Islamic Call to Prayer

JERUSALEM — Jewish residents of the Holy City are becoming increasingly annoyed by the five-times-a-day calls to prayer broadcast by local mosques:

While recent rioting in and around Jerusalem’s Old City has left religious tensions between the capital’s Muslims and Jews simmering, a new dispute – this time concerning the volume of prayers, more than the prayers themselves – is resonating in outlying neighborhoods.

Jewish residents of these areas, all of which are in close proximity to Arab neighborhoods in the capital’s east, have begun to complain that the adhan, or Islamic call to prayer, which is broadcast five times a day from loudspeakers inside local mosques, has become an intolerable nuisance, particularly when it blasts through their neighborhoods at 4 a.m. every day.

“It’s as if they took the speakers and put them inside my bedroom,” Yehudit Raz, a resident of the northeast Pisgat Ze’ev neighborhood, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. “And it’s not from one mosque or two mosques – we’re talking about tons of speakers going off, one after the other, every morning.”

As with everything in the Middle East, the issue is complicated. Praying at the assigned times is a devout mandate among Muslims, so it is imperative for them that people be reminded to do so. This would not be a problem if the call to prayer could somehow ring only in the ears of believers. But the majority of Jerusalemites — who are mainly Jews but also include some Christians — hear the call as well. So the issue, politically and ethically, is one of competing priorities: the desire to ensure freedom of religion and the desire not to have a religion forced on those who do not believe in it.

Still, Europe is also facing this philosophical dilemma. The historic English city of Oxford has been debating whether to allow the Central Oxford Mosque to broadcast the calls to prayer. Most significantly, a majority of voters in Switzerland recently voted in a referendum to ban the construction of minarets (from which many calls to prayer are broadcast):

Swiss voters on Sunday adopted a referendum banning the construction of minarets, seen by some on the far right as a sign of encroaching Islamism.

“The Federal Council respects this decision,” said a statement from Switzerland’s government. “Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted. The four existing minarets will remain.

“It will also be possible to continue to construct mosques,” the government statement said. “Muslims in Switzerland are able to practice their religion alone or in community with others, and live according to their beliefs just as before.”

The issue, of course, is similar to that of Christian churches ringing bells every Sunday. When Europe was overwhelmingly Christian for many centuries, this was not a problem. But now I wonder what would happen if a group of non-Christians in Europe or the United States sued to stop the ringing out of the same desire that non-Muslims have to stop the calls to prayer. But the fact remains that Europe has been traditionally Christian. As Ross Douthat notes, the referendum could have occurred anywhere on the continent:

Switzerland isn’t an E.U. member state, but the minaret moment could have happened almost anywhere in Europe nowadays — in France, where officials have floated the possibility of banning the burka; in Britain, which elected two representatives of the fascistic, anti-Islamic British National Party to the European Parliament last spring; in Italy, where a bill introduced this year would ban mosque construction and restrict the Islamic call to prayer.

More and more Europeans are feeling — rightly or not — that their civilization is under attack and in danger of become Islamizied after decades of lax immigration policies. As Douthat observes, this view is both correct and not:

The immigrants came first as guest workers, recruited after World War II to relieve labor shortages, and then as beneficiaries of generous asylum and family reunification laws, designed to salve Europe’s post-colonial conscience. The European elites assumed that the divide between Islam and the West was as antiquated as scimitars and broadswords, and that a liberal, multicultural, post-Christian federation would have no difficulty absorbing new arrivals from more traditional societies…

Millions of Muslims have accepted European norms. But millions have not. This means polygamy in Sweden; radical mosques in Britain’s fading industrial cities; riots over affronts to the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark; and religiously inspired murder in the Netherlands. It means terrorism, and the threat of terrorism, from London to Madrid.

And it means a rising backlash, in which European voters support extreme measures and extremist parties because their politicians don’t seem to have anything to say about the problem.

As I wrote in an earlier post on the philosophical conflict between feminism and multiculturalism in regards to the way that some devout Muslims treat women badly, the solution to the conflict in Europe over the call to prayer in Islam is simply to enforce the law (and enact one beforehand, if necessary). If there are zoning laws or similar ordinances that restrict the broadcasting of noise, enforce them. If not, enact them. Muslims and Christians, for example, may complain about a violation of their religious freedom, but there would be no violation if the law is applied equally and fairly to all religious institutions. For once, the answer is actually quite simple. As my twelfth-grade AP Political Science teacher once put it during a discussion of a U.S. Supreme Court case that denied the right of a Native American tribe to use drugs during a religious ritual, having a religion does not give you the right to break the law.

However, this solution might not work in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel. Islam is only religion here that broadcasts matter relating to religious practice, so any laws or ordinances limiting noise might be inherently discriminatory against Muslims. I do not know the solution here.

Addendum: If any of my American readers live near Muslim communities, I am curious: Do you hear the calls to prayer? Are they regulated by zoning or any related ordinances? I used to cover zoning issues when I was a reporter in Boston, so I am curious.

