Estudio de Harvard no encuentra prejuicio racial en los disparos contra negros de la policía estadounidense

THE NEW YORK TIMES.- A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

The result contradicts the mental image of police shootings that many Americans hold in the wake of the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Laquan McDonald in Chicago; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Samuel DuBose in Cincinnati; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.

Más...

• Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008 Annual Rates for 2009 and 2010 (pdf)

Los jóvenes matan más

De 14 a 34 años: 48 por 100.000

De o a 14 años: 0 por 100.000

De 35 a 49 años: 5 por 100.000

De 50 para arriba: 2 por 100.00

La gran mayoría de los homicidios son entre personas de la misma raza. Cuando no lo son, los negros matan dos veces más blancos que al revés.

Negro mata negro: 43%

Blanco mata blanco: 40%

Negro mata blanco: 9%

Blanco mata negro: 5%

Vía PlazaMoyua

La disposición conservadora

El filósofo británico Michael Oakeshott

Robert Conquest declaró en alguna ocasión las tres leyes de la política:

1. Todo el mundo es conservador con respecto a lo que conoce mejor.

2. Toda organización que no es explícitamente de derechas acaba volviéndose de izquierdas tarde o temprano.

3. La explicación más sencilla del funcionamiento de cualquier organización burocrática es pensar que la dirige una camarilla de sus enemigos.

Las tres normas tienen un propósito humorístico. No es difícil encontrar contraejemplos. He recordado la primera ley estos días, cuando escuchaba explicaciones un tanto condescendientes sobre el voto del miedo, que habría permitido la victoria del PP en las elecciones generales del 26-J. Había ganado la opción conservadora. Y lo conservador, como casi siempre se entiende enseguida, era algo malo, aburrido, cobarde y levemente mezquino.

Yo no soy políticamente conservador. Creo que muchas tradiciones contribuyen a la opresión y reprimen la libertad individual y a veces los gobiernos deben ir un poco por delante. Los símbolos del conservadurismo están lejos de mi educación sentimental, de mi socialización política y de mis referentes culturales. Pero creo que esa condescendencia es injusta.

En “To Be a Conservative”, una conferencia pronunciada en 1956 en la Universidad de Swansea y recogida más tarde en su libro Rationalism in Politics, Michael Oakeshott escribió: “Ser conservador es preferir lo familiar a lo desconocido, lo que se ha probado a lo que no, el hecho al misterio, lo real a lo posible, lo limitado a lo infinito, lo cercano a lo distante, lo suficiente a lo superabundante, lo conveniente a lo perfecto, la risa presente a la felicidad utópica”. No es un intento de regresar a una edad de oro pasada (aunque ese elemento está en algunas ideologías de derecha o de izquierda), sino una apreciación del presente, que a menudo va acompañada de la conciencia de que el mejor cambio genera perdedores. “No se idolatra lo que está pasado y desaparecido. Lo que se estima es el presente; y se estima no por sus conexiones con una antigüedad remota, ni porque se reconozca porque sea más admirable que cualquier alternativa, sino por su familiaridad.” Se trata de una disposición “cálida y positiva con respecto al disfrute y fría y crítica con respecto a la innovación y el cambio”. Es difícil imaginar el mundo sin ella: “Cada vez que se alcanza una identidad firme, y también donde parece que la identidad está en un equilibrio precario, es probable que prevalezca una disposición conservadora”. | Daniel Gascón

Más...


Ensayo de Oakeshott: Qué es ser conservador

Elogio de la edad gris

Theresa May, la mujer que gobernará el Reino Unido 26 años después de Margaret Thatcher

Nació el 1 de octubre de 1956 en Eastbourne, Sussex, Inglaterra.

Hija única del clérigo anglicano Hubert Brasier y de Zaidee Barnes.

