To get you even moodier, Kos links to a Slate piece outlining a good case for why Europe may well eclipse the US politically and economically (though of course not militarily.) (Kos has a good outtake so you can avoid the Slate ad.)

I think that's a bit over the top.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that our profile is declining in prominence in some parts of the world. The projected culture of the U.S. is extremely distorted and does more harm than good in a lot of cases. I would particularly like to see Hollywood brought low.

As for Europe - the future of Europe has been unfolding in the Netherlands over the last few weeks. Get used to that.

Ah, Sterling, something we agree on. Anti-immigrant sentiment that boils over into forced assimilation or deportation may yet be Europe's undoing, I agree.

Ahhhh, China as the world's superpower. I'm sure everyone will hate them too when they invade a country under false pretenses in 2103. Then the boys in Beijing will make those neo-cons look like the amateurs they are. Too bad I won't live to see the day Sterling's offspring are calling for stronger adherence to international law to restrain those unilateralist bastards.

Stefan - I was referring to widespread ethno-religious conflict as the coming Muslim majority begins to assert itself. It's probably too late for Western Europe to do much about it.

Marc - That's a little premature. China has lots and lots of big problems. Also, are we not adults? How many invasions have been initiated since 1800 on anything but pretenses? The WMD pretense was crafted for the benefit of France and Germany. Since those states didn't buy into it, I don't see why the U.S. should be held to it. Certainly Americans understood this distinction, and didn't hold Bush to it.

I knew full well what you were talking about. The fact is that Europe's undoing will happen if it fails to embrace the kind of multiethnic mosaic that makes the US such a dynamic place. I'm afraid that Europe still prefers cultural homogeneity over the truly liberal (classical sense) principles of individual liberty, which includes the right to be as Muslim or West Indian or African as you want to be. The British get this. The Dutch and the Belgians dangerously not, and not surprisingly, nor does a whole range of US conservative commentators.

Be well aware of whom you are casting your lot in when you defend Vlaams Belang (ex Vlaams Blok) and the Dutch assimilationists. You'd be against them on your own soil. Have the courage of your convictions to at least apply them universally.

*sigh* You always have to take lighthearted posts so goddamn seriously.

"The WMD pretense was crafted for the benefit of France and Germany."

No it wasn't. It was "crafted" to scare the fuck out of the American people so they'd think Iraq was an imminent threat. Well hey, kudos to Karl Rove, it worked. I'm sure you dispute their validity, but there were even those polls showing just how thick many Bush voter were and are: They still believe Hussein was a threat and had something to do with 911. Of course, we "adults" know Iraq might have been a clear and present danger for Tel-Aviv, but it certainly wasn't for Des Moines.

Stefan - I am of Irish, English, Dutch, Scots-Irish, French, German, Danish, Swedish and probably Amerindian extraction - all within the last few hundred years. I grew up in a town filled with four major ethnic groups - Anglo, Irish, Pole and Italian. I went to college, with Jame, at a university with an enormous foreign student contingent - Arabs (and Palestinians) were especially numerous, and I associated with them freely. Until about a year ago I lived in a neighborhood that was equal parts Puerto Rican and black. So please don't lecture me about the mechanics by which people of varying social, religious or ethnic backgrounds get along or do not.

What you have in Europe right now is different. You have a militant core of jihadists who serve to incite or seduce the Muslim population in general. Even if 4 out of 5 Muslim kids adopt modern, essentialy secular ways - and as I understand it you're not even close to 4 out of 5 - that still leaves 20% of the population feeling alienated and probably hostile. And that 80% who assimilate or accomodate themselves to Europe? They'll feel more loyalty to the 20% than to you - for generations to come.

Islam provides an ideal, something to be true to and to strive for. Islam is not only more fecund that the contemporary European way of life, it is also more seductive to those who seek something larger than themselves to fight for. In 20 years, the trendy little alterna-kids who today join the Green Party or the Black Bloc will instead be converting to Islam to fight against Western oppression.