Elsewhere: Daniel Pipes argues that Christians in Arab countries should be treated equally if Muslims in Europe want to be, and he adds that the Swiss referendum could be a bellwether of Islam’s future in Europe.

FIFA World Cup Predictions

Here are the eight groups of four teams each that will play in the 2010 World Cup, and here is the match schedule. The top two teams in each group will make it to the Round of 16.

As I have always said, international soccer is war by other means. I cannot wait.

Here are my predictions (who will win, not whom I want to win):

• Group A — France and South Africa
• Group B — Argentina and Greece
• Group C — USA and England
• Group D — Germany and Australia
• Group E — Netherlands and Denmark
• Group F — Italy and Slovakia
• Group G — Brazil and Portugal
• Group H — Spain and Switzerland

Round of 16:

• France over Greece
• USA over Australia
• Netherlands over Slovakia
• Brazil over Switzerland
• Argentina over South Africa
• Germany over England
• Italy over Denmark
• Spain over Portugal

Quarterfinals:

• France over USA
• Brazil over Netherlands
• Argentina over Germany
• Italy over Spain

Semifinals:

• Brazil over France
• Italy over Argentina

Finals:

• Italy over Brazil

Since Israel did not make the cut and few Americans care about soccer, I will support my third-favorite country: England! As a alternate, I will also root for Argentina since I have a lot of friends from there whom have persuaded me to hate Brazil.

Israeli Settlements

JERUSALEM — Law professor David M. Phillips sets the historical and legal record straight on how Israeli settlements are not a violation of international law:

Though routinely referred to nowadays as “Palestinian” land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term…

The Ottoman Empire contained the area known as Palestine for hundreds of years. The British Empire defeated the Ottomans, took control of the region, gave the land east of the Jordan River to the future kingdom of Jordan, and offered to split the remaining land west of the Jordan between the Jews and Arabs who were living there. The Arabs west of the Jordan rejected the partition, the British withdrew from the area, Israel declared independence, and then the surrounding Arab countries invaded.

By the end of the 1948 war, Jordan had taken control of the West Bank and east Jerusalem. (The so-called “Green Line” has merely been the dividing line between the Israeli and Jordanian armies at the time the cease-fire began.) Most of the Arabs west of the Jordan had moved to the West Bank and Gaza Strip (the latter was held by Egypt). Some of the Arabs had fled for their safety; others had left Israeli territory to make way for the invading armies; and still others had been pushed out by the Israeli army. Many of the Arabs in the West Bank eventually obtained Palestinian passports; Yassir Arafat, of course, was an Egyptian from Gaza. In the 1967 war, the surrounding countries attacked Israel again. In the end, Israel took over the West Bank, west Jerusalem, and Gaza to protect itself against any future attacks by Jordan and Egypt.

So, the only three entities that could possibly have sovereignty over the West Bank are Britain, Israel, and Jordan. England, of course, does not want to retake any possessions in the Middle East. Jordan does not want anything to do with the West Bank anymore because Palestinian terrorists nearly overthrew the monarchy in 1970. This leaves Israel.

The Palestinians, of course, could have a state in the future — but they have never had collective, sovereign authority over the West Bank in the past. As the European Union debates whether to recognize a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, it is worth remembering this fact.

Revealing Clothing

JERUSALEM — British researchers have discovered what sensible men have always known:

Striking the right balance between revealing too much and being too conservative in how much skin is on show has long been a dilemma for women when choosing the right outfit for a night out.

However, a study by experts at the University of Leeds has come to the rescue by calculating the exact proportion of the body that should be exposed for optimum allure…

Women who revealed around 40 per cent of their skin attracted twice as many men as those who covered up.

However, those who exposed any more than this also fared worse. Experts believe that showing too much flesh puts men off because it suggests they might be unfaithful.

Psychologist Dr Colin Hendrie, who led the study, told the Daily Mail: “Any more than 40 per cent and the signal changes from ‘allure’ to one indicating general availability and future infidelity.” (emphasis added)

Although I agree with the findings of the study, there are a few issues with the methodology. Of course, it is impossible to control for the hundreds of variables that occur during interpersonal reactions in a club. There are potentially untold numbers of reasons why one woman would be approached more or less often than another. In addition, the intention of the men observed must be taken into account — were they looking for a one-night stand or something meaningful? It would have been impossible for the researchers to discern this. (More on this later.)

Still, the forest is correct even if they were some issues with the trees. Women who wear extremely-revealing clothing can always be categorized as one or more of the following:

• They have low self-esteem and want interest from men to make them feel better about themselves.
• They have low self-esteem and think their looks are the only positive quality they possess.
• They are — for lack of a better term — sluts who are looking for action.
• Service-sector employees like waitresses and bartenders who are looking for good tips.