A los doce años decidió dedicarse a la política. Se educó en colegios estatales y también en una escuela católica privada. A los trece años entró en la escuela secundaria femenina de Holton Park, en Wheatley, Oxfordshire. Posteriormente ingresó en la Universidad de Oxford, donde cursó estudios de Geografía en la universidad de San Hugh, graduándose con un BA (Hons) en 1977.

Feminista, seria y extremadamente conservadora, tenaz y trabajadora, se la ha comparado con Margaret Thatcher y también con Angela Merkel, que como ella, es hija de un sacerdote.

Trabajó durante seis años en el Banco de Inglaterra y tras un periplo como consultora financiera para la Association for Payment Clearing Services, donde llegó a estar al cargo del Departamento de Asuntos Europeos, ingresó en el partido conservador. Su estreno político llegó en 1986 como concejal por la autoridad local del barrio londinense de Merton, después fue elegida por primera vez como miembro del Parlamento en 1997 por Maidenhead.

Se convirtió en la primera mujer Presidenta del Partido Conservador, y jurado del Muy Honorable Consejo Privado de Su Majestad en 2002. Trabajó junto a Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Howard y David Cameron en la Cámara de los Comunes y fue Secretaria de Estado de trabajo y pensiones. Cuando Cameron se convirtió en primer ministro en mayo de 2010, fue nombrada Ministra del Interior y de Igualdad; (cedió este último cargo a Maria Miller en 2012 ). Es la persona que durante más años ha portado la cartera de Interior en el último medio siglo.

En sus años en el Gobierno sufrió diferentes polémicas y, además de su campaña por favorecer una mayor diversidad, tuvo que hacer frente a disputas con algunos compañeros de gabinete, como Michael Gove, uno de sus rivales por el centro conservador con quien tuvo un duro enfrentamiento relacionado con la lucha contra el extremismo islámico. Fundó en 2006 la asociación Women2win para defender el acceso de las mujeres al Parlamento.

En junio de 2016, tras el anuncio de renuncia de Cameron antes de octubre de 2016, anuncio su candidatura para sucederlo.

Padece diabetes desde 2012.

El 6 de septiembre de 1980 se casó con Philip John May y no tiene hijos. Conoció a su marido, un banquero dos años menor que ella, en la universidad a través de Benazir Bhutto, la líder pakistaní asesinada.

Vía Buscabiografías

Theresa May es una grave amenaza a la libertad

heresa May will become Britain’s new prime minister on Wednesday. And that should concern us all. Not just those who backed Brexit, and fear that the coronation of May, a Remainer, will mean further delays on triggering Article 50, ending in Brexit lite. It should also worry anyone who values living in a free society. During her time as home secretary, May’s contempt for civil liberties, her mad enthusiasm for using state power to achieve her political ends, was disturbing. And now, thanks to Andrea Leadsom quitting the leadership race today, and May becoming PM-in-waiting, we can no longer afford to give May’s authoritarian streak a free pass.

May is the figurehead for what is the most powerful authoritarian faction in today’s political firmament. She keeps alive the bland, technocratic, Third Way politics that began under New Labour, but she combines it with a vaguely socially conservative outlook. In this way, her authoritarian tendencies are constantly dressed up as mere managerial competence. She’s not undermining liberties, really; she’s just ‘getting on with it’ – she’s ‘getting the job done’. To May, the freedoms of the individual fall under the same category as, say, paper shortages, or lazy secretaries: obstacles to efficient management; administrative hurdles to be overcome. Consider the action she’s taken on drugs. In 2014, against all advice, she banned Khat – a mild stimulant, popular with Somalis and comparable in harm to coffee. But that wasn’t enough. She then introduced the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which came into force in April 2016. The bill effectively prohibits the possession and use of any psychoactive substance – except those on a pre-approved government list. The intention was to crack down on so-called ‘legal highs’ – but the real effect the bill will have is to turn on its head the age-old principle that actions should be legal until made illegal – under May, it seems, actions are illegal until they’re made legal. An important principle of civil society is, to May’s mind, a managerial nuisance: this principle stopped her from ‘getting the job done’, and therefore it had to go.