What you have in Europe right now is different. You have a militant core of Jews who serve to incite or seduce the Jewish population in general. Even if 4 out of 5 Jewsish kids adopt modern, essentialy secular ways - and as I understand it you're not even close to 4 out of 5 - that still leaves 20% of the population feeling alienated and probably hostile. And that 80% who assimilate or accomodate themselves to Europe? They'll feel more loyalty to the 20% than to you - for generations to come.

Judaicism provides an ideal, something to be true to and to strive for. Judacism is not only more fecund that the contemporary European way of life, it is also more seductive to those who seek something larger than themselves to fight for. In 20 years, the trendy little alterna-kids who today join the Marxist Party or the Trotskyites will instead be converting to Judaicism to fight against Arian oppression.

stefan, i think your sardonic little post makes an interesting point. muslims are becoming the group that it's ok for western christian culture to hate. everyone knows anti-jewish sentiment was fairly widespread if not always overt in both britain and the united states before the second world war. sadly it was only the magnitude of what the germans did that suddenly made them ok. "hate jews? no, not here. that was those monsterly krauts!" now it's all talk of "judeo-christian values". well hell, that could just as easily be "judeo-christian-islamic values". if you're willing to cut the pre-religionists of your faith some slack then why not the post-religionists? Jesus certainly has more status in islam than he does with judaism. but vilifying islam and throwing around terms like jihadists is a great way to build up that image of an enemy that evangelical christians are lapping up these days.

It's a stupid, specious, absurd and even insulting transposition. And Stefan - you have a lot of nerve to make it - especially given all the Christian-bashing that goes on here. Christianity you can stomp on all the time, but your faint fucking liberal hearts flutter at the thought of someone describing Islam for what it is - a threat to civilization and decency.

You see how blood runs in Kashmir, Chechnya, Nigeria, and everywhere else Islam touches another belief system. You see how wack-a-nuts under sharia law stone adulterers, castrate homosexuals and cripple or maim minor criminals. And you think you're so morally superior that such ugliness could never happen where you live. Well, Theo Van Gogh was your wake-up call.

No he wasn't.

Islam is no more "a threat to civilization and decency" than Christianity is. Lots of people suggest lots of stupid things in the name of both (and other) religions.

...and given that Christianity has survived and thrived despite facing much worse, Stefan's atheism isn't exactly what I would call "Christianity-bashing".

I bash with glee at extremists of any persuasion, but my views regarding the conventionally religious go something like this (pardon the repeated linking back to my site). I would of course defend to the death anyone's right to express any opinion or belief that does not involve an incitement to violence or a credible physical threat.

separation of church and state was one of the main tenets of the enlightenment which led to our "western civilization". the fact that the US is reversing that course leads me to think that christianity is just as much of a threat. especially now that the abortion clinic bombers and gynecologist assassins have been vindicated.

Stefan - Yes he was. Culture precedes ideology. The fact that the murderer had so many confederates is itself evidence of the problem. He wasn't a lone nut, and neither were the 19 hijackers on 9/11. (As for defending something to the death, wouldn't that make you an extremist?)

Mike - Yes it is. Go read the Koran. You live in the Dar al-Harb whether you like it or not. You may doubt the competence of jihadists to prosecute the war on your home turf, but you should not doubt their intentions. They believe you should be forced to convert, killed, or at best obliged to live in a state of dhimmitude. They mean to accomplish this, and in Europe they probably will within 100 years.

SP - We've been over this before. The phrase "separation of church and state" is very vague - what we have in the U.S. is the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prevents the Federal Gov't from imposing a state religion or preventing people from worshipping as they choose. It was intended in large measure to prevent the sectarian violence and oppression that had bedeviled Europe for centuries, and George Washington made it clear that it covered Jews, too. Courts have found that it has limits, such as in Oregon v. Smith, which involved state drug laws and the use of peyote in religious ceremonies. So it's not a blank check to do whatever you want and call it "worship". Since the Koran exhorts its followers to forcefully convert non-believers outside the Dar al-Islam, and no part of North America is within the Dar al-Islam, I assume it would already be a criminal act under incitement statutes in all fifty states to preach from those parts of the Koran. And that's without even getting into hate crime legislation, sexual discrimination statutes or the RICO act. (I'm only half-kidding here. If the jihadists continue with their war on us, sooner or later these points will be raised.)

