PRETORY? OR PREDATORY?:

Killer was hired as Air France guard (Paul Webster, December 31, 2003, The Guardian)

The company put in charge of security for Air France flights employed a convicted murderer and a number of others with serious criminal records, it emerged yesterday.

The background of the guards was disclosed in a Paris court during a hearing to wind up the company, Pretory, which had been operating security on the French airline for more than two years but went into bankruptcy after tax fraud allegations.

The revelation of its lax recruiting methods coincided with the disclosure that armed French police have been flying with Air France to the US since December 23. [...]

Four days after the terror attacks in the US on September 11 2001 Air France was one of the first networks to announce that passengers would be accompanied by "specially trained agents".

But the tribunal which ordered the company's liquidation heard that, in a rush to recruit guards, it had taken on disco bouncers, dog handlers, nightwatchmen, and other staff with little or no experience of arms or safety procedures.

At one time 200 guards were employed on flights.

An investigation was eventually started last April, when the police looked into the background of 140 agents, the most qualified of whom were former soldiers.

As a result of a search of criminal records more than 30 agents were grounded as a potential security risk.

The police also looked into the record of Pretory's sub-contractors.

This led to unconfirmed reports that some guards had been sent for arms training courses in Middle Eastern countries suspected of harbouring terrorists.

| Comments (2)

---

COMPETING AGENDAS--ONE AMERICAN; ONE ANTI-AMERICAN:

American Diplomacy And the New Shape of the World: Critics who accuse the United States of a strident new unilateralism often have an agenda of their own: to keep America's power in check. (Clive Crook, 12/31/03, Atlantic Monthly)

The past year has seen a momentous change in the way the world is ordered—a change very much for the worse, according to a good deal of supposedly informed opinion in the United States and the great majority of commentators everywhere else. To assert and advance its own interests, America has repudiated the institutions and the very principle of lawful cooperation among nations, it is argued. This would be immoral, the charge continues, even if it were not directly counterproductive—but it is that as well. America's new posture, the critics agree, has made the world a more dangerous place, not least for America itself.

The destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime was the most forthright demonstration of this new thinking. The Bush administration explicitly rationalized the war in terms of a new security doctrine that calls for pre-emptive action against emerging threats. This is a policy that, to put it mildly, is difficult to square with current understanding of international law. [...]

Some of the administration's critics are willing to admit that the U.N. has its faults, and even to acknowledge that America's government owes its first duty to America's citizens. Nonetheless, they argue that the United States, in its own interests, should lead efforts to reform the U.N.—and to breathe life into multilateralism more generally. With American goodwill, and not without, a global order based on law and international cooperation could be built. That is the claim. By the same logic, the Kyoto accord may be flawed, but America should strive to fix it rather than merely walk away. And again, despite safeguards already built in, some supporters of the International Criminal Court concede that it may leave Americans unfairly exposed to unwarranted or malicious prosecution; so strengthen the safeguards, they insist, rather than trying to wreck the whole process.

This kind of argument is based on two very serious mistakes. The first is a delusion about goals. The premise here is that the United States and its putative U.N. partners have the same priorities, or at any rate that the goals they have in common matter more to them than the aims that divide them. After September 11, in fact, one might have hoped that this were true: The whole civilized world, it is clear, really does face a terrible common foe. Yet many countries still see the main purpose of the U.N. and its satellites as not to meet such threats but to contain the power of the United States. French diplomacy before the Iraq war made it plain that France sees untrammeled American power as a greater threat to its interests than Saddam Hussein ever was. France is not alone in this. [...]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that intelligence and good faith prevailed around the world, and that different countries' goals and priorities were sufficiently well aligned to make formal and institutionalized multilateral approaches at least feasible. Would that clinch the argument? Not at all, because the multilateralists' second fatal error is to suppose that structured multilateralism is intrinsically superior to the unilateralist alternative of ad hoc "coalitions of the willing."

Why is this a mistake? Because the kind of institutionalized multilateralism that the U.N.'s champions dream of is inescapably undemocratic. America's government can be ultimately accountable to the American people or ultimately accountable to the U.N.; it cannot be accountable to both.

Mr. Crook here captures quite nicely the two great challenges to traditional sovereignty, that by the Left--transnationalism--which seeks to bypass democracy and impose a global elites' agenda; and that by the Center/Right, which holds any regime that does not meet liberal democratic standards to be illegitimate. Each new vision is revolutionary to a degree we don't yet seem to realize.

---

DANCIN' WITH THE ONES WHAT BRUNG YA' (TO THE BRINK):

Adjusting the Focus: Iraq may not be the best issue for the Democrats, but they may not be able to avoid it. (William Schneider, 12/31/03, Atlantic Monthly)

With the capture of Saddam Hussein, Democrats are beginning to realize that Iraq may not be their best campaign issue. But they may not be able to avoid it. It's the issue that their primary voters are most passionate about.

Republicans welcome the focus on Iraq. "I look forward to making my case to the American people about why America is more secure today based upon the decisions that I've made," President Bush said at his December 15 news conference.

And why not? Until Saddam's capture on December 14, the American public had supported the war in Iraq but was critical of the U.S. handling of the situation in Iraq since the major fighting ended. Now there's been a huge jump in public approval of the occupation—from 42 percent in the November Gallup Poll to 65 percent in mid-December. [...]

Democrats say that Bush has isolated the United States. "He needs to go to the U.N. He needs to build a consensus. He needs to collaborate. He needs to communicate," Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., complained at the Democratic presidential candidates' debate in Phoenix on October 9. "He doesn't do any of those things."

Bush's response? "I don't agree that [the war in Iraq] is a dividing line," he said at the press conference. "I think this is a disagreement on this particular issue. And I know we can work together on a variety of other issues. I'll cite one example: Iran."

Dean and other Democrats say that Iraq has damaged U.S. security. Bush's response? "A free and peaceful Iraq is part of protecting America."

If the Iraq issue doesn't work for the Democrats, what else have they got?

60 years in the wilderness?

---

DON'T YOU REALLY HAVE TO WAIT THREE DAYS LONGER?:

A path opens to elections in Iraq: With key Shiite cleric's change of heart, the roadblock to elections could disappear. (Dan Murphy, 1/02/04, CS Monitor)

In November, spurred on by a stubborn insurgency and Iraqi frustration with the US occupation, the US created a road map that hinges on the selection of a broad group of leaders by July. They would then shepherd Iraq to real elections in 2005 and the creation of a new constitution.

But the plan, which is backed by Iraq's major political groups, has been threatened by Ayotallah Ali al-Sistani, probably the most revered of Iraq's Shiite clerics. He has demanded full democratic elections by June, and leaders of the Shiite community - about 60 percent of Iraq's population - have said they won't defy his wishes.

But this week, in a key shift, Mr. Sistani said he could live with the US approach if the UN were involved in verifying the US position that holding fair elections by June isn't possible. [...]

The Governing Council is set to approve a "fundamental law," essentially an interim constitution, by Feb. 28, and Kurdish political parties are pushing for special rights, including a veto over the presence of federal troops in their area. The transitional constitution will set the ground rules for the government that the US hopes to hand sovereignty to on July 1.