Then there is her record on immigration. In one recent TV interview, she refused to rule out the deportation of EU nationals following Brexit; and, at her leadership campaign launch, she suggested that EU nationals could be a useful ‘negotiating point’ when talking to Brussels about our post-Brexit deal. Once again, the liberties of millions of people in Britain are, for May, little more than a deal-brokering tool, a card to be played in Brexit negotiations, all, of course, in the name of effective government.

This instrumentalising, technocratic, illiberal attitude is not just a post-referendum development. In April 2016, May oversaw the introduction of new rules according to which non-EU nationals who earn less than £35,000 – well above the average salary – can be deported. She also wrongly deported nearly 50,000 non-EU students, on the false grounds that they had failed English tests. And who can forget the vans, pioneered by May, which cruised around London telling illegal immigrants to ‘go home or face arrest’?

Más...

El Reino Unido aborda una reforma federal con plena soberanía para Escocia, Gales e Irlanda del Norte

THE GUARDIAN.- The governance of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be reinvented within a new voluntary union in a bid to save the UK from disintegration, an independent all-party group of experts will argue this week.

The Constitution Reform Group, convened by former Conservative cabinet minister Lord Salisbury, is to make the the case for radical constitutional change in the UK by claiming the need has been boosted by the vote to leave the European Union.

Their proposals say the existing union should be replaced with fully devolved government in each part of the UK, with each given full sovereignty over its own affairs. The Westminster parliament, the group says, should then be reduced to 146 MPs. The individual nations and regions of the UK would then be encouraged to pool sovereignty to cover the matters they wish to be dealt with on a shared basis.

The proposals say they “start from the position that each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a unit that both can and should determine its own affairs to the extent that it considers it should; but that each unit should also be free to choose to share, through an efficient and effective United Kingdom, functions which are more effectively exercised on a shared basis.”

The new construction suggests a complete reversal of the UK’s current constitutional arrangement, in which all sovereignty formally rests in the centre and is then devolved to regions on a piecemeal basis.

“The time for radical change has come. This country needs a new act of union,” Salisbury told the Guardian. “We are in a different world following the Brexit vote. The top-down, ad hoc approach to the structure of the United Kingdom needs to be replaced. We believe that our approach based on consent will provide a stronger union than the one that we now have and which is under challenge.”

The Constitution Reform Group includes the former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Labour Northern Ireland and Wales secretary Peter Hain, the former clerk of the House of Commons Lord Lisvane, and the former Ulster Unionist politician David Burnside.

The group claims it has the support of former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major, and from the current chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, Graham Brady. Both senior backers are significant as the Conservative party, which is so dominant in England, has often been reluctant to embrace new constitutional thinking about the union, especially if it involves federalism.

Más...

El primer intento legal para evitar el Brexit se verá ante el Tribunal Supremo británico el 16 de julio

The first legal attempt to prevent the prime minister initiating Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is to be heard later this month.

A high court judge, Mr Justice Cranston, has set 19 July for a preliminary hearing of the judicial review challenge brought on behalf of the British citizen Deir Dos Santos.

The claim argues that only parliament – not the prime minister – can authorise the signing of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which begins the UK’s formal withdrawal process.

Other legal claims making a similar point are also being prepared by the law firm Mishcon de Reya. Brexit supporters staged a demonstration outside their London office on Thursday with a banner and placards declaring “‘Invoke article 50 now” and “‘Uphold the Brexit vote”.

Más...

La historia del Brexit trata principalmente de valores, no de desigualdad económica

For me, what really stands out about figure 2 is the importance of support for the death penalty. Nobody has been out campaigning on this issue, yet it strongly correlates with Brexit voting intention. This speaks to a deeper personality dimension which social psychologists like Bob Altemeyer – unfortunately in my view – dub Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). A less judgmental way of thinking about RWA is order versus openness. The order-openness divide is emerging as the key political cleavage, overshadowing the left-right economic dimension. This was noticed as early as the mid-1970s by Daniel Bell, but has become more pronounced as the aging West’s ethnic transformation has accelerated.
(...)
Karen Stenner, author of the Authoritarian Dynamic, argues that people are divided between those who dislike difference – signifying a disordered identity and environment – and those who embrace it. The former abhor both ethnic and moral diversity. Many see the world as a dangerous place and wish to protect themselves from it.