As I noted in a prior post, women are much more attractive when they dress modestly and conservatively — what is unseen is always more sexy and alluring than what is seen. A sense of mystery creates desire. For example, I have always thought that women in Jerusalem — where I once lived and will shortly live again — are generally much more attractive than the libertine, scantily-clad girls in Tel Aviv. (The picture posted above is an example of the type of clothing that a modern Orthodox woman may wear.)

In addition, a conservatively-attired woman will attract a better class of men. The British researchers in the posted article noted that women in the club who covered up too much were approached less often. The reason is obvious: drunk guys in clubs are looking for one-night stands, and they know subconsciously that a modestly-dressed girl will likely not be interested in meaningless sex. (Not one of my married friends met his or her future spouse in a bar or club.) The researchers would have found that a conservative dress was more beneficial in a dating environment other than a bar or nightclub.

The cited study reports that women should leave forty percent of their skin uncovered if they want to attract attention in a club. I would posit that women should cover more if they want to attract a quality guy anywhere.

Related: The Battle of the Sexes, Fashionable Modesty, and The Return of Modesty.

(Hat tip: Vox Day)

The Economic Future

Every American should watch this thirty-minute, non-partisan documentary on the financial apocalypse towards which the United States is heading.

Related: Why My Generation is Pissed Off and The Upcoming Generational War

Nationality

In a prior post, I addressed the cultural nihilism in the United Kingdom that might be a result of the disappearance of a “British” identity (as opposed to “English,” “Welsh,” or “Scottish”). Now, after decades of immigration, the French government has unveiled a controversial “What is French?” website. I expect more of this to occur in the future.

Related: Death of the Nation-States and the The Future of the Nation-State

Tony Blair

The former British prime minister might not become the first president of Europe after all.

Cultural Nihilism

LONDON and JERUSALEM — The Daily Mail reports on efforts to change British drinking habits (and includes, of course, several tabloid-worthy pictures):

Such scenes are not uncommon, which is why Cardiff – one of the country’s worst cities for binge drinking – has just banned boozing on the streets.

The crackdown is aimed at late night revellers, targeting rowdy hen and stag parties and generally trying to make the streets safer after dark.

Police can use the new powers to confiscate alcohol or arrest anyone who defies them.

The ban has been a success in trials in small areas but will spread across the entire city in time for Christmas and the New Year.

Yesterday it was hailed as a big step towards ‘reclaiming the streets’ from drunken yobs.

Cardiff Central MP Jenny Willott said: ‘Late night alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour is a huge problem on the streets.

‘People deserve to have a night out without the fear of intimidation or facing violence as a result of excessive alcohol consumption.

‘This ban should help the law-abiding and responsible majority to reclaim the streets.’

When I lived in London in 2001 and worked as a bartender at the Zetland Arms, I observed that British people drink a lot — a lot more than your average American. But it was still within reasonable limits. Every night, the regulars — a friendly-but-sad bunch — would arrive after work and drink pint after pint while watching sports. Then they would leave for home late at night and return the next evening.

Later in the evening, the young people would arrive. Since pubs had to close at 12:30 a.m., they would drink a lot and then move to a club or hang out on the streets. (It is legal to drink outside in counties including Britain and Israel.) But I rarely saw any problems. The closest I ever got was when I took the drink out of the hand of a drunken Scotsman because I was angry and he refused to leave at closing time. Luckily, the manager came over and calmed him down. (One lesson of bartending in London: If you want to befriend a Scotsman, mention the film “Braveheart” in a positive way.)

But, sadly, it seems that things have become much worse:

…the proportion of women who binge-drink almost doubled between 1998 and 2006 and is now at 15% (men who binge-drink increased by 1% to 23%). However, the proportion of 16- to 24-year-old men binge-drinking decreased by 9% since 2000. Researchers also found that whilst fewer children are drinking, those that do drink are drinking much more than they did in the past.

Violent crime by youths is also an increasing problem. If the reports are credible (I have not been to Britain since 2001), then English cities are dealing with mobs of drunken, violent youths every night.

If you want to see the future of a country, look at its young people. Great Britain, once known as the economic, cultural, and fashion capital of the world, seems to be crumbling. I first realized this when former British Prime Minister Tony Blair started giving speeches several years ago defending the very idea of the country itself.

The still-unanswered question facing Blair in the 1990s was: What does it mean to be “British” as opposed to “English,” “Welsh,” or “Scottish”? The United Kingdom is a political entity created through conquest that has rarely, if ever, had a collective sense of identity. Blair tried, unsuccessfully, to brand the country as “Cool Britannia.”

The British Empire collapsed after World War II, and the British people never quite recovered subconsciously as the United States, a former colony, became the new leader of the free world. Decades leader, the British people viewed Blair as George W. Bush’s lap dog in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. (In geopolitical terms, Blair could do little else.) It was a confirmation of the global humiliation that the British people have been feeling after centuries of power and influence had disappeared.

