Make it idiot-proof: without graphs this time.

When is it permissible to speak for others? When does the urge to speak for others become self-perpetuating, therefore perpetuating the silence of the others. When does the unspeaking subject become no more than an object? What marks the boundary between concern and pity? Between pity and contempt? How is it possible to institutionalize concern? How often do liberals who attempt to institutionalize one, succeed only in institutionalizing the other? If it is difficult to institutionalize concern it is very easy to institutionalize contempt. The latter is republican policy. Questions of Data Is it possible to be a feminist and a member of Hamas or Hezbollah A lawyer in Iran? Open Letter to Farah Diba: "Kindly Come and Do Us a Favor, Oh Lady" Lets complicate matters even more. Are the Taliban even "old fashioned" conservatives? Are fascists just monarchists in black leather? This Alien Legacy: The Origins of "Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism

This 66-page report describes how laws in over three dozen countries, from India to Uganda and from Nigeria to Papua New Guinea, derive from a single law on homosexual conduct that British colonial rulers imposed on India in 1860. This year, the High Court in Delhi ended hearings in a years-long case seeking to decriminalize homosexual conduct there. A ruling in the landmark case is expected soon.

Self-awareness is not a form of rationalism it is a form of empiricism; concerned not with "ideas" but our perceptions of them and their use. It is not science. There is no right answer, there are only cases and arguments over cases.