Looks like we may not miss the gone by Memorial Day goal by much.

---

ORDER FOLLOWS LAW:

Crime rates, slated to rise, fell in 2003: Overall US crime lowers slightly over 2002, but pattern is uneven. (Alexandra Marks, 01/02/04, CS Monitor)

Despite predictions that crime was sure to shoot up, 2003 was not a bad year for shop owner Frank Avdou or for the country as a whole. [...]

In some cities, like New York, constant police vigilance in high-crime areas has caused the rates of urban violence to continue to plummet to levels not seen since 1968, making the Big Apple the safest big city in the country for the second year in a row. But in other urban areas, murder and mayhem are definitely on the rise. Dallas, for instance, saw a 51 percent hike in overall crime, as scandal rocked the local police department and increased drug trafficking got a tighter grip on struggling neighborhoods.

Enforce laws and crime goes down...shocking, eh?

---

THE RED TIDE LAPS THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST:

The Four Musketeers: Ideology and demeanor distinguish a new generation of Republican leaders (George Howland Jr., 12/31/03, Seattle Weekly)

What to call them? Republican soccer dads? Metrosexual conservatives? Reagan babies? The labels don't quite fit, but their presence is undeniable. As the Jan. 12 convening of the Legislature in Olympia draws near, a new generation of standard bearers has arisen in the state Republican Party: former state Sen. Dino Rossi, 44, is running for governor; King County Council member Rob McKenna, 41, is campaigning for attorney general; state Sen. Bill Finkbeiner, 34, was just elected Senate Majority Leader; and Luke Esser, 42, is the state Senate's new floor leader.

Besides their relative youth, they have at least four other things in common: their residence (the Eastside suburbs of King County), their demeanor (nice guys), their physical appearance (good looks), and their political philosophy (Republicans should focus on pocketbook issues—the business climate and controlling government growth —not social issues).

"We are starting to build a team again," says state Republican Party chair Chris Vance. He likens the emergence of these four to the generation of Republican leaders that emerged in the 1960s—Dan Evans, Slade Gorton, and Joel Pritchard. Vance adds, "This sort of thing needs to happen to invigorate the party."

Vance says the four also share an ideology that is ascendant within the GOP. "It's not enough to pretend that the free market can solve every problem, but we reject the liberals' point of view: 'Government can fix everything.' It's a third way, between government should not be involved and government should solve it all."

Is there any state in America where the Democrats are as excited about the future of their party as the Republicans are everywhere?

---

THE GRAIN WON:

The Man Who Knew Too Much: a review of Interviews with Dwight Macdonald, Michael Wreszin, ed., (R.J. Stove, December 15, 2003, The American Conservative)

For a dead man, Dwight Macdonald (1906-1982) now looks pretty healthy. All too often during his old age, he found himself dismissed as a self-destructive dilettante. Nowadays, by contrast, he occupies a secure place as America’s best-known “unknown” man of letters (notwithstanding recent ad hominem diatribes, optimistically packaged as literary critiques, in the Washington Times and the Dartmouth Review). We owe this Macdonald revival wholly to Michael Wreszin, Professor Emeritus at Queens College in New York, who has turned himself with Stakhanovite dedication—how the Soviet-hating Macdonald would have shuddered at that adjective—into a one-man Macdonald industry. Wreszin’s aptly titled 1994 book A Rebel in Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald displayed astonishing diligence, and great shrewdness, in chronicling the life of Macdonald’s mind. (Macdonald seems to have had precious little life outside his mind.) Seven years afterwards appeared a Wreszin-edited collection of Macdonald’s letters, A Moral Temper. Neither volume received adequate press coverage, a fact that inspired the fear that public indifference had made Wreszin give up. Happily, here comes the third panel in Wreszin’s Macdonald triptych.

Historian John Lukacs called Macdonald “the American Orwell,” and certainly Macdonald resembled Orwell in several respects. Both men wrote invariably readable prose. Both men grasped, with cold fury, the causal linkage of linguistic corruption and ethical corruption. (Lukacs’s description of Macdonald’s writing process suits Orwell equally: “Every word was not only an aesthetic but a moral choice.”) Both men remain gratifyingly unclassifiable. Orwell the grimy materialist coexisted uneasily with Orwell the crypto-High-Tory romantic who on his deathbed craved Anglican hymns. Macdonald the self-proclaimed leftist loathed proletarian and industrial culture with a passion recalling Action Français leader Charles Maurras’s invective. For proof of his idiom’s Maurrasian elements, see his principal essay collection, Against the American Grain. Like T.S. Eliot—a lifelong hero of his—and like all other civilized people, Macdonald considered “elitist” to be not a swearword but a badge of honor. [...]

He arrived at his cultural conservatism (a phrase he may have coined; he undoubtedly took the credit for being the first to write of “mass culture”) via a circuitous route. A rich, apolitical, WASP Yale alumnus whom the Depression radicalized, he initially sought salvation in Moscow, only to lose his Stalinist faith once the show trials occurred. He reacted, as did other “Partisanskies”—his colleagues at the newborn Partisan Review—by embracing Trotskyism. Yet from 1941 he found the Trot temperament to be almost indistinguishable from the Stalinist one and fled that totalitarianism also.

The mid-1940s to the mid-1960s saw Macdonald at the height of his powers. He edited (1944-1949) his own heterodox little magazine, Politics, an object lesson in how to save the world when almost no one reads you. Politics made no money, its payments to contributors were laughable—he charmed Mary McCarthy into writing for free—and it never had more than 5,000 subscribers; but it published Orwell, Camus, C. Wright Mills, and Simone Weil, as well as The Group’s future author. After Politics, he gave us his most devastating literary articles, originally printed in Partisan Review, Commentary, and the New Yorker but afterwards assembled in Against the American Grain and Discriminations. In 1958, Commentary ran Macdonald’s hatchet job on the once fashionable novelist James Gould Cozzens: “By Cozzens Possessed,” probably the most murderous book review 20th-century America ever produced. From this period, in addition, dates much of Macdonald’s best political analysis, such as Memoirs of a Revolutionist contains; and patchier, though always scintillating, film criticism for Esquire, later republished as Dwight Macdonald on Movies. Once anti-Vietnam campus ferment began, Macdonald returned to leftist activism, his main practical contribution characteristically consisting of public fights with nearly every other leftist activist. This campaigning ended almost as suddenly as it started; during his last decade he drank too much, wrote too little, and became a peripatetic humanities lecturer, in which role he reached a special rapport with trainee policemen at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

As Christopher Hitchens has learned, and the career of Dwight MacDonald demonstrated, there's a danger to combining credulousness and contrarianism because it means that when folks look back over your career they'll discover that you for too long attacked those who were in the right.