The Oregon v. Smith reference is a nice touch (even though there are exceptions for peyote use in Native American Religious Ceremonies on the books).

But before we go arresting those who preach from the Koran, it should be noted the law does draws a distinction between advocacy and ìincitement to imminent lawless actionî (see Brandenburg v. Ohio).

sterling, you might as well be a howler monkey that's been fed lots of methamphetamine. you get all indignant about me joking of a sino-superpower in 100 years, yet in the same timeframe you predict a green wave will overcome Europe. if it weren't all so laughable i'd cry. i imagine if the turks couldn't take vienna we're all ok here.

Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Worship are two separate things. The latter is what you are talking about, and seem to be confusing with the former. Freedom of Worship is a right afforded to all, within the limitations of the law, such as using otherwise controlled substances, animal sacrifice, polygamy, etc, as you have described.

Separation of Church and State is a structure that intends to prevent the "Church", any church be it Christian, Jewish, or whatever, from influencing public policy, no matter what the majority might be. It recognizes the that if government were to represent the interests of any Church, it would infringe on the afore mentioned individuals' right of Freedom of Worship. It was intended to prevent a leader from imposing PRIVATE religious beliefs onto the PUBLIC, and in the worst case, preventing complete nutcases from running the show.

So I re-iterate my feelings that this country is heading in the wrong direction, maybe not as violently (yet), but just as dangerously as any country caught in the clutches of fundamentalist zealots, whether they worship the cross, the star, or the crescent moon.

I'm not the one doing the confusing, SP. "Separation of church and state" has much less foundation than, and is not part of, the establishment clause. It does not appear in the Declaration of Indepdence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the subsequent amendments. The concept is only mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, and it's pretty clear from the way the Founders threw around concepts like "Divine Providence" and "Nature's God" and so on that they were referring to the separation of sectarian interests and state, in the assumption that Christian sensibilities would dominate in the U.S. for at least as long as the Constitution has lasted. And so they have.

Marc - it's all demographics. The demographics projections strongly favor the Arabs, Indians, and South Americans, slightly favor the United States and North America, very strongly disfavor Western Europe and the former Soviet Union, and somewhat disfavor China.

In the case of China, the one-child policy has been disastrous, and will interfere in economic growth as well as feed corruption over the next 20 years. There are too many things demanded or expected of China given its precarious internal stability and almost total absence of a middle class.

And beyond demographics, the massively bad policy decisions just keep coming. Look at the 3 Gorges Dam! In case anybody missed it, a huge chunk of China's economy will soon be dependent on one dam. If any foreign power were to destroy this dam, not only would China's economy collapse, but tens of millions of people would be killed by the massive wall of water that would pour down the Yangtze.

Plus the Chinese are wrecking Hong Kong, which could have been a model and vehicle for the development of the whole country.

Sterling,
I am not sure I would call the one-child policy a failure. It has had unintended consequences, however. It has exacerbated a natural demographic trend among moderniziing, urban societies to have fewer children, putting China on track to be the first major country to get old before it gets rich. It is also creating an unhealthy gender imbalance. China is reforming its pensions system to address some of these problems, but yes, it is a problem.

China faces other major challenges. The environment, the spread of AIDS, stark social inequity, rampant corruption and a disastrous banking system are among them. The Communist Party leadership is aware of these, and is tackling most of them at a technocrat level. Ultimately the political reform that seems to many observers necessary to address these problems remains anathema. And there is the real risk of a conflict with Taiwan.

But all of this misses the point, which is that China's influence - political, economic and cultural - is on the rise across the Asia-Pacific region. Japan's is on the wane, and so is ours.

