and living to pirate another day, I suppose.

U.N. condems "defamation of religions"

Via V.C., there's a new U.N. resolution:

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance

12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion

Adopted by a recorded vote of 21 to 10, with 14 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

In favour: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka.

Against: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Abstaining: Bolivia, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Zambia

Hmm, seems someone is upset about things like those Danish cartoons of Muhammed [peace be upon him on days evenly divisible by 2]...

Some critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist, and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism.

Supporters have said that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in a period of Islamic terrorism and that their publication is a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, explicitly tied to the issue of self-censorship.

Whoops.  Did I just exercise some free speech in violation of the U.N. Resolution?

Religions don't have rights, people do.

A federal compromise on civil unions

Today's Times has an interesting joint op-ed by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch:

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill. . . .

Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict. That should appeal to cooler heads on both sides, and it also ought to appeal to President Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage but has endorsed federal civil unions. A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion. These statutes allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, for example. If religious exemptions can be made to work for as vexed a moral issue as abortion, same-sex marriage should be manageable, once reasonable people of good will put their heads together.

V.C. considers:

Rauch and Blankenhorn are among the ablest defenders of their respective positions, pro and con gay marriage, in the country. Both have written excellent books on the subject. What they say will be noticed by all sides, especially because they say it together. There will be strong objections on both sides: from SSM opponents who oppose recognition in principle and not just for instrumental reasons, and from SSM supporters who will worry about the practical consequences and who will wonder why such marriages alone will be qualified by morals exemptions.

There is much to think about here. A conditional offer of federal recognition would be a powerful inducement to the states since they won't want their recognized gay relationships excluded from federal advantages. For SSM supporters, that's good if it speeds state-based recognition of gay families but not so good if it hollows out that recognition.

My initial and very tentative reaction, as a same-sex marriage supporter, is that the Blankenhorn-Rauch compromise probably gives little away since SSM was never really a threat to religious liberty anyway. As a practical matter, gay families gain a lot in very important federal benefits in exchange for what appears to be barring lawsuits that either weren't -- or shouldn't -- be available.

Noah Millman doesn't think this is necessary. I agree.

even more liber-al-tarianism

Ilya Somina weighs in at V.C.:

Back in 2006, liberal intellectual interest in "liberaltarianism" was driven largely by electoral calculations; they hoped that wooing libertarians would help the Democrats to finally defeat the Republicans (who had won several elections in a row). This comes through very clearly in Markos Moulitsos' 2006 defense of the concept, which explicitly refuses to concede any ideological ground to libertarians, but merely urges them to vote for the Democrats as a lesser evil relative to the Republicans. A number of prominent libertarian intellectuals - including Wilkinson, Brink Lindsey, and former VC member Jacob Levy - have sought to forge a liberaltarian coalition that goes beyond a temporary political alliance of convenience. It is striking that that not a single prominent liberal joined them.

Today, liberal intellectuals are, if anything, even less willing to make concessions to libertarians than they were in 2006. On an ideological level, the financial crisis has lowered the stock of libertarianism in their eyes. In a strange way, the Bush record of massive expansions of government has also shifted the goalposts for liberal Democrats. They seem to assume that anything Bush and the Republicans did must have been "laissez faire" (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) and that the current Democratic agenda represents a needed course relative to failed free market policies rather than a continuation of Bush-era trends of greatly increased government spending and regulation.

From a political viewpoint, liberals they think they have strong enough congressional majorities and public support to be able to get along without libertarians. Moulitsos and his allies no longer see any need to trumpet their "libertarian democrat" credentials.

None of this means that libertarians shouldn't conduct a "conversation" with liberals, as Will urges. For example, we should continue to take their arguments seriously, and to press on on them the libertarian view that government has systematic flaws, and that the poor and disadvantaged - the traditional objects of liberal concern - are often best served by limiting its power. We should also remember the chief lesson of the Bush era: that a federal government under united Republican control is often no better than one controlled by the Democrats. The last eight years have highlighted and exacerbated our serious disagreements with many conservatives. Skepticism about liberaltarianism must be coupled with an appreciation of the shortcomings of the conservative-libertarian "fusionism" that frayed so badly under Bush.

Read the whole if you're as interested as I am...

Glimmers of hope in Israel

Haaretz:

Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman and Kadima chief Tzipi Livni are working to form a "civil front" to counter the right-wing and ultra-Orthodox parties which Likud has been wooing in the coalition talks.

Sources in Kadima and Likud say they don't expect Lieberman to recommend any candidate to President Shimon Peres on Thursday as Yisrael Beiteinu's choice to form a new government. Lieberman would instead try to force the formation of a national unity government consisting of Kadima, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu, without ultra-Orthodox Sephardi party Shas.

"Bibi doesn't have Lieberman," Vice Premier Haim Ramon told Haaretz on Monday, using the nickname of Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu. "And the significance of this is that Netanyahu doesn't have 61 Knesset members who will recommend that he be asked by the president to form the next government. On civil matters, Lieberman is more of our [Kadima's] partner than Bibi's."

Kadima came in first in last week's general election, followed by Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu and Labor.

But Labor party chairman Ehud Barak reportedly said that Livni's dealings with Lieberman mean that Labor will not recommend to Peres that Livni form the next government.

Also:

Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday evening that he was interested in forming a wide coalition, beyond just the right-wing nationalist camp.

Yes I cherry-picked the possible positive developments.

V.C. highlights an interesting analysis of the election. (meme)

Comparative study of inaugural coverage

V.C.:

My media column in today's Rocky Mountain News compared how much coverage the News and the Denver Post provided in the pre-inaugural week for the most recent inauguration, versus Clinton in 1993 and Bush in 2001 (which like 2009, featured a change of party). Since the Obama inauguration was said to be "historic," I also examined coverage of two other inaugurations which had some similarities (in terms of obvious historic character) with 2009: JFK in 1961, and Reagan in 1981. The results don't provide evidence of a pro-Democratic bias, since Bush 2001 and Clinton 1993 were about equal in quantity of coverage, as measured by the number of staff-written stories. Indeed, the 1961, 1981, 1993, and 2001 inaugurals were about equal in terms of coverage. These were dwarfed by the amount of coverage for Obama 2009.

One commentator:

Sure, it's just press infatuation... I mean, there's nothing else historic going on here. It's not like he's BLACK or anything. Otherwise, it's just like Reagan getting elected...

How do you guys keep a straight face when you write nonsense like that?

And it's not like Bush had historic low approval ratings or anything.

Michael Bennet is a nice person

Well, that settles it. Of course his brother is going to employ the most prominent gay-married libertarian-conservative blogger. These things just make sense!

ASU student pummels would-be robber

Via V.C.:

Arizona State University student Alex Botsios said he had no problem giving a nighttime intruder his wallet and guitars.

When the man asked for Botsios' laptop, however, the first-year law student drew the line.

"I was like, 'Dude, no -- please, no!" Botsios said. "I have all my case notes . . . that's four months of work!"