MORE:
-BOOK SITE: Interviews with Dwight Macdonald, Edited by Michael Wreszin (University Press of Mississippi)
-ESSAY: "The Book-of-the-Millennium Club" (Dwight Macdonald, November 29, 1952, The New Yorker)
-ESSAY: A Critique of The Warren Report (Dwight Macdonald, March 1965, Esquire)

-ARCHIVES: Dwight Macdonald writes about writing
-ARCHIVES: Dwight MacDonald (NY Review of Books)
-ARCHIVES: "Dwight MacDonald" (Find Articles)

-REVIEW: of Against the American Grain by Dwight MacDonald (David Montgomery)
-REVIEW: of Against the American Grain: Essays on the Effects of Mass Culture; Discriminations: Essays & Afterthoughts; On Movies; and Parodies: An Anthology from Chaucer to Beerbohm...and After by Dwight Macdonald (John Gabree, New York Newsday)

-REVIEW: of INTERVIEWS WITH DWIGHT MACDONALD, Edited by Michael Wrezin (JEFFREY HART, Washington Times)

Macdonald liked the stance of an aristocratic bohemian and man of taste. What one remembers of him perhaps is his once famous distinction between Masscult, Midcult, and High Culture. There's no mystery about Hugh Culture: Yeats, Matisse. Masscult comes out of a juke box. But Midcult is the enemy: a spurious imitation of High Culture, like, say, Thornton Wilder's "Our Town."

Possibly these distinctions are worth starting with.

In his one-man magazine Politics Macdonald did a surgical destruction of the 1948 Henry Wallace presidential campaign, the destruction lots of fun at the time. In Commentary he performed a hit job on a wildly overrated novel by James Gould Cozzens, "By Love Possessed." The novel was not good, but in "Guard of Honor" Cozzens had written what might be a great novel, and Macdonald would have done well to register his awareness of this, if, indeed, he was aware of it.

Macdonald survived as a writer on his fluency, but he had no consistent aesthetic, political, or moral standards. He imagined Norman Mailer to be a great writer. Coleridge admired the kind of mind that could entertain contradictory ideas and be energized by them. Macdonald could certainly entertain contradictory ideas but he seems to have been entirely unaware that they were contradictory, so they could hardly be energizing. To say the least, he did not have anything approaching a first-rate mind. Irresponsible would be to put it mildly.

-REVIEW: Dwight Macdonald: sunburned by ideas: a review of A Moral Temper: The Letters of Dwight Macdonald, edited by Michael Wreszin (Joseph Epstein, New Criterion)

Macdonald had been drifting leftward. “Marx goes to the heart of the problem,” he wrote to a college classmate in 1936. To the same man he wrote: “I’m growing more and more intolerant of those who stand—or rather squat—in the way of radical progress, the more I learn about the conservative businesses that run this country and the more I see of the injustices done people under this horrible capitalist system.” Earlier he had noted that “my greatest vice is my easily aroused indignation—also, I suppose, one of my greatest strengths. I can work up a moral indignation quicker than a fat tennis player can work up a sweat.” Over the years his similes would improve, if not his temperament.

By the time he was thirty, Macdonald was fully formed, intellectually and emotionally. Politically, he was anti-Stalinist and anti-statist yet also anti-capitalist. In the 1936 presidential election, he voted for Earl Browder, the Communist candidate. For a few years he was a member of the Trotskyite Worker Party. But he had only to join a group to find it objectionable and thus left the Workers Party in 1941. Trotsky himself had referred to him as a “Macdonaldist.” (In an article left in his dictaphone machine before his death, he described a Macdonald piece as “very muddled and stupid.”) Macdonald always took the high road—that “moral indignation” again—preferring clarity over complexity in politics and keeping a palette restricted to two colors, black and white, with very little interest in gray shadings or texture of any sort. His unwillingness to grant America the least virtue led him to make some impressively idiotic statements, notable among them: “Europe has its Hitlers, but we have our Rotarians.”

-REVIEW: of A Moral Temper: The Letters of Dwight Macdonald, edited by Michael Wreszin(Robert Fulford, National Post)

One reason he argued so much was that he kept changing political sides -- and no matter what side he was on, he always knew it was the right one. A friend of the Communist Party in the early 1930s, he soon joined a Trotskyist (therefore anti-Moscow) party, then defected to another Trotskyist party, then withdrew from all parties to become a pacifist, a position he held with dogged passion during the Second World War. In the Cold War he at first considered both sides abhorrent but reluctantly backed the U.S. -- though he never came to like his fellow Americans ("an unhappy people ... without style, without a sense of what is humanly satisfying"). In the 1960s, enraged by the Vietnam War, he joined the student rebels, calling them "the best generation I have known in this country, the cleverest and the most serious and decent," though he wished they would occasionally read a book.

Through it all he desperately protected his intellectual purity. In 1942 Mary McCarthy satirized him in a story, Portrait of the Intellectual as Yale Man: "His mind and character appeared to him as a kind of sacred trust ... It was as if he were the standard gold dollar against which the currency is measured."

-REVIEW: of A MORAL TEMPER: The Letters of Dwight Macdonald, Edited by Michael Wreszin (Dwight Garner , NY Times Book Review)

-REVIEW: of A Rebel in Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald by Michael Wreszin (John Elson, TIME)
-REVIEW: of A Rebel in Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald by Michael Wreszin (Gampo Mellichampe, Social Anarchism)
-REVIEW: of A Rebel in Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald by Michael Wreszin (Henry Gonshak, Montana Tech-UM)
-REVIEW: of A Rebel in Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald by Michael Wreszin (Harold Orlans, Change)
-REVIEW: of DWIGHT MACDONALD AND THE POLITICS CIRCLE: THE CHALLENGE OF COSMOPOLITAN DEMOCRACY by Gregory D. Sumner (Michael Wreszin, New Politics)
-ESSAY: A Nine-Hour Resurrection: Alexander Herzen, Marx's rival and Tolstoy's nonfiction counterpart, enjoys a well-deserved return to center stage in Tom Stoppard's The Coast of Utopia (Christopher Hitchens, December 2002, Atlantic Monthly)

---

ANOTHER CRISIS PASSES:

State budgets gain some wiggle room (Dennis Cauchon, 12/31/03, USA TODAY)

State spending rose 4.6% in 2002 while revenue increased only 3%; that forced states to borrow billions of dollars to balance their budgets. But legislators clamped down in 2003. Spending rose only 1.3% in the first nine months of the year while revenue increased 1.5%.

The fiscal restraint is paying dividends. For the first time in three years, most legislatures won't have to plug holes in existing budgets this year. Instead, they will focus on next year's budgets, which take effect July 1 in 46 states.

You'll recall that at the beginning of the year it was claimed that the only way to prevent catastrophe was for the Federal government to shovel money to the states. Turns out that if you just don't spend so much money those deficits pretty much take care of themselves. We could use a constitutional amendment to force the Congress to accept the same discipline.

---

HOPE EVEN FOR AFRICA:

God behind Kenya’s progress, says Kibaki (The Standard, December 29, 2003)

President Mwai Kibaki yesterday urged Christians to thank God for the achievements they had realised in life.

He said any progress made by the people was the work of God and it was important to thank Him.

President Kibaki was speaking at Mombasa's Wesley Methodist Church during a Sunday service conducted by the Pwani Methodist Synod Bishop, Ferdinand Mkare.