Pat Dade at Cultural Dynamics has produced a heat map of the kinds of values that correspond to strong Euroscepticism, and to each other. This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’) correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’), or who prioritise expressive individualism and cultural equality (‘Pioneers’) voted Remain.

Más...

El juego de palabras con el que el FBI exculpó a Hillary

El director del FBI James Comey ignoró que la imprudencia extrema es negligencia grave

...in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of Al Qaeda operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

Yet earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey — knowing that his bosses in the DOJ would accept his legal conclusions about Clinton's failure to keep state secrets secure, because they had removed themselves from independently judging the FBI's work — told the public that whereas the inadvertence of the above defendants was sufficient to justify their prosecutions, somehow Clinton's repeated extreme recklessness was not.

It is obvious that a different standard is being applied to Clinton than was applied to Petraeus and the others.

Más...

La ética no es el punto fuerte de Hillary [The New York Times]

THE NEW YORK TIMES.- President Obama is not upset about being pulled into the Clinton Under Toad, to use an old John Irving expression. He thinks Washington is so broken that the next president will need a specific skill set to function, and he thinks Hillary has that.

But what should disturb Obama, who bypassed his own vice president to lay out the red carpet for Hillary, is that the email transgression is not a one off. It’s part of a long pattern of ethical slipping and sliding, obsessive secrecy and paranoia, and collateral damage.

Comey’s verdict that Hillary was “negligent” was met with sighs rather than shock. We know who Hillary and Bill are now. We’ve been held hostage to their predilections and braided intrigues for a long time. (On the Hill, Comey refused to confirm or deny that he’s investigating the Clinton Foundation, with its unseemly tangle of donors and people doing business with State.)

Más...

La corrección política 'diversifica' Oxford

Oxford sustituye imágenes de hombres blancos por negros, mujeres o gays

Oxford University is replacing some portraits of famous men with female, black and gay leaders to counter its ‘male, pale and stale’ image.

It is commissioning artists to paint dozens of new portraits to hang in its ancient buildings at a cost of £900 each.

Stickers with the words ‘next in frame’ have been put up around Oxford, asking students and staff to nominate suitable subjects by the end of this week.

In addition, colleges are already redecorating dining and lecture halls with new pictures and photographs to reflect the diversity of their alumni.

Pictures of author Jonathan Swift, 16th century poet John Donne and bible translator William Tyndale were all removed. And portraits of TV presenter Natasha Kaplinsky, author Hari Kunzru and journalist Naomi Wolf have been put up.

The transformations are under way at a time when Oxford has faced intense international scrutiny over the presence of longstanding male symbols.

Students led by Ntokozo Qwabe, a South African-born Rhodes scholar, unsuccessfully campaigned for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College, arguing it was a reminder of apartheid.

It failed in January, when Oriel’s governing body ruled out removing the statue after furious donors threatened to withdraw gifts and bequests worth more than £100million.

A month later, the National Union of Students’ Black Students’ Campaign described Oxford University as ‘one of the most male, pale and stale places of learning in Britain’.

It was revealed yesterday that a photograph of feminist and former Rhodes scholar, Naomi Wolf, will go on display in Rhodes House, home of the scholarship scheme that pays for non-British postgraduates to study at Oxford. She admitted she left Oxford in the 1980s without finishing her doctorate after encountering ‘horrible’ sexism and anti-semitism. She returned more than 20 years later to complete it.

Ms Wolf insisted that ‘changing iconography helps to change how you see history’.

She told a newspaper: ‘In my college, New College, there are portraits of men everywhere.

