STEFAN GEENS WRITES:

What a stunning coincidence. In many nation-states around Europe, simultaneously, laws are being debated that ostensibly have no connection to one another — defending secularism in France, defending women’s rights in Belgium and Sweden, defending states’ rights in Germany, defending the autonomy of state-funded Christian schools in Spain and Italy — and yet, miraculously, despite these disparate if lofty ideals, they all converge on the exact same effect: Muslim women will not be allowed to wear headscarves in public schools.

Why am I not surprised? (More here.)

THIS WEEK’S CARNIVAL OF THE CAPITALISTS is up, with all sorts of business and economics-related posts from a variety of bloggers. Check it out!

ADAM CURRY has more blogging from Iraq, and he’s also posted a bunch of pictures. Excerpt:

To this I suggested that he could join the city council and help change things. This was a totally foreign concept to him. Join the city council? Huh? I guess 35 years of dictatorship does damage to the entire concept of democratic process. Lots of education needed in that area.

Indeed. Read the whole thing.

MORE THOUGHTS on the oil-for-food scandal.

WOULD YOU BUY A USED VEEP FROM THIS MAN?

FORMER President Bill Clinton, stung by how poor a presidential contender Wesley Clark turned out to be, worked aggressively behind the scenes late last week to pressure John Kerry to pick the retired general as his running mate.

“The former president has been calling people, including elected officials in New York, saying that Clark would make a great vice-presidential candidate,” a well-known Democratic activist told The Post.

“He’s pushing hard because this is a credibility issue for Clinton since everybody knows Clark was the guy he created, but yet Clark did so poorly when he ran.”

Hmm. If I were Kerry, I’d be reluctant — especially since Tom Oliphant, as I noted below, is blaming Clark for the Kerry infidelity scandal:

Clark’s rumor-mongering with his press corps about Kerry was the visible tip of an iceberg of rumor-mongering that had gone on for weeks, stirred not only by some of his fund-raisers but also among the press by aides and consultants that “something” was coming. This is how spin doctors feed gossip mills without actually providing gossip.

Sounds like a poor choice to me. And why would Kerry want to pick a guy who (1) spread rumors about him that exploded into a national scandal; and (2) did so so ham-handedly that it didn’t help his campaign, and (3) got caught at it to boot?

The most charitable thing you can say about Clark is that he’s inept, and Oliphant offers more examples of ham-handedness on Clark’s part. But to me he looks like a guy who’s willing to do or say anything to advance his career, but who isn’t very good at figuring out what to do or say. I’m not sure why Kerry would be looking for those qualities in a running mate — or why Bill Clinton would be pushing the candidacy of someone possessing those qualities.

RUNNING THE NUMBERS: Oxblog offers some perspective on the problem of priestly sex abuse. Bottom line: It’s huge: “even though the report entirely discards incidents involving a further 3,300 priests who had died, and only deals with incidents in which a victim of abuse has come forward, the number still represents over 4 percent of all priests who served in that period.”

UPDATE: Justin Katz says the numbers are wrong.

MORE EURO-SCANDALS:

A former French defense minister and an official in President Jacques Chirac’s governing party were convicted of illegal party funding and money laundering on Monday.
.
A court in Paris found the former defense minister, François Léotard, guilty of using a fake bank scheme in 1995 to inject money into his now-defunct Republican Party. He was given a 10-month suspended jail sentence.
.
Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, spokesman for Chirac’s Union for a Popular Movement party, was fined E15,000, or about $19,000, for helping disguise the operation while he was Léotard’s cabinet director.

Wow, their wrists must sting.

CANADA’S POLITICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS are the theme of a collection of Canadian blog posts called The Carnival of the Canucks. Reactions to Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, surprisingly, do not make up the bulk of the posts.

FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY: Arnold Kling looks at academia, in light of the recent controversy over Duke University’s lack of diversity.

Here’s something on a related topic that I wrote a couple of years ago.

FREDRIK NORMAN STANDS UP FOR FREEDOM on Norwegian TV. He comes off better than some other people. But that’s no surprise.

UPDATE: Roger Simon comments:

What was most interesting about this discussion to me was how little Norman’s adversaries really understood about America.

Yes.

MORE ON SADDAM’S BRIBERY CAMPAIGN:

Money illicitly siphoned from the UN oil-for-food programme by Saddam Hussein was used to finance anti-sanctions campaigns run by British politicians, according to documents that have surfaced in Baghdad.

Undercover cash from oil deals went to three businessmen who in turn supported pressure groups involving the ex-Labour MP George Galloway, Labour MP Tam Dalyell, and the former Irish premier Albert Reynolds, it is alleged in documents compiled by the oil ministry, which is now under the control of the US occupation regime.