The Head of State cautioned the congregation against forgetting what God had done for them. He thanked God for enabling Kenyans win last year's General Election after they prayed for it.

Kenya is one of those African nations that there's some hope for, not least because of the predominance of Christianity, the English language, and literacy in the nation. It's the kind of place we ought to focus our efforts in Africa, chiefly to raise living standards, which are currently so low as to make enduring liberal democratic reform unlikely to take hold.

MORE:
A continent at peace: five African hot spots cool down: Motivated by antiterror fears and a need for oil, Africans are demanding warriors to beat their swords into plowshares. (Abraham McLaughlin, 1/02/04, CS Monitor)

For the first time in five years, no major wars are roiling the continent, even if low-level conflicts still smolder. A deal to end Sudan's civil war - Africa's longest - could be struck this month. And peace processes are pushing ahead in Liberia, Burundi, Ivory Coast, and Congo.

Perhaps it's just a lull between storms. Yet observers see fundamental shifts that may create an era of relative calm for Africa's 800 million people.

The biggest new force is Africans themselves. Led by South Africa, there's growing desire to arm-twist warriors into laying down their weapons. Also, outside powers, including the United States, are more engaged. They may be motivated by antiterror fears, need for oil, or guilt for inaction during Rwanda's 1994 genocide, but they're increasingly supporting Africa's peaceful impulses.

"The continent as a whole has asserted a good bit more activism about putting conflicts to rest - and has turned down the flames of its active wars," says Ross Herbert, Africa Research Fellow at the South African Institute of International Affairs in Johannesburg. [...]

Outside powers are key as well. "There is a longer-term trend of the West reengaging in Africa," says Mr. Herbert. The US sent a small contingent to Liberia earlier this year to help separate rebels and the government, who had been fighting for years. When Sierra Leone exploded in 2000, British troops intervened successfully. And French soldiers are still in the volatile Ivory Coast.

There's also clearly a self-interested agenda. In the post-9/11 world, the US sees chaotic African countries as potential terrorism incubators. It's also eyeing Africa's growing oil exports. Sudan symbolizes the many reasons for America's new engagement in Africa.

---

WE ARE EXTREMISTS, GET OVER IT:

How three threats interlock: A mission for moderates (Amin Saikal, December 29, 2003, IHT)

Three minority extremist groups - the militant fundamentalist Islamists exemplified at the far edge by Al Qaeda, certain activist elements among America's reborn Christians and neoconservatives, and the most inflexible hard-line Zionists from Israel - have emerged as dangerously destabilizing actors in world politics. Working perversely to reinforce each other's ideological excesses, they have managed to drown out mainstream voices from all sides. Each has the aim of changing the world according to its own individual vision. [...]

On another side are groups of internationalist activists among American fundamentalist Christians and neoconservatives who have found it opportune since Sept. 11, 2001, to pursue their agendas more aggressively. They wish to reshape the Middle East and defiant political Islam according to their ideological and geopolitical preferences.

The extremists of these groups seek to "civilize" or "democratize" the Arab world in particular, and the Muslim world in general, in their own images, and they have particular influence through key appointees in the Bush administration. The fact that democracy can neither be imposed nor be expected to mushroom overnight does not appear to resonate with them. [...]

It takes a few to make war but many to make peace. In pursuit of peace, not only should Al Qaeda and its associates be marginalized, but the radical international agendas of some reborn Christians, neoconservatives and hard-line Zionists should be completely discredited. Doing away with one and not the others is not an option for our future.

This was roughly the thesis of Karen Armstrong's heinous book--Battle for God--that (I'm not kidding) the televangelist scandals and Oklahoma City can be equated to the terrorism of radical Islam. Mr. Saikal carries this idiocy even further in equating the American (for the fundamentalist Christians and neocons of his rhetoric are in fact the majority of the American people, not a radical minority) desire to bring peace, freedom, and economic development to the Islamic world with al Qaeda's nihilism and totalitarianism. It is obviously culturally insensitive of us to think this way, but it seems certain that the overwhelming majority of us would consider anyone and idiot who uses scare quotes around the words "civilize" and "democratize". The future is one of civilization, in the very much Western sense of that word, and of liberal democracy and to seek to discredit them is to place oneself in opposition to America and Americanism.

---

CREATIVE DISTRUCTION

Jobless Claims Fall to Nearly 3-Year Low (Reuters, 12/31/03)

New applications for state jobless benefits hit the lowest level in nearly three years last week, the government said on Wednesday, boosting hopes that employment is finally beginning to show sustained growth.

The Labor Department said 339,000 idled workers filed for unemployment insurance at state offices throughout the country in the week ended Dec. 27, down from a revised 354,000 a week earlier.

The level of new claims was the lowest since President Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2001.

The next time someone claims that the sky is falling because some major employer has announced massive layoffs of 5000, or 10,000, or 20,000 workers over the next year, remember that a week in which only 340,000 people lost their jobs is a very good week.

---

W WANTS TO DO FOR AMERICA WHAT HE DID FOR TEXAS:

No Democrats have filed yet for state elections in 2004 (John Moritz, 12/31/03, DFW Star-Telegram)

The head of the Texas Democrats on Tuesday vowed that his party would field "scores" of candidates to challenge incumbent Republicans in the 2004 elections, but with filing for the March primaries ending Friday, no Democrat has stepped forward in any of the statewide races.

This is the party that thinks they should have the bulk of the Texas congressional delegation?

---

TIN EAR VS. TIN HAT:

Decision 2004: ABD vs. ABBA (Don Hazen, December 30, 2003 , AlterNet)

The Democratic candidates, the media and perhaps the Bush people seem to be ignoring what seems inarguable: Dean has been the candidate of change from the onset, and their attacks add emphasis to that status. He staked out clear positions where the voters were most angry: the rush to war, a tin-eared imperial presidency, a faltering economy, corrupt cronyism and an overall feeling of powerlessness. He stood up for something. In a climate of powerful models of voter frustration -- most notably Arnold Schwarzenegger's election as governor of California -- Dean captured the mantle of change, and he's just tightened his grip since then.

Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi suggests that the broadsides against Dean do not appear to be sticking so far. Trippi reminded the Times that the attacks on Dean supposedly planned by the Bush team may backfire. He notes that they haven't worked so well for Dean's Democratic rivals: "Where have we gone? From zero to 31 percent in the latest ABC poll." Dean himself said in late December that the attacks won't help in the long run, since Bush will eventually use the criticisms in his ads. "But in the short run I think it makes them (the other candidates) look smaller."

What the Dean supporters seem to ignore is just how minimal and marginal his support is. By comparison, George W. Bush, even with an outstanding opponent, polled around 50% and ran ahead of Al Gore (John McCain ran ahead of Gore by even more in fact) at this time in the last cycle. Dr. Dean's numbers range from the teens to an only very occasional blip past 30%.

Being the candidate of change may win him the 30% of people who are dissatisfied with a booming economy and winning the war on terror, and he can certainly add another 10-14% just from Democrats too loyal to vote Republican, but how does he get past that 40% mark? His is an inherently limited appeal.