In recent years, Scotland and Wales formed their regional parliaments and became more autonomous. The current prime minister, Gordon Brown, is a Scot and now deeply unpopular. It is indeed possible that Great Britain will cease to exist in the coming years. As the country devolves, it might also lose sovereignty to the European Union and the euro.

Cultural divisions and economic conditions are also tearing the country apart. Decades of mass immigration have caused many Brits to feel that their country is no longer “British.” The most-popular, national food is now seen as chicken tikka masala rather than fish ‘n’ chips. (One former coworker here in Israel moved here even though he is not a Jew because he said that his country no longer exists.) Radical Muslims in Britain condemn democracy, want to impose Shari’a law, and have plotted terrorist attacks. Anti-Semitism is skyrocketing (see here and here). Young men are becoming more apathetic and willing to live with their parents as well as on the dole.

The most significant example of the negative feelings held by Britons was the recent inclusion of Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right British National Party, on the political, panel-discussion show “Question Time.” Both journalism and the free-market are perfect bellwethers of cultural trends. Companies, even media ones, must tailor their products, services, and marketing pitches to pre-existing trends in society. Journalists, who ideally have their fingers on the pulses of people, decide which views are relevant to a the discussion of a given topic. When the BBC, the standard-bearer of British journalism, decides that a person like Griffin is suited to a serious political discussion, that is a clear indicator of what a significant segment of society is feeling.

In the theory of Alexander Fraser Tytler, Great Britain may be nearing towards the end of the life-cycle of all nations and empires as a result of all of these trends and feelings. With all of these cultural, political, and social problems in the subconscious minds of young people, is it any wonder that they seem to have lost hope in the future? Without any optimism, they turn to alcohol and violence out of nihilistic despair.

One of my favorite 1970s-era bands is the Moody Blues, and I think their following pop-rock song from 2000 is an apt description of British malaise:

We’re on a runaway train, rolling down the track / And where it’s take us to, who knows where it’s at / But if we hold together, we can make it back / For an English sunset

And I’ve decided I can live with humility / And the sad decay / ‘Cause that’s the English way

We keep the faith alive in every thing we do / And at the end of the line, we still keep coming through / And though it’s sad and sorry, what else can we do / It’s an English sunset

And I’ve decided they can wait for the requiem / And take it day by day / ‘Cause that’s the English way

As someone who has loved British culture since he was a child, I write this post with extreme sadness. Still, I fear that the same attitudes are affecting behavior in Israel, specifically in Jerusalem. As Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz notes:

Anyone with more than passing knowledge of the atmosphere in central Jerusalem will be aware that the heart of our capital city is rapidly becoming a late night no-go zone.

Clusters of violent youth rule and roam the streets, armed with knives and with the beer and vodka bottles they’ve emptied, picking fights with unsuspecting victims.

Of course, the police are not solely to blame for the deepening climate of intimidation and violence. As [Public Security Minister Yitzhak] Aharonovitch and Israel Police Insp.-Gen. Dudi Cohen have frequently observed, ours is becoming an increasingly violent society, more and more kids are now carrying knives, and the response needs to be found, at least in part, in better parenting and better educational values.

I travel to Jerusalem several times a week, and I will likely be returning to live there soon. I was walking on the way to a pub with my girlfriend, a born-and-raised Jerusalemite, and we were speaking in English. A man on the street walked up and tried to convince us to come to his bar. (There are dozens of such people in the city center’s streets who try to get English-speaking tourists to visit their restaurant or bar.)

I waved him away and said, “We don’t need [your flier]” in Hebrew. His response? “Your accent sucks!” he yelled in English. I was about to walk over and return the favor when my girlfriend stopped me and said, “Do NOT talk like that here!” Unfortunately, people have been assaulted there for less.

As I have written in my Letters from Israel series, the Jewish state is rife with political, religious, and social divisions that many fear will tear the country apart. This has led to increased anti-social behavior and the possible destruction of the civil society that had developed since the refounding of Israel in 1948. Perhaps young Israelis have developed the same pessimism regarding the future that British youths now have.

As a result of the geographic isolation of the United States — it is separated from the world by two, gigantic oceans — the country is usually the last to receive cultural trends from Europe (as well as technological innovations from eastern Asia). Since young people there are increasing angry and frustrated over their economic and social conditions, I wonder whether the same anti-social behavior will occur in America soon.

Dollar’s Demise

The U.S. dollar might be in serious trouble.

Update: The story might have been fake.