Separately, a dossier from the oil ministry in Baghdad has been handed by the British Foreign Office to Customs and Excise, which has been asked to investigate. They were also referred to the Cabinet Office because of their political sensitivity.

More here: “Secret commissions paid to pro-Saddam middlemen by western oil firms found their way into George Galloway’s anti-sanctions drives.”

I don’t know if this is true, of course — though it certainly seems plausible to me — but what I really wonder is where else Saddam’s money went.

DAMIAN PENNY WONDERS why “anti-nuclear” activists aren’t targeting China and Pakistan.

WOW:

The government is considering a plan to break up the BBC and remove its independent status in the wake of a bitter row with the state-funded broadcaster over the Iraq war, a report said.

I rather doubt this will go through, but I think they should close it down and sell its assets off to the private sector.

THIS LIST of biblical references in rock leaves out what’s probably the finest Christian rock song ever, The Who’s Who Are You?

ARTHUR SCHLESINGER DENOUNCES the Bush Administration on civil liberties, in a place where there is no free speech.

UPDATE: Timothy Burke says that Erin O’Connor is wrong about Swarthmore’s speech code. Erin O’Connor, meanwhile, says that Burke is wrong.

NASCAR ENVY: Greyhawk notes that John Kerry is now playing from Scott Ott’s script.

I’M IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE, but nonetheless I think that Rod Dreher has a good point:

What I don’t get is this: why was it wrong for Judge Roy Moore of Alabama to unilaterally declare federal law wrong, and defy it by installing a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse rotunda … but it’s okay for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to unilaterally declare state law wrong in prohibiting same-sex marriage, and defy it by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples? I mean, I know why the media was outraged by the former episode of grandstanding and not the latter, but as a legal matter, what’s the difference?

Newsom would deny others the right to violate a law he believes in, but feels free to violate the law himself when he chooses, even though his sole claim to legitimacy as a government official comes from the law.

It’s not civil disobedience when it’s done by someone who controls the machinery of government — it’s usurpation, even when it’s in a cause I agree with.

UPDATE: David Codrea wonders when they’ll start passing out gun licenses without worrying about the silly — and undoubtedly prejudiced — limitations imposed by California law. I’ve actually noted that leftish prejudice against guns is a lot like rightish prejudice against gays. I, of course, oppose both varieties of prejudice. I rather doubt, though, that we’ll see “civil disobedience” by government officials in support of gun rights in San Francisco any time soon.

WINDS OF CHANGE has its war news roundup posted. Don’t miss it.

I MENTIONED BELOW that Alex Polier denies a Kerry affair — but that’s not the big news. The big news is that she managed to deny it in a way that left Wonkette speechless.

UPDATE: I”m having trouble with the story here, though. There’s this quote:

The father denied they had an affair, but called the senator a “sleazeball” without explanation to the Sun.

“He’s not the sort of guy I would choose to be with my daughter,” the London paper quoted the father as saying.

Okay, it’s The Sun, though I haven’t seen anyone suggest the quote is inaccurate. [LATER: Here’s a report that they’re now denying the Sun quote: “The statement did not address purported quotes by Polier’s parents in the British tabloid The Sun that were harshly critical of Kerry. But in a later statement e-mailed to the AP in New York, Terry Polier said he was misquoted by the Sun and that his wife never talked to the Sun reporter.”]. So then there’s this, from the BBC:

All we have at the moment is that the woman’s parents, who are republicans, don’t like Senator Kerry.

Okay, but then what about this?

A statement by Terry and Donna Polier, the parents of Alexandra Polier:

“We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated. We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family. We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States.”

Wow, that’s an amazing 180-degree turnabout in a very short time. If he wins over America’s voters this way, he’ll be sure to win in November! But can this approach be expanded to cover millions?

Kaus has an amusing take on this sudden shift.

MORE: And Tom Oliphant is blaming Wesley Clark for the whole thing:

Clark’s rumor-mongering with his press corps about Kerry was the visible tip of an iceberg of rumor-mongering that had gone on for weeks, stirred not only by some of his fund-raisers but also among the press by aides and consultants that “something” was coming. This is how spin doctors feed gossip mills without actually providing gossip.

And yet some people keep blaming Karl Rove.

KERRY ON THE ISSUES: Discussed over at GlennReynolds.com.

GOOD POINT: “The question of whether Saddam Hussein was a monstrous, murderous tyrant has two answers – ‘no’ or ‘yes.’ There is no ‘yes but.'”

I LINKED TO THIS JEFF JARVIS POST EARLIER, but here’s an interesting bit from the comments:

I’m transsexual, and jumped the fence from male to female about six or seven years ago; so I’ve seen this one from both sides.

One of the biggest joys (“comforts” might be a better word) of my new female status is that I no longer am the recipient of all the subliminal hostility. Which wasn’t all that subliminal, if you get right down to it.