---

ALL IN THE (SWEDISH) FAMILY:

Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix wins Olof Palme Prize (Canadian Press, 29/12/03)

Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was named the winner of the $50,000 US Olof Palme Prize on Monday for his work in trying to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

"He has under circumstances of strong external pressure demonstrated an independence and a commitment to principle which have inspired respect and admiration throughout the world," the Olof Palme Memorial Fund for International Understanding and Common Security said.

The award is endowed by the family of the slain Swedish prime minister and the governing Social Democratic party. The memorial fund board, which chooses recipients, said Blix "worked throughout his life for the benefit of international law, peace and the United Nations."

Blix is a former Swedish foreign minister who led the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997 and retired from the United Nations in June.

In other news, The Canadian Liberal Party’s Award for International Courage and Virtue went to Jean Chretien.

---

END THE FICTION:

Forging One Nation From Three Agendas: What's the best way to bring Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds together under a cohesive democracy? (Stanley Reed, 12/29/03, Business Week)

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who left a legacy of mass graves and damaged survivors. He did, however, manage to hold together a fractious country through the force of his personality -- and some of the most violent repression the world has ever witnessed. Even before his capture on Dec. 13, his removal from power had unleashed a wave of chaos and criminality. Now the greatest challenge facing the U.S. and the Iraqis is to craft a new, democratic government that can bind Iraq's long-divided religious and ethnic groups together. The U.S. has agreed to turn over power to an Iraqi authority by July. But forging a consensus among Iraq's disparate communities could prove far more difficult than rounding up the cagey Saddam.

Post-Saddam Iraq is a country without a defining national identity, and over the long term that's a situation potentially more dangerous than the threat currently posed by the insurgents. Cobbled together by the British in the 1920s, Iraq resembles three countries more than one; it was kept together by strongmen rulers even before Saddam. The Kurds in the north, the Sunni Arabs north and west of Baghdad, and the Shiite Arabs of the south and center inhabit vast swaths of territory. There has long been tension where the communities overlap, such as in Kirkuk and Mosul. As if all that weren't enough, the various groups are far from united themselves. Many secular Shiites want no part of bans on alcohol and other strictures favored by their more observant coreligionists. Likewise, the Sunni community ranges from the educated elite of academics and former bureaucrats to the thugs who served as Saddam's spies and enforcers.

Why try to make it one country? Why not Kurdistan, Shi'astan and the Sunni minority in the latter can stay or go?

---

FROG BOIL:

Assault on the established order (The Japan Times, Dec. 31, 2003)

The concluding year will be remembered for the many ways it undermined the building blocks of the world as we know it. Globally, regionally and even here at home, the events of 2003 posed a direct challenge to the most basic ways in which states and societies act. While change is inevitable, it is by no means clear that this assault on the established order will open the door to a better future. That will depend on whether our governments have the courage and the wisdom to seize the opportunities presented by a world in flux.

Globally, the big story of 2003 was the invasion of Iraq. While Washington mustered an international coalition to overthrow Saddam Hussein, the attack was most notable for its blatant disregard of the United Nations. The decision to proceed without U.N. approval was not unprecedented -- NATO action in Yugoslavia in the 1990s did not enjoy U.N. legitimacy. But rarely had a government -- and an architect of the international order at that -- so flagrantly dismissed international opinion.

This is somewhat the premise of the book I'm working on too: that the paradigm of state sovereignty--which has prevailed since the Peace of Westphalia--is under attack from Left, where transnational progressivism would discard the authority of the nation-state altogether, and from the Center/Right, where America's Jacksonian unilateralism and humanitarian concerns seem to have converged to add a requirement that the sovereign be legitimate, meet the standards of the end of history, or else be considered fair game. Regardless of which side prevails--and it would be catastrophic if the Left does--the sovereignty paradigm will have shifted in a revolutionary way, but like the proverbial frog in the pot of water set to boil, we seem hardly aware of what's underway.

N.B.--If anyone is aware of any essays pertinent to these topics, please send them on.

---

DEMOCRATS IN THE BALANCE:

The Accidental Populist: Howard Dean vs. the democratic establishment (Steve Perry, 12/31/03, City Pages)

[T]here are many in and around the national Democratic fold who really do believe that Gore and Dean have it in mind to take the party away from the DLC once and for all. It's far too early to tell whether this is true in any meaningful sense (it's one thing to really mean it in December, another to stake your future on it in July), but a couple of observations may be safely made from here.

First, a serious run at taking over the party machine would oblige Dean to keep running against his own party not just through primary season but the general election as well. In that sense it would be very much like McGovern and '72 all over again--remember "Democrats for Nixon" and the more sub rosa means the Democrats used to undermine McGovern? To have any hope at all of winning such a race, Dean would have to take his Columbia speech on economic justice for all and make it the holy writ of his campaign. He would have to break the first covenant of our dysfunctional political family, which is never to involve outsiders in family business. The dirty little secret of the me-too Democrats is that they are really no more keen on appealing to "nontraditional voters" (traditional nonvoters, that is) than Republicans. And according to the Washington Post, Republican functionaries are beginning to grow scared of Dean's capacity to do just that.

Second, you can probably forget nearly everything in the foregoing paragraph, because the chances that Dean will pick such an audacious course and stick to it are surpassingly slim. The presumptive philosopher king of Dean's epic confrontation with the DLC, after all, is Albert Gore Jr. It's not hard to believe that Gore would like to seize the party apparatus from Clinton & Friends, but why should anyone get excited about the prospect of what he might do with it?

A few eternally masochistic Democrats are trying to make out that they finally have the new Al Gore they were promised for so long. One of the smartest consultants I know recently told me that Gore finally seems to have come into his own. "He seems to be at his best when he's had a chance to go away and just think," the politico said hopefully. "Like when he wrote his book." But the mirage of a bearded, far-seeing Gore foraging for nuts and berries with Tipper at his side faded after a mere few seconds.

We'd not wish such a fate on anyone, including those held in Guantanamo, but you really have to have read the wretched book to appreciate just how deranged that comment is.

---

HEARD ON NPR:

In Britain, a nation of 55 million, which consumed 900,000+ cows with heavy BSE contamination, 145 people became ill.

---

WERE WE SAFER WHEN THE IAEA WAS INSPECTING SADDAM?:

Nuclear materials found in Libya (Daniel Williams, Dec. 30, 2003, WASHINGTON POST)

Now, government officials say, Gadhafi wants to lead his country of 5.5 million people into the global economy and increase production and marketing of Libya's large oil reserves and attract investment and trade.

"We can't afford guns and butter," Prime Minister Shokri Ghanem said.

Nonetheless, by setting up the clandestine program and importing equipment, the Libyans were in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Gadhafi's government had long ago signed. "There were some imports and some activities they should have reported," ElBaradei said.

In the veteran inspector's eyes, the findings highlighted the inadequacy of international inspections. IAEA teams have been visiting Libya for years and knew nothing about the equipment they saw Sunday. One location stood in urban neighborhoods along dirt alleys.

---

OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL STUFF, A VALID COMPARISON:

Bush-Hatred: Fearful Loathing . . . (Robert J. Samuelson, December 30, 2003, Washington Post)

Genuine political hatred is usually reserved for true tyrants, whose unspeakable acts of brutality justify nothing less.