Dismissing China because we can bomb the Three Gorges Dam is a non-argument. We can always nuke China. And China can nuke us. In the meantime, China is increasingly important to Asian countries for trade. It now surpasses the US in many countries as the main trading partner. China's blossoming consumer market is also becoming a source of growth for companies from Asia and around the world. And the renminbi currency bloc is already a reality; it just remains hidden behind the regions' informal fixed regime to the US dollar.

You are wrong to say there is no middle class. If you separate coastal China from the rural interior, you have a 300-million strong population with a significant middle class.

America, meanwhile, seems completely preoccupied with its 'war' on terror and the adventure in Iraq. Bush's last swing through Asia was telling. His visits to allies (Philippines, Japan, Australia, Indonesia) were hermetically sealed in a security bubble. He revealed a distinct lack of understanding toward Asian leaders' views and concerns. He was greeted mainly by public protests. A week later, Hu Jintao made a similar circuit. He was warmly greeted on the streets. He got a standing ovation in Canberra.

The fact is that China knows it has a reputation/image problem, and it is taking steps to cool fears about its resurgence. America also has such a problem, but it does not seem to notice, or care. Regional political and business leaders see China putting up a 'welcome' sign, while the US talks about nothing but terrorism while it throws up one hurdle after another to entering the country. The problems in Hong Kong apply only to Taiwan, and no one (including America) is ready to support a Taiwanese administration so hellbent on formalizing its independence. Meanwhile, the HK economy is today on the rebound and its Democratic party members on the defensive.

You have made your contempt for diplomacy understood. But I think a little more diplomacy and showing the friendly face of America here, on an active basis, would go a long way toward staving off the Chinese challenge. Afterall people here don't think or calculate like we do, and if we want to stay number one, we have to get out of our mental box.

The gender imbalance is specifically what I had in mind. Nothing good can come of having 50 million men who can't get laid. (50 million sexually frustrated guys with no prospects + the internet and mobile phones = bad, bad things.) Should one Falun-Gong-type movement arise and unite them, the consequences could be very costly.

My point wasn't that the United States can bomb Three Gorges, but that anyone can. The practical lesson of even the first World Trade Center bombing is that large, massed infrastructure is a bad idea. In the U.S., this has led to the low-slung, dispersed "corporate campus" rapidly replacing the skyscraper. In China, they're still dreaming up Stalinesque monuments to the state. This is going to bite them in the ass, and a lot of people are going to die unnecessary, awful deaths because of Beijing's hubris.

I think China will plateau early - it has limits to growth built in by the venality and inefficiency of the government. And I suspect Japan's status will rebound once it truly begins remilitarizing (which is inevitable).

Also, I don't have contempt for diplomacy - I have contempt for most American diplomats. My experience is that many (if not most) of them lack a sufficient sense of attachment and belonging to the United States to appropriately represent its interests abroad. Bottom line: the people who are most enthusiastic about spending time overseas are very nearly the worst possible ambassadors.

Sterling,
very quickly: I share your concern about those millions of single males. Mix that with xenophobic nationalism, the only way the Communist Party may be able to retain power one day will be to somehow channel their destructive energy abroad and offshore these men.

China's plateauing: possible. We've already gone through plenty of problems the country faces. My experience (limited) suggests that the Chinese have mechanisms to engineer their population in ways that free market societies don't. Not that this is superior, but that the Chinese can do well with a bad hand. Americans in particular tend to fall prey to the mythology of China, but I would also be careful of dismissing China. The trap can go both ways.

And RE American diplomats: distinction noted. No comment at this time, other than it would be better to have more career ambassadors and fewer appointees who gave the latest president oodles of money.

On the one hand you say demography sets the stage, and then you say Japan will rebound when it becomes more militarily aggressive. Japan's demographics are awful, its population is shrinking and rapidly greying. While I do see Tokyo becoming more aggressive in a military sense, I think you've got a contradiction in your arguing.