Bad Bosses

BNET blogger Jessica Stillman discusses stupid management practices in the United States. In response, I wanted to share some of the worst experiences I and friends have had as employees at various places in different parts of the world since graduating college in 2002:

• When I was hired, my boss said that I would be given raises of specific amounts after specific periods of time. I neglected to get this in writing. Needless to say, the raises never happened.
• A friend asked a new employer to write an employment contract. The boss laughed and said it was not necessary since they were a small, mom-and-pop operation. Of course, the boss did not do what was said in the interview. Rumor also had it that the company would not hire anyone who demanded a contract.
• In London, a gypsy swindled me out of 50 pounds when I was working as a bartender. The boss took all my future tips during the time that I worked there.
• When I was between jobs, I had scheduled a doctor’s appointment and other errands since I had the time. I found a position, and the appointment was scheduled for the second day of work. When I told my boss, he said, “This will not be a regular appointment, right?” God forbid that someone have an illness. (It was indeed a one-time thing.)
• Two employers said in interviews that it would not be a problem to pursue my MBA studies part-time in the evenings as long as I was able to arrange my schedule and do my work. Weeks later, they changed their minds and fired me even though they said my work performance was fine.
• My boss said that my compensation would be a low base-salary and a high commission of my department’s sales. The contract he offered mentioned only the base salary; he said there would be a second contract “later” for the commission. Of course, it never appeared.
• The boss at a company routinely fired people just before they would start receiving a higher salary after three months — or he would fire people just before their one-year anniversary just so he would not need to pay a severance package.

As hard as these experiences were, they proved one thing: in a recession, employers hold all the cards. When there are dozens of people for every available position, bosses can do whatever they want.

Have your own stories? Feel free to share in the comments.

Related: Why My Generation is Pissed Off

Rosh Hashanah 2009/5770

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Benji Lovitt of the humorous blog “What War Zone?” takes a trip through the streets of Tel Aviv to interview Israelis on what they think of the Jewish New Year.

But do not be misled by the lightness of Lovitt’s video. As Israelis and Jews move into the year 5770, they are increasingly frustrated and anxious over recent events. Here are some headlines from just this past weekend:

• Iran reportedly has the ability to produce a nuclear bomb and is on the way to making a missile system that could deliver it.
• The Israeli government urgently warned Israelis in India that Islamic extremists are planning additional attacks there soon.
• Britain’s Trade Union Congress is calling for a boycott of Israeli goods.
• Iran is increasing its control over Hizbollah, the Islamist group in southern Lebanon.
• The Jerusalem Post remembers Capt. Assaf Ramon, who died recently in a military plane crash. His father was the first Israeli astronaut, and he died in the Columbia space shuttle explosion.
• IDF Brigadier General Avichai Mandelblit talks to the Post about defending Israel from international, legal criticism of the military’s conduct during the recent war in Gaza. The United States has said that a UN report on the issue was “unbalanced.”
• A United Nations conference condemned Israel’s atomic program.
• Jewish celebrities including Natalie Portman, Sacha Baron Cohen, Lisa Kudrow and Jerry Seinfeld are defending the Toronto Film Festival’s decision to spotlight Tel Aviv.
• There is still rioting in Jerusalem over the opening of a parking lot on the Sabbath.

But not all of the news is bad. (Besides, many Jews at Rosh Hashanah dinners over the holiday likely told the centuries-old joke with a shrug: “They tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat!”) Here is a collection of optimistic, inspiring, or light-hearted tidbits from the weekend papers.

• Israel and the United States are working together to prepare for “every possible scenario.”
• Amotz Asa-El commends Bank of Israeli Governor Stanley Fischer for saving Israeli from the worst of the worldwide recession and making the country one of the first to bounce back.

• The Jerusalem Post profiles twelve young Israelis for their contributions in areas ranging from the arts to sports to government to music.

• Herb Keinon interviews soldiers like Isabella Fhima, a 21-year-old, Moroccan Jew, who came to Israel by herself to join the army because she believes in the country. I know many lone soliders from all over the world, and each one deserves a feature in a national newspaper.

As for me, I’ve been listening to a recent pop song by the Israeli artist Sarit Hadad (in English) to get away from the headlines:

Although I generally hate pop music, I have to admit that this song is infectious and sunny. As non-Hebrew speakers can probably understand the video, the words are about running away from life’s stress for a short while and running to the beach. The summer is on its way out here, so we only have a few weeks left to do that.

Eight Years Later

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurred eight years ago. Here are my two posts on the causes and significance of the event. I was a senior in college in Boston at the time, but these reflections were written several years later.

Tony Blair

The former British prime minister may become the first president of Europe. Charlemagne, a columnist for the Economist, writes that many people are unhappy with that prospect.

Men Living at Home

RISHON LEZION, Israel — One-third of British men under forty are reportedly living with parents:

Cost was the main factor for 59 per cent of them, but 57 per cent of women and 16 per cent of men also admitted that they liked being looked after by mum. Another 11 per cent of men said they would miss their parents too much if they left.

A lucky 56 per cent of adults who live at home get their meals cooked for them, while 55 per cent admitted that mum still does their washing.

Eighteen per cent even had their packed lunch made for them every morning.

With such pampering, many have no intention of leaving any time soon.

Nineteen per cent said they would stay until they became fed up with their parents and another 30 per cent intended to stay at home until they wanted to move in with a boyfriend or girlfriend.