More than the language is butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit, stupidity, selfishness or evil. This was true of Clinton haters, and it's increasingly true of Bush haters. A small army of pundits and talking heads has now devoted itself to one story: the sins of Bush, Cheney and their supporters. They ruined the economy with massive tax cuts and budget deficits; the Iraq war was an excuse for corporate profiteering; their arrogance alienated foreign allies.

All ambiguity vanishes. For example: The economy is recovering, stimulated in part by huge budget deficits; and many traditional allies of the United States like having Bush as a political foil to excuse them from costly and unpopular commitments.

In the end, Bush hating says more about the haters than the hated -- and here, too, the parallels with Clinton are strong. This hatred embodies much fear and insecurity. The anti-Clinton fanatics hated him not simply because he occasionally lied, committed adultery or exhibited an air of intellectual superiority. What really infuriated them was that he kept succeeding -- he won reelection, his approval ratings stayed high -- and that diminished their standing. If Clinton was approved, they must be disapproved.

Ditto for Bush. If he succeeded less, he'd be hated less.

All well and good, except for this part: "anti-Clinton fanatics hated him not simply because he occasionally lied, committed adultery or exhibited an air of intellectual superiority". Let's concede that folk can justify their hatred of Bush on the basis of his displayed intellectual inferiority; where though are the public immoral acts to match Clinton's?

---

PLEASE LET US IN FROM THE COLD (QUIETLY):

Iran thanks America for earthquake relief; Powell sees `new attitude' in Tehran (MATTHEW PENNINGTON, December 30, 2003, Associated Press)

As survivors of Iran's earthquake scavenged for clothes and jostled for handouts Tuesday, President Mohammad Khatami thanked the United States for aid but played down talk that Washington's contribution would thaw frosty relations.

Khatami's remarks came after Secretary of State Colin Powell said he sees a "new attitude" in Iran that could lead to a restoration of ties between the United States and the Islamic republic that President Bush has called part of an "axis of evil."

"There are things happening, and therefore we should keep open the possibility of dialogue at an appropriate point in the future," Powell was quoted as saying in Tuesday's Washington Post.

Iranian leaders have agreed to permit unannounced inspections of the country's nuclear energy program and made overtures to moderate Arab governments. They also accepted an offer of U.S. humanitarian aid after last week's devastating magnitude-6.6 earthquake. [...]

In the latest U.S. shipment, an American military plane carrying 80 personnel and medical supplies landed early Tuesday in the provincial capital of Kerman. The team reached Bam, 120 miles to the southeast, by midday.

Seven U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo planes have already delivered 150,000 pounds of relief supplies -- including blankets, medical supplies and water -- making the United States one of the largest international donors.

Nothing like a disaster to drive home the point that your system doesn't work.

---

FROM THE ARCHIVES--SO WE GROAN:

The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams by Lester J. Cappon (Editor)

Adams to Jefferson (Montezillo, May 12th. 1820.)

The question between spirit and matter appears to me nugatory because we have neither evidence nor idea of either. All that we certainly know is that some substance exists, which must be the cause of all the qualitys and Attributes which we perceive: Extension, Solidity, Perception, memory, and Reason, for all these are Attributes, or adjectives, and not Essences or substantives.

Sixty years ago, at College, I read Berkley, and from that time to this I have been fully persuaded that we know nothing of Essences, that some Essence does exist, which causes our minds with all their ideas, and this visible World with all its wonders. I am certain that this Cause is wise, Benevolent and powerful, beyond all conception; I cannot doubt, but what it is, I cannot conjecture.

Suppose we dwell a little on this matter. The Infinite divisibility of it had long ago been demonstrated by Mathematicians--When the Marquis De L'Hospital arose and demonstrated that there were quantities and not infinitely little, but others infinitely less than those infinitely littles, and he might have gone on, for what I know, to all Eternity demonstrating that there are quantities infinitely littles, and he might have gone on, for what I know, to all Eternity demonstrating that there are quantities infinitely less than the last infinitely littles; and the Phenomena of nature seems to coincide with De L'Hospitals demonstrations. For example, Astronomers inform us that the Star draconis is distant from the Earth 38. 000, 000. 000. 000. miles. The Light that proceeds from that Star, therefore, must fill a Sphere of 78. 000, 000, 000, 000, miles in diameter, and every part of that Sphere equal to the size of the pupil of the human Eye. Light is Matter, and every ray, every pencil of that light is made up of particles very little indeed, if not infinitely little, or infinitely less than infinitely little. If this Matter is not fine enough and subtle enough to perceive, to feel and to think, it is too subtle for any human intellect or imagination to conceive, for I defy any human mind to form any idea of anything so small. However, after all, Matter is but Matter; if it is infinitely less than infinitely little, it is incapable of memory, judgement, or feeling, or pleasure or pain, as far as I can conceive. Yet for anything I know, it may be as capable of Sensation and reflection as Spirit, for I confess I know not how Spirit can think, feel or act, any more than Matter. In truth, I cannot conceive how either can move or think, so that I must repose upon your pillow of ignorance, which I find very soft and consoleing, for it absolves my conscience from all culpability in this respect. But I insist upon it that the Saint has as good a right to groan at the Philosopher for asserting that there is nothing but matter in the Universe, As the Philosopher has to laugh at the Saint for saying that there are both Matter and Spirit, Or as the Infidel has to despise Berckley for saying that we cannot prove that there is anything in the Universe but Spirit and Idea--for this indeed is all he asserted, for he never denied the Existence of Matter. After all, I agree that both the groan and the Smile is impertinent, for neither knows what he says, or what he affirms, and I will say of both, as Turgot says of Berkley in his Article of Existence in the Encyclopedia: it is easier to despise than to answer them.

[...]

Oh delightful Ignorance! When I arrive at a certainty that I am Ignorant, and that I always must be ignorant, while I live I am happy, for I know I can no longer be responsible.

We shall meet hereafter and laugh at our present botherations. So believes your old Friend,

JOHN ADAMS

Jefferson to Adams (Monticello. Aug. 15. 20.)

[L]et me turn to your puzzling letter of May 12. on matter, spirit, motion, etc. It's croud of scepticisms kept me from sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne, 'I feel: therefore I exist.' I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existencies then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can conceive thought to be an action of a particular organisation of matter, formed for that purpose by it's creator, as well as that attraction is an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tracts of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, put matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that 'God is spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the antient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter. [...] All heresies being now done away with us, these schismatics are merely atheists, differing from the material Atheists only in their belief that 'nothing made something,' and from the material deist who believes that matter alone can operate on matter.

Rejecting all organs of information therefore but my senses, I rid myself of Pyrrhonisms with which an indulgence in speculations hyperphysical and antiphysical so uselessly occupy and disquiet the mind. A single sense may indeed be sometimes deceived, but rarely: and never all our senses together, with the faculty of reasoning. They evidence realities; and there are enough of these for the purposes of life, without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence. I am sure that I really know many, many, things, and none more surely than that I love you with all my heart, and pray for the continuance of your life until you shall be tired of it yourself.

