New Muhammad Cartoon from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln’s student newspaper

Offensive cartoons protected by free speech,” by Callin Sullivan, Daily Nebraskan, 10 February 2006, http://www.dailynebraskan.com/media/storage/paper857/news/2006/02/10/Opinion/Collin.W.Sullivan.Offensive.Cartoons.Protected.By.Free.Speech-1749271.shtml?norewrite200604112028&sourcedomain=www.dailynebraskan.com.

Freedom of speech (or cartoons) is double-edged sword,” by Brian Bockelman, Daily Nebraskan, 13 February 2006, http://www.dailynebraskan.com/media/storage/paper857/news/2006/02/13/Opinion/Brian.Bockelman.Freedom.Of.Speech.or.Cartoons.Is.DoubleEdged.Sword-1749281.shtml?norewrite200604112028&sourcedomain=www.dailynebraskan.com.

Muslim students speak out on Danish cartoon,” by Wade Larson, Daily Nebraskan, 17 February 2006, http://www.dailynebraskan.com/media/storage/paper857/news/2006/02/17/News/Muslim.Students.Speak.Out.On.Danish.Cartoon-1749401.shtml?norewrite200604112028&sourcedomain=www.dailynebraskan.com.

Free Speech Also Covers a Right to Keep Silent,” Daily Nebraskan, 20 February 2006, http://www.dailynebraskan.com/media/storage/paper857/news/2006/02/20/Opinion/Staff.Editorial.Free.Speech.Also.Covers.A.Right.To.Keep.Silent-1749441.shtml?norewrite200604112028&sourcedomain=www.dailynebraskan.com.

“Prophet Mohammed’s birthday…,” by Danny Schulmann, Daily Nebraskan, 11 April 2006, page 4.

In a cartoon published in the University of Nebraska – Lincoln’s student newspaper (but not the newspaper’s website), a lone artist strikes a blow (kind of) against PC-Islamic censorship.

Kind of.

prophet_birthday_md
*
Prophet Mohammed’s Birthday — Not Taking Any Chances Today

The DN has tried to walk middle-of-the-road in the Muslim cartoon controversy. Most contributors have agreed that the cartoons may be offensive, but they are still protected by the freedom of speech. (Indeed, so do most UNL students — except, oddly, for Summayia Khan, the UNL student the DN chose to profile to get the reactions of Muslims.) Yet when it comes to showing solidarity with their terrorist-threatened fellow journalists in Denmark, the DN has been less than brave. Or cowardly. Again, middle-of-the-road

Declaring “Free speech also covers a right to keep silent,” the editors nonetheless criticized the suspension of 2 student editors from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Indeed, they wondered if it was unlawful to suspend the editors.

Nonetheless, because “no good can come of” “a showdown between the most powerful countries in the world against the most numerous religion in the world,” the DN did not carry the Danish cartoons. So they’ll criticize the PC crowd, who suspend students, if not Islamists, who threaten to kill them.

Which brings us to today’s cartoon, with its asterisk and its snarky line. It’s a nice comment on self-censorship — without breaking that self-censorship.

If the Daily Nebraskan had wanted to be brave, it could have shown solidarity with the culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten.

If the Daily Nebraskan had wanted to be politically correct, it would not have run this cartoon at all.

Sigh… at least the DN broke Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s plan to take over the world… And my chat with Frances Kaye.

Annex Mexico

Annex Mexico?,” by Glenn Reynolds, Glennreynolds.com, 10 April 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12132529/#060410 (from Instapundit via Purpleslog, also at Riehl World View).

It would make us more federalist. It would make us freer. It would make us richer.

For all of these reasons, I have been calling for the United States to absorb the Mexican United States as the 51st to 81st states of our Union.

north_america_mexico_md

Now Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit is too:


Reynolds’ piece is so well written that I will quote it nearly paragraph-by-paragraph, giving my opinions along the way:

One difference between the demonstrations in France and the demonstrations in America: The French are demonstrating for the right not to work hard, while the demonstrators in America mostly want to work.

Exactly. America’s immigration situation is nothing like Europe. We attract the best and the brightest, and immediately put them to work (though with civil fines for those who don’t go through the paperwork hoopla).

At least part of our better solution is the fact that our immigrants come from a sister nation, who also spans our continent, with roots in Western European colonialism, and holds to a federal republic as the best form of government.

In fact, they’re leaving Mexico because its corrupt and thuggish political culture stifles economic growth and opportunity. The people there are smart and hardworking, after all, and they tend to do just fine when they get here. They’re leaving because being smart and hardworking is enough to get you ahead in the United States, but not in Mexico. And I suspect that if the Reconquista advocates somehow did get their way, and the Southwest United States became a new Northern Mexico, we’d soon have illegal immigrants crossing over into Kansas and Oklahoma for opportunity, because the Mexican political culture would have ruined things in Arizona and Texas just like it’s already ruined them further south.

In other words, they are running towards our Constitution and political system. While local conditions differ — it would be insane to have a Continental education policy for both Oregon and Oaxaca, for example — our economic system works, too. Our system of property rights, our system of Constitutional rights, and our system of getting things done is what Mexicans want and need.

Oh, we don’t need to turn Mexico into a state, or several. At least not right away. But as part of any immigration deal, the United States needs to demand reform in Mexico. Serious political reform, and serious economic reform.

Here Reynolds is referring to what TM Lutas called an “acquis communitaire” — a European style harmonization of basic laws before the Union. That’s fine. If America offered eventual Constitutional statehood to the “free and sovereign” members of the Mexican United States , we would be able fix any serious problems before they join us as voting members. For example, the much-needed privatization of Pemex (Mexico’s state oil company).

And reciprocity. If we’re going to make it easy for Mexicans to come to the United States to live, work, hold property, and get public benefits without too much paperwork trouble, we need to make it easy for Americans to do the same in Mexico. Right now, as several people have noticed, the environment there is considerably less friendly to foreigners than America’s is.

Exactly. Openness is a two-way street. Interstate disputes handled by federal courts, not NAFTA courts. Property rights ultimately enforced by the American Constitution. Travel and home-ownership rights, for our retirees.

But as the Mexican government has been free to express opinions about how the United States should set immigration, economic, and educational policy, it seems only fair if we do the same for them.

It’s an interdependent world, after all. And that works both ways.

Bravo Glenn!