One of the differences I have noticed between Israel and the United States is the attitude that people have towards living with families. Israel is a more-traditional country that places a great emphasis on family, but America has always been an individualistic country whose society has always encouraged people to leave home early and make something of themselves. In Israel, living with parents is common; in the United States, it is a sign of failure.

Nearly every twentysomething person I know — male or female — in here lives with his or her parents. The reasons are numerous. Wages are typically lower here. Minimum wage for a full-time job is the equivalent of $5.50 an hour, and even educated, non-management workers in the high-tech industry earn the equivalent of $2,000 a month before taxes. These lower wages come with higher taxes than in the United States to fund the country’s universal health-care system, and big-ticket items such as rent, electronics, and clothing can cost as much in in America as well.

In addition, those Israelis who do go to college take longer to finish their degrees. Nearly everyone serves in the military after high school until the age of twenty (for women) and twenty-one (for men). Then most people spend a year or more traveling throughout the world before settling down back in Israel. So they start college at twenty-two or later. Moreover, most Israelis study part-time while working full-time. Unlike Americans, Israelis do not want to take on student-loan debt — so they pay for it themselves through working and living at home. As a result of all these reasons, young people do not live on their own.

It is very likely that this phenomenon will spread to the Western world, at least for men, as well. First of all, more men then women are suffering as a result of the ongoing economic turmoil. Fields such as education, health-care, non-profit, and government — those that tend to attract women — are not as affected by the financial collapse as the fields of manufacturing, finance, and business — those that tend to attract men. Fewer men are going to college as well.

Although the reason for this societal change is negative, I think the end result might be beneficial for the West. Much of the problems that plague modern, American society stem from extreme individualism. More men and women are choosing to live a single life of purported fun rather than get married. Men are choosing to live in a “Guyland” of immature hedonism rather than act responsibly. Part of the reason for the economic turmoil is the selfish desire of finance managers to earn as much obscene profit as possible regardless of the risk to their firms and society as a whole. Middle-aged Americans put their parents in nursing homes rather than take care of them as people throughout the non-Western world do. In an extreme example, customers at an Indiana convenience store ignored a clerk who had been shot in a robbery and continued to shop rather than help him.

In such an environment, the United States should welcome a return to family and closeness rather than individual success at any cost.

Peter Pan, Meet Harry Potter

The New York Times reports that the children who grew up reading the “Harry Potter” books are now graduating college and entering the workforce:

Indie rock bands have sprung up inspired by their obsession, with names like Harry and the Potters, the Half Bloods, and Voldie and the Wiz Kidz, playing songs inspired by Potter lore.

Last fall, teams from Princeton, Vassar, Boston University [my alma mater!] and a dozen other schools competed in the Quidditch World Cup, in which students play a real-life version of the soccer-like contact sport featured in the books and films. (They can’t fly, but still compete with brooms between their legs.)

The continuing pull of all things Potter is a testament to the franchise’s enduring sway. But it also seems like something else: the advent of Generation Y nostalgia.

Chronologically, I am sandwiched between Generations X and Y since I was born in 1980. As a result, I came to “Harry Potter” later than most people. I was living in London and interning for a magazine in the summer of 2001, and I decided to pick up the first book to see what all the fuss was about. I never looked back. (I discovered later that the American books had been changed slightly — “mum” became “mom” and “lorries” became “trucks.” I guess the publisher decided that children are too stupid to learn words from other countries.) I am excited that the latest film adaptation should be coming to Israel soon.

Still, the Times notes an interesting aspect behind Pottermania:

Even though nostalgia hits every generation, it seems awfully early for 28-year-olds to be looking back. One possible explanation, say authors who focus on generational identity, is the impact of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The political and economic climate of the late ’90s had been as soothing as a Backstreet Boys ballad: no wars, unemployment as low as 4 percent, a $120 billion federal surplus.

Neil Howe, an author of several books on what he calls the Millennials (another term for Gen Y), draws a parallel between this nostalgic wave and the one boomers embraced with the film “American Graffiti” in 1973. That movie depicted the recent past, the early ’60s, which seemed to have vanished forever.

“It’s instant nostalgia before a huge change in the nation’s mood,” Mr. Howe said. “ ‘American Graffiti’ was nostalgia for the boomers for a world before everything changed after J.F.K.’s assassination.

“Millennials see the world before Sept. 11 as a period of innocence. Our biggest worry was the Y2K bug. That all seems a world away now.”

I completely understand. An uncle of mine always told me that college would be the best years of my life, and I am afraid that he might have been correct. I entered college in 1998 — close to the height of the dot-com craze and the Nasdaq. The world looked to be my generation’s digital oyster.

And then, September 11 occurred four months before I graduated in January 2002. I entered the journalism world after the dot-com bubble had burst and newspapers were starting their downward trajectories. Along with everyone else my age, I was burdened by crushing debt from student loans and credit cards at a time when decent job prospects looked — and still look — incredibly remote. And then came the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the re-election of one of the worst presidents in modern times, the housing-bubble collapse, and the current financial meltdown.