TH: JEFFERSON

Though Adams' skepticism is quite obviously right, it is Jefferson's closing lines that are the kicker, for no man will deny that he loves and is loved and that this love is something quite real and independent of the world of mere material. That's not a reasoned argument, just an assertion (an expression of faith) but it is sufficient and just as sufficient now as it was then. And so, ultimately, we all groan with the Saint and deny materialism and rationalism in practice.

---

VIRTUAL, NOT DIGITAL:

The Top Science Stories of 2003 (Scientific American, 12/24/03)

For some, this year in science may be remembered more for its disasters than its successes. On January 16 the space shuttle Columbia launched to great fanfare, only to fail tragically on re-entry 16 days later. Then came news of the mysterious and lethal disease known as SARS, which sparked worldwide panic. And a midsummer blackout stretching from Ontario to New York served as a vivid reminder of how dependent we are on a fragile power grid.

Amid these calamities, however, a number of noteworthy achievements unfolded. China became the third nation to send people into space; paleontologists working in Ethiopia unearthed the oldest known members of our species; researchers applied virtual reality to colonoscopies and autopsies with stunning results. In addition, the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA and the centennial of powered flight served as springboards for reflection on the bigger picture of scientific progress.

Below, and in no particular order, are 25 of the stories that most impressed us here at Scientific American.com. Some are included on the basis of their significance, others for sheer fun. --The Editors

For straight aging men, this was the best story of all.

---

KAISER ROLLED:

Abu Sayyaf gunmen captured in southern Philippines (Agence France Presse, 29 December 2003)

Two men believed to be field commanders of the Muslim Abu Sayyaf kidnap gang have been captured following military raids in the southern Philippines at the weekend.

Troops arrested Alih Malabon, also known as Abu Nidal, and Mohammad Said, alias Commander Kaiser, in operations Saturday near the southern port city of Zamboanga, the military southern command said. [...]

Malabon and Said are implicated in the murders of Americans Guillermo Sobero and Martin Burnham, two of three US hostages kidnapped by the group from a beach resort in May 2001. [...]

The gunmen earlier this warned they would launch retaliatory attacks after the military captured Galib Andang, known also as Commander Robot, one of the group's top lieutenants who engineered a daring kidnapping raid on Malaysian resorts in 2000.

Is there anywhere the terrorists aren't back on their heels?

---

PROVING KEYSER SOZE RIGHT:

Moral Ambiguities and the Crime Novels of P.D. James (Patricia A Ward, May 16, 1984, Christian Century)

The classic detective story cannot exist apart from the principles of the existence of good and evil and of poetic justice. The crime is usually a murder; with the discovery of the identity of the murderer, the criminal experiences a kind of Aristotelian reversal. The reader closes the book knowing that justice will be carried out. Some literary critics have trouble with the conventionality of the principle of good and evil in the detective story; its focal point has been the cleverness of the investigator of the crime, not the psychology of the characters caught up in the drama of the crime.

In an article in Crime Writers, edited by H. R. F. Keating (1978), P. D. James defended Dorothy Sayers against that charge, pointing out that Sayers had begun to include the details of ordinary life in the detective story, placing events in a real world. Margery Allingham and Ngaio Marsh, too, “are novelists, not merely fabricators of ingenious puzzles. Both seek, not always successfully, to reconcile the conventions of the classical detective story with the novel of social realism.’’

On more fundamental grounds. James defends the crime novel in the hands of these writers because they never trivialize crime:

"A genre which rests on the fundamental belief that willful killing is wrong and that every human being, no matter how unpleasant, inconvenient or worthless his life may be, has a right to live it to the last natural moment, needs no particular apology in an age in which gratuitous violence and arbitrary death have become common." [...]

Adam Dalgleish, the investigator in this first group of novels, is relentless, clever and intuitive, but he is no stereotype. A cool professional, he is also painfully aware of the dilemmas of his work and the fallibility of human nature. The writer of two books of poetry, he suffers because his self-knowledge permits him truly to understand the motives of the characters of each murder drama. When he questions a striking and intelligent woman about her past and her relationship with a very ordinary, but safe, friend and confidante, he is told that he could never understand. “But he did understand,” writes James. “There had been a boy in his prep school like that, so ordinary, so safe, that he was a kind of talisman against death and disaster.”

Adam is strangely detached and uncommitted. He has suffered the tragedy of the deaths of his wife and infant son. Although the threads of a romance are introduced in the early novels, Dalgleish does not remarry. In A Mind to Murder, he visits a Catholic church to light a candle on the 14th anniversary of his wife’s death, but he is not a believer. “He thought of this most private action in his detached and secretive life, not as superstition or piety, but as a habit which he could not break even if he wished.”

Dalgleish is perhaps a modern Everyman; aware of the great existential issues of life, he takes no stand on them. Although he is the son of an Anglican clergyman, he is alone and self-sufficient in a world of ambiguity and violence where love often is a possessive passion which is easily transformed into hate. In Shroud, Adam passes through the outpatient department of the hospital and is reminded of his own mortality. It is not that he fears death. “But he did grievously fear old age, mortal illness and disablement. He dreaded the loss of independence, the indignities of senility. . . . He was not arrogant enough to suppose himself secure from the lot of other men. But in the meantime, he preferred not to be reminded.”

Adam refuses to discuss the motivation to murder in terms of sin or wickedness. He agrees with Dr. Etherege in A Mind to Murder when asked about the unknown murderer: “Wicked? I’m not competent to discuss this in theological terms.” There are no clear-cut theological answers which explain the moral ambiguities of human action. James has commented:

"Dalgleish’s failing as a human being . . . is that he is very careful to avoid commitment; detecting is in a sense an ideal job for him, because although he is constantly interfering with other people, finding things out about them and coming into their lives in a very dramatic way, he must remain detached -- he’d be an unsatisfactory policeman otherwise."

The modern secular rationalist wears this inability to commit like a badge of honor, the inability to determine what is good and what evil and to acknowledge the superiority of their own civilization. Tolerance is their mantra, no matter how vile the things they're required to tolerate. A quintessential moment came last week when Dr. Dean found himself unable to judge Osama bin Laden. In effect, such people ally themselves with evil even as the congratuulate themselves on doing good.

---

RUNNING RINGS AROUND TOLKIEN:

THE RING AND THE RINGS: Wagner vs. Tolkien (ALEX ROSS, 2003-12-15, The New Yorker)

It is probably heretical to suggest that the “Lord of the Rings” films surpass the books on which they are based. (Correspondence on this subject may be addressed to Alex Ross, The North Pole.) The books tell a fantastic story in a familiar style, but the movies transcend the apparent limitations of their medium in the same way that Wagner transcended the limitations of opera. They revive the art of Romantic wonder; they manufacture the sublime. I hope that at least a small fraction of the huge worldwide audiences for these films will one day be tempted into Wagner’s world, which offers something else again. For Tolkien, myth is a window on an ideal world, both brighter and blacker than our own. For Wagner, it is a magnifying mirror for the average, desperate modern soul.