‘While pictures are not the same as gender or race equality, I do not think this is trivial. If all you see are white men, white men, white men, it is very hard to believe that people in your society think you have a place in history.’

Más...

Entrevista con Juncker y Schulz: 'Mortal para Europa'

Los presidentes del Parlamento Europeo y de la Comisión Europea, Martin Schulz y Jean-Claude Juncker, hablan para Der Spiegel de las consecuencias del Brexit, de los fracasos de los líderes de la UE y de lss llamadas telefónicos que se hacen cada mañana.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Juncker, who was the first person you talked to after hearing the news of Brexit?

Juncker: With Martin Schulz. He's in the habit of talking to me on the phone each morning between 7 and 8 a.m. It's a habit I sometimes wish he could drop.

Schulz: I seem to remember it being between 6 and 7 a.m. I was shocked. In the days before the vote, I bet that the British would stay in the EU.

Juncker: I put my money on Brexit. The EU Financial Stability Commissioner, Jonathan Hill from Britain, still owes me a pound. (Eds. Note: Hill announced his resignation from the Commission in the wake of the Brexit vote.)

SPIEGEL: What did you say on the phone?

Schulz: I said: "Jean-Claude, I think this isn't going well." Then I advocated for a quick response from the EU. The last thing we need right now is uncertainty.

Juncker: I shared his opinion. It was important for the Brits to trigger Article 50 as quickly as possible in order to avoid any uncertainties. That was also the tenor of the press release the European Commission, Parliament and Council issued afterward.

SPIEGEL: Just like on that Friday, you often present yourselves as extremely tight political partners. Can you appreciate that some in Europe see your relationship as cronyism?

Juncker: Nonsense. Martin and I lead the two important community institutions, whose tasks include working together in confidence. After 30 years in Brussels, I can tell you: The relationship between the Commission and the Parliament has probably never been as good as it is now.

SPIEGEL: That's precisely what many people find problematic. Parliaments are ultimately responsible for keeping governments in check -- not acting as their reinforcements.

Schulz: There can be no talk of reinforcements. Jean-Claude and I are fully aware that we have different roles. There's also friction between us, for instance with the agreement for visa liberalization for Turkey. The Commission sent us a proposal. While 66 of our 72 conditions had been met, many of the most important ones had not been, including the reform of anti-terror laws. So we put the agreement on ice. The Commission very often has a very unpleasant time in Parliament.

Juncker: I don't let it get to me. I said in my inaugural address that I am not the Council's secretary, nor am I the Parliament's lackey. That can sometimes lead to conflicts, which are defused through dialogue. Martin invariably knows what the Commission thinks, and I'm well informed about the sensitivities of the Parliament.

Seguir leyendo...

¿Por qué se sigue rescatando a la banca?

El problema de Europa es triple.

- Una economía hiperbancarizada. Los activos totales de la banca en Europa superan el 320% del PIB de la Eurozona. En el cénit de la crisis, en EEUU no llegaban al 80%.

- Una errónea política de dar la patada hacia delante vía tipos bajos y alta liquidez ha hecho que los préstamos de difícil cobro se acumulen ante la entelequia de que “en unos años todo se arregla” gracias al BCE. Los préstamos de difícil cobro en EEUU en el peor momento de la crisis no llegaban al 7% del total, en Italia la cifra es casi el triple, hoy. En la Eurozona los préstamos de difícil cobro (seamos serios, la mayoría son simplemente incobrables superan los 900.000 millones de euros) .

- Exigencia política de que “fluya el crédito”. A la banca europea se le ha diagnosticado el “saneamiento” erróneamente y mucho antes de tiempo por la obsesión de los Estados de que se lancen a prestar a toda velocidad, a pesar de que ni las condiciones económicas ni de riesgo aconsejaban aumentar el balance, porque la demanda de crédito solvente no aumentaba. Vía la mayor política de represión financiera de la historia de la Unión Europea, se ha debilitado, en vez que permitir que la banca se fortalezca. A pesar de enormes provisiones y ampliaciones de capital, el proceso de fortalecimiento de los balances bancarios ha sido mucho más lento de lo deseable.