I could use a nice game of Quidditch. “Harry Potter” was the last pop-culture sensation that I experienced before my college-student dreams and optimistic outlook were shattered.

Related: Why My Generation is Pissed Off

Death of Nation-States

Coming Anarchy offers a hypothetical map of how Europe may look in ten years:

Even if only a few of these microstates were to be born, it could have serious consequences regionally, transatlantically and globally. In Europe, it would suddenly create a host of rich and poor states, which their previous host states balanced out. Northern Germany will get poorer and the two southern states stay very rich for example. Over time, the lack of wealth transfer from southern to northern Germany, or from northern to southern Italy will likely create less developed and poorer states within Europe no longer able to stay afloat. As an Italian friend once joked, without the north, southern Italy would turn into a Catholic Pakistan. As reader DJ noted, now more than ever, regions of today’s states are trying to maximize the economic benefits of globalization while minimizing the social costs, leading to richer regions breaking from poorer ones.

So what will independence look like? It won’t have the same meaning that we think of today. At the local level, these newly minted states will enjoy previously unparalleled independence, flexibility and likely prosperity. However, at the same time, they will be subservient to the European Union on international matters such as defense, some foreign policy, trade agreements, transportation and environmental issues. Also and perhaps most importantly, a credible Europe wide defense would have to exist to make the creation of new states viable.

As I have noted in prior posts here, here, and here, the nation-state is dying a slow death as the two forces of globalization and localization pull it in opposite directions. The intertwining of all countries’ economies necessitates that all nation-states work with each other, and another result is that all governments can fall victim to forces beyond their control as well. The Internet is also creating an infinite number of niche markets and communities within societies worldwide through the mass-segmentation of the cultural market. Mass immigration — Latin Americans into the United States as well as Arabs and eastern Europeans into western Europe are two prominent examples — is changing the ethnic characters of nation-states as well. France is becoming less “French,” and the United States is becoming less “white” and Protestant.

As one example, the United States — a country that was never entirely a nation since its population has always been comprised of people from various ethnic groups — is slowing being ripped apart on religious, ethnic, and political lines. People who are conservative and Christian get their news from Fox News and other right-wing outlets; liberals and others watch MSNBC and read The New York Times. Two collective groups of people are creating entirely different mindsets and worldviews based on the specific media each group consumes. Texans denigrate Bostonians as intellectual, liberal elitists; Bostonians view Texans as gun-touting, evolution-denying extremists. Is such a cultural situation tenable? If Coming Anarchy is correct about Europe, then the United States might follow in the continent’s footsteps.

Update: A commenter, Jeff, asks a question that I should have answered earlier: “Clearly, you think this half-millennium old system is about to die, but what do you THINK about that?”

Well, I have several thoughts. The first is the present international order of large, complex nation-states is giving way to a globalized world consisting of hundreds of small, ethnic republics or regions. Think of the planet as becoming a gigantic, patchwork quilt.

On an idealistic level, this is something beneficial. People have a subconscious desire to live among those similar to them (cities, for example, self-segregate themselves into ethnic neighborhoods), and they want the right to choose to do so. Russia is a perfect example. The country is comprised of dozens of ethnic peoples essentially held together by force — first by the czars, and then by the communist dictatorship. When Russia breaks apart — and its demographic decline is a accurate precursor — the people in the resulting republics will be much happier, and life will be more free. The same holds true for the Basques in France and Spain as well as other peoples elsewhere. Liberal nation-states always champion the freedom of democracy enjoyed by their citizens — as long as some do not want to use that right to demand a country of their own.

So, in the end, such a devolution will be beneficial. But the path there is fraught with danger and instability. Nation-states, like people and corporations, are individual entities writ large that place a primary emphasis on self-preservation. The United States had a civil war when several states wanted to secede. Russia uses force to keep a death-grip on Chechnya while the far-flung eastern part is increasingly under the influence of China. The United Kingdom does not want Scotland or Wales to become independent from England even though no one can explain what it means to be “British” any longer. Modern-day Iran consists of several peoples who were united by the sword of the ancient Persian empire. Israelis, after more than sixty years of independence, are intensely divided and cannot reconcile their three competing desires to be a Jewish state, a democratic state, and a state in all of so-called Greater Israel. (I would not be entirely surprised if the the county ends up dividing itself into a secular and religious republics in forthcoming decades — though this would eerily resemble biblical history repeating itself.) All of these countries are facing crises of identity, and many may not survive as they currently exist.

A globalized order consisting of a patchwork quilt of ethnic enclaves may lead to greater peace and prosperity — why, after all, would Wales go to war with England to conquer territory that was not Welsh — but the path to that end will be very unstable as complex nation-states fight a doomed battle to save themselves.