There is a widespread conception of Wagner’s cycle as a bombastic nationalistic saga in which blond-haired heroes triumph over dwarfish, vaguely Jewish enemies. Wagner unquestionably left himself open to this interpretation, but the “Ring” is not at all what it seems. It is in fact a prolonged assault on the very idea of worldly power, the cult of the monumental—everything that we think of as “Wagnerian.” At the beginning, the god Wotan is looking to expand his realm. But every step he takes to assert himself over the affairs of others, to make his will reality, leads inexorably to his downfall. He is marked from the outset, and the ring becomes a symbol of the corruption of his authority. Tolkien believes in the forces of good, in might for right. Wagner dismisses all that—he had an anarchist streak early on—and sees redemption only in love.

When Tolkien stole Wagner’s ring, he discarded its most significant property—that it can be forged only by one who has forsworn love. (Presumably, Sauron gave up carnal pleasures when he became an all-seeing eye at the top of a tower, but it’s hard to say for certain. Maybe he gets a kick out of the all-seeing bit.) The sexual opacity of Tolkien’s saga has often been noted, and the films faithfully replicate it. Desirable people appear onscreen, and one is given to understand that at some point they have had or will have had relations, but their entanglements are incidental to the plot. It is the little ring that brings out the lust in men and in hobbits. And what, honestly, do people want in it? Are they envious of Sauron’s bling-bling life style up on top of Barad-dûr? Tolkien mutes the romance of medieval stories and puts us out in self-abnegating, Anglican-modernist, T. S. Eliot territory. The ring is a never-ending nightmare to which people are drawn for no obvious reason. It generates lust and yet gives no satisfaction.

Wagner, by contrast, uses the ring to shine a light on various intense, confused, all-too-human relationships. Alberich forges the ring only after the Rhine maidens turn away his advances. Wotan becomes obsessed with it as a consequence of his loveless marriage; he buries himself in his work. Even after he sees through his delusions, and achieves a quasi-Buddhist acceptance of his powerlessness, he has nothing else to lean on, not even his Gandalfian staff, and wanders off into the night. Siegfried and Brünnhilde, lost in their love for each other, succeed in remaking the ring as an ordinary trinket, a symbol of their devotion. They assert their earthbound passion against Wotan’s godly world, and thus bring it down. The apparatus of myth itself—the belief in higher and lower powers, hierarchies, orders—crumbles with the walls of Valhalla. Perhaps what angered Tolkien most was that Wagner wrote a sixteen-hour mythic opera and then, at the end, blew up the foundations of myth.

Admittedly, the notion of the “Ring” cycle as some sort of sexual hothouse can seem far-fetched when the operas are seen in performance. People like to think of Wagner as a lot of large people standing around and singing loudly, and they are not mistaken. The Met lacks a Heldentenor who looks even a little bit like Viggo Mortensen. But if in the opera house you sometimes notice a discrepancy between what you hear in the libretto and music and what you see onstage it is no less distracting than what moviegoers are asked to believe on a routine basis. You don’t ask whether an elf could kill an oliphaunt, or even what an oliphaunt is; you go along with the premise. It is the same in opera. The premise is that performers trained as opera singers are going to assume action-hero roles. Squint a little and it’s all fine.

Having been introduced to the story, improbably enough, by an adaptation in the Thor comic book, I saw the Seattle Opera do the Ring Cycle in Summer 1981. At the intermissions, little old ladies would elbow their ways past you to get to the bar and then bitterly complain about how much better it was in Bayreuth in '38, when the Fuhrer attended. Meanwhile, the Seventh Day Adventists were in town for some kind of convocation, but the church had declared the imminent end of days and folks were selling their homes and giving the proceeds to the church, so protestors, afraid of recriminations, were marching with black hoods over their heads, that they might not be recognized by other church members. All in all it was like being trapped in a scene from Cabaret.

---

THE NOMINEE IT DESERVES

. . Or a Rational Response? (E. J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, 12/30/03)

In the 2000 election, Bush had an advantage over Al Gore because Republican rank-and-filers so hated Bill Clinton -- and so wanted to win -- that they gave Bush ample room to sound as moderate as John Breaux or Olympia Snowe. Bush's 2000 Republican National Convention hid the base behind the appealing face of inclusiveness and outreach. Gore, in the meantime, had to claw back the votes of liberals and lefties who had strayed to Ralph Nader.

This time the Democrats will have most of the election year to appeal to swing voters. Democrats are so hungry to beat Bush that they will let their nominee do just about anything, even be pragmatic and shrewd.

That's why 2004 will be very different from 2003. Democrats who loved Dean's attacks on Bush this year now want Dean to prove he can beat him. Dean's opponents know this, which is why their core case is that Dean can't win. And watch for the appearance of the new, pragmatic Howard Dean, the doctor with an unerring sense of his party's pulse.

If Howard Dean leads the Democratic Party into an electoral debacle next year, losing not only the Presidency, but widening the GOP's majorities in the House and Senate, how will Democrats respond? They will blame Dean for the mistakes he made. They will blame Terry McAuliffe for front-loading the Democratic primaries. They will say that a President enjoying an artificially goosed economy during a time of war can not be beaten. They will say that Karl Rove is an evil genius whose ruthlessness they are too pure to match. They will say that Hilary would have wiped the floor with W.

To be sure, there is a kernal of truth in all these excuses but the last. No Democrat, though, is likely to get to the heart of the problem. Except for the DLC, no Democrat is likely to say in public any of the following three things: George Bush is an accomplished politician, no idiot and dedicated to building his party like no President in modern times; the American people don't trust the Democrats on national security, and haven't for more than thirty years; and the Democrats' core policies are increasingly unpopular.

The danger, though, is that the Republicans will make the opposite error. We will congratulate President Bush on his brilliant strategy, we will note that Americans never voluntarily change Presidents mid-war, and we will -- as we always do -- claim that our ideas are much more popular than they are. We will ignore the fact that, by nominating Howard Dean, the Democrats conceded the election.

All this is preface to my confession that I do not understand what is going on in the Democratic Party. It is true that the early primary system, designed to select a nominee early who can then concentrate on the President, is backfiring, saddling the party with a nominee who might not be able to stay on top for a long slog. But that is somewhat backwards. Dr. Dean is playing by the rules the party set. As President Bush said about losing the popular vote: if the rules had been different, we would have run a different campaign. We must at least consider the possibility that the same is true of the rest of Dr. Dean's campaign; that it was consciously designed to succeed under the rules set down by the party. Dr. Dean is a loose cannon, but is he loose like a fox, convincing the base that his ad libs are a peek into his unspoken thoughts, which are as mad as they are? In the primaries, the fittest candidate survives, but the Democrats seem to have ended up with a system in which the fittest candidate for the nomination is unfit for the general election.

And yet here is EJ Dionne defending that system. Dr. Dean has consolidated the base, he has convinced them he is one of them, the base is hungry for victory and so will tolerate his coming break to the right. I think that a tiger is being ridden here, but I don't yet know whether the tiger is the base, or Dr. Dean.

MORE: Dean Labels Bush 'Reckless': Candidate Launches Broad Criticisms Tied to