Hasta que en Europa no se rompa este triángulo letal no se va a salir de la crisis. Pero ningún Estado quiere hacer una reforma financiera como la española porque pierde poder en el sistema financiero y quiere tener a su alrededor “sus bancos”. La viñeta superior, cortesía de Signe Wilkinson, lo ilustra magistralmente. DANIEL LACALLE

Seguir leyendo...

'150.000 € millones serían suficiente para recapitalizar la banca europea', dice el economista jefe de Deutsche Bank

DIE WELT.- Der Chefökonom der Deutschen Bank fordert ein milliardenschweres Rettungsprogramm für europäische Banken. Die Institute sollten nach amerikanischem Vorbild mit frischem Kapital ausgestattet werden. Damals war der Staat mit 475 Milliarden Dollar eingesprungen. "In Europa muss das Programm nicht so groß sein. Mit 150 Milliarden Euro lassen sich die europäischen Banken rekapitalisieren", sagte David Folkerts-Landau der "Welt am Sonntag".

Insbesondere Italien und der Zustand der dortigen Banken bereiten dem Experten große Sorgen. Der öffentlich kolportierte Kapitalbedarf von 40 Milliarden Euro dürfte noch konservativ kalkuliert sein, so Folkerts-Landau. Die Bankenrettung hält er für derart dringlich, dass er dafür auch einen möglichen Bruch mit den Regeln der neuen Banken-Richtlinie in Kauf nimmt.

Más...

La izquierda regresiva y sus juegos de palabras

Recientemente, el senador demócrata estadounidense Dick Durbin admitió sin pelos en la lengua que exigía una revisión de los manuales de entrenamiento antiterrorista del FBI con el fin de hacerlos más políticamente correctos y aceptables para los musulmanes moderados. Revisión que incluía la omisión de palabras como 'islamista' o 'yihad', y que ya ha sido adoptada con un celo digno de mejor causa por el FBI. El ejemplo más palmario ha sido la poda de estas expresiones en la información sobre la llamada telefónica del autor de la masacre de Orlando. Expresiones que fueron incluidas más tarde ante las protestas de ciudadanos y funcionarios públicos.

QUILLETTE.- In an increasingly polarized political climate, where left-wing masochism and right-wing authoritarianism are threatening to destroy Western civil society, such refusal to label Islamic extremism by its name for fear of offending Muslims will do more to empower the political fringe than the sensible middle. Furthermore, by waiting to deal with the symptoms of violent radicalization as opposed to preventing it in the first place, the administration will continue to rely on domestic heavy-handedness and international militarism, and thus alienating the very Muslim communities whose cooperation it seeks. This censorship likewise dis-empowers the liberal and secular forces within Islam who are rightly frustrated by the left’s apologia for Muslim theocracy.

It is time to unbind ourselves from the shrouds of political correctness and identity politics. It is time to stand up to cowardice in the face of duplicitous theocrats who conflate criticism of religious beliefs with bigotry. Far from leading to a “clash of civilizations” narrative rightly feared by moderates and counter-terrorism experts, honesty in the face of obfuscation will dis-empower the propaganda of right-wing demagogues intent on realizing this self-fulfilling prophecy. At the same time, it will help moderate Muslims to redefine the very doctrines and beliefs responsible for the death of thousands of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

In his essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell wrote: “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” This should be remembered whenever accusations of “Islamophobia” are hurled at those who would dare to question the violent doctrines of Islam. But Orwell also cautioned against succumbing to “political quietism,” and the “pure wind” of political speech is not just evident in acts of commission. When government officials and legislators omit any mention of Islamism as an antecedent to violence, they are inoculating dangerous ideas from the searing eye of rational criticism.

Leer el artículo completo, aquí