Building on one of my favorite subjects, devolution, the decline of the state and the proliferation of microstates, I’ve put together a map of the future of Europe in 2020. It is purely speculative and in no way a firm prediction, but rather a sketch of the possibilities and list of the most likely cases. It is by no means exhaustive and you’ll notice seemingly obvious states such as Wales, Sicily, Crete and others are not listed. This is in part because I will argue that two local conditions are necessary for a viable movement and successful independence.

Live Sports

Rick Reilly posts the top ten sporting events that people should see in person. I’ve seen the Boston Red Sox play at Fenway Park (though not against the New York Yankees) during the nine years that I lived in Boston, and I went to Wimbledon when I lived in London in 2001. But I have yet to see the rest.

Still, I am skeptical of some of his choices. Golf, at least to me, is boring enough on television. Is it any better live? And how can Reilly not include the World Cup? International soccer is essentially warfare by other means.

Nazi

A former king of England tried to betray his own people during World War II. Here is the bizarre story.

Lehman Brothers

Want to understand how one of the world’s largest financial firms went bankrupt seemingly overnight? Read this concise story. Bonus: it’s written by a student who started undergraduate studies at Oxford University when he was fifteen!

Israel and Jordan

The most logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be for Israel and Jordan to split the West Bank. See here. The Gaza Strip would be better off as part of the newly created Palestinian state than joined with Egypt as well.

Female Unhappiness

Ross Douthat comments on a recent study that many women will denounce angrily while secretly agreeing with it:

…all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

The longer that I lived in the Western world, the more I noticed that an increasing number of twenty-something and thirty-something women — at least on the urban, East Coast — who were angry and bitter. I had a long day at work, so I’ll refer to several posts that I have written on this topic.

Women go against their natural impulses by intentionally delaying marriage and motherhood into their thirties and forties. They know — but will not admit — that feminism sold them a false bill of goods. After they finally won their entry into the workforce, they realized that no one really likes to sit at a cubicle all day in a high-pressure environment that makes women more aggressive, manly, and less attractive to the opposite sex. They understand that the mass entry of women into the job market lowered real salaries — an increase in the supply of labor with the same level of demand — and turned children into latch-key kids. More women are buying small dogs and carrying for fake babies since they waited too long to have children and men can still date twenty-something girls when they are in their thirties or forties. Women are also catching on to the fact that many men are increasingly suspicious of marriage in a world of no-fault divorce proceedings that routinely strips children from fathers and gives their money to their ex-wives.

As I wrote in a lengthy essay, modern society has essentially devolved as a result of the unintended consequences of feminism in the dating scene. As women became more successful, they became more picky. (In general, women want to date “up.”) They decided to focus on their careers and educations while remaining sure that they could eventually marry quickly after a given age. Well, the unpleasant reality is that men become more attractive with age while women do not. As game theory dictates, the women who win at the marriage auction are those who find a good guy and marry early. Those who wait will see only the leftovers and exclaim: “There are no good men left!”

Why are modern, single, feminist women so unhappy? Let’s break it down by decade:

Twenties — Women have an intense, biological desire to settle down, get married, and have children while they are in their prime. But society tells them to get master’s degrees and have fulfilling careers while getting drunk every night, having casual sex with immature barbarians, and destroying their souls. So they are conflicted on physical, mental, and spiritual levels.

Thirties — Women have advanced degrees, educations, and resumes, but they are rapidly losing their looks. At the same time, men in their thirties — whose market value in the dating world has only increased as a result of wealth and looks — can routinely have casual sex with the women who are now in their twenties. The thirty-something women find it harder to meet someone who fulfills their unreasonable expectations.

Forties — Get a small dog or a fake baby, a tub of ice cream, and rent “Thelma & Louise.”

Now, I expect that some readers will think that I am being misogynistic. Far from it. I am reaching logical conclusions from what I observed in the United States in the context of evolutionary psychology and economics. When society messes with nature, bad things result.

In the study cited by Douthat, men are reportedly happier then they were decades ago. It is easy to understand why. In today’s post-feminist world, men have beer, video games, sports, sex with no strings attached, and free, Internet pornography. Men are simple creatures — what more could they possibly think that they need?

I write this post with extreme sadness at the state of Western society. I want men and women to marry, have children, and be truly happy. (I personally consider it a holy, spiritual action.) But feminism, albeit unintentionally, harmed the relations between the genders that had worked for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. I am not sure it will ever be repaired.

My earlier essay: The Battle of the Sexes

Nathan “Flutebox” Lee and Beardyman

This is absolutely amazing!

Geography is Destiny

Robert Kaplan, writing in Foreign Policy, writes that geography has always laid the foundations for conflict throughout the world in the past and present. The article is your assigned reading for today.

Steyn on Israel

This is the most depressing thing I have read in a while.

Who Reads the Papers?

I’m glad that Israel’s cable providers carry British comedies. I grew up on many of them.