As a man walks down the street, pretty much everybody is evaluating him for potential danger. It’s mild, but pervasive. I hear young black men have it even worse; but even middle-age white men get it.

I find it much more peaceful over here on the women’s side. Your mileage may vary.

Enough people have made this jump that it would be possible to interview a meaningful number and see what could be learned. Has anybody done that?

UPDATE: No, this doesn’t count.

ANOTHER UPDATE: But this email from transsexual reader Laura Riccio does:

In response to your wondering about the experiences of transsexuals and the treatment we’ve experienced living as each sex, I thought I’d quickly share some of mine. In essence, it’s a very mixed bag either way. By way of background, I’m 30 years old, a health insurance actuary, politically centrist with strong libertarian sympathies, and thoroughly bourgeoise. I changed sexes, from male to female, five years ago, and live in San Francisco. Of course, I’m excluding the approximately two years in which I was obviously a transsexual and was treated as such from my comments below, which reflect only my subjective experience.

On the “men have it worse” side:

– I agree with the commenter of Jarvis’s. Since I’ve changed, I seem to represent much less of a potential threat to people, both male and female, and people trust me more easily. The air of suspicion really was not noticeable until it was gone, as is the case for many of these issues.

– People are generally nicer and more considerate of me now, and seem to be much more sparing of my feelings, even to the point of telling obvious lies. This is in addition to the obvious typical male chivalry things like opening doors and the like, which, I’m happy to report, is still quite common even in San Francisco. People will actually go out of their way to be gratuitously kind, which was certainly not the case beforehand.

– People are far, far less likely to accuse, or (as far as I can tell) believe in actual wrongdoing or malfeasance on my part now. The flip side of this, as a I mention below, is a strongly increased tendency to assume that I’m incompetent.

On the “women have it worse” side:

– As I said above, people’s apparent estimation of my intelligence has dropped significantly, despite the fact that I’m quite certain the quality and coherence of my thoughts (not to mention my professional qualifications!) have improved greatly since transition. This isn’t total and complete; if I have an absolute knock-down argument, people will eventually believe it, but only after much expenditure of effort on my part. If I *don’t* have a knock-down argument, people are far less likely to trust my intelligence and judgement than they had been. This tendency is rather uneven; I’ve noticed it most strongly in older people (over, say, 50), and in certain religious groups (the usual suspects:
conservative Christians and Muslims of all stripes).

– While normal citizens now view me as less of a threat, and therefore as a better person, it is true that criminals now also view me as less of a threat, and consequently, as a better target. I’ve managed to stay out of trouble in this regard, but it’s much more of a concern these days.

– When I am genuinely angry or upset about something, or even when I disagree with a colleague on a factual or logical point, there is a far greater tendency among the general populace to attribute it to some one-off hormonal effect, or to it being “that time of the month.” Since, as a transsexual, I do not menstruate, I find this latter belief extremely amusing, as I’m sure you can imagine.

Overall, I’m much (much!) happier as a woman, but I think that has little to nothing do with a fundamental societal preference for one over the other and everything to do with the fact that I’m a male-to-female transsexual. I can’t really say that either men or women have an overwhelming advantage in societal treatment these days, at least not that I’ve noticed.

So there you are. Very interesting stuff, at least to me.

ROGER SIMON is still wondering: What happened to the oil-for-food money? Funny how little attention this story is getting.

THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW’S CAMPAIGN BLOG has picked up on the absurd Scott Lindlaw AP story regarding Bush and NASCAR that I mention below. Excerpt: “Evidently if you send Lindlaw to a NASCAR race, instead of journalism you get armchair psychoanalysis and a history lesson. We can’t wait to see how he covers the NCAA tournament.”

I thought the story was absurd, and I’m glad to see that professionals agree. But I think we’ll see a lot more of this as the election nears.

THE KERRY INFIDELITY STORY seemed to die down over the weekend, but this report says that it may come back: “A woman who claims she had an affair with presidential hopeful John Kerry has taped a kiss-and-tell interview with a U.S. TV network, it was revealed last night. ” (Via Timothy Perry).

UPDATE: Drudge has an informative flashback on the much-less-circumspect treatment given unsubstantiated rumors of infidelity on the part of then-President George H.W. Bush in 1992. Read the whole thing, and have a laugh at the sanctimonious behavior of some of those same named journalists today.

Yeah, there’s a double standard here. A big one, and it’s not just the Joe Conason flipflop noted by Mickey Kaus earlier, or the different Joe Conason example noted by Drudge. You’ll see more of this stuff as the election gets closer. They just can’t help themselves.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Will Collier wonders which network will air the story first.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: On the other hand, here’s a pretty straightforward denial of the affair from Alexandra Polier. I guess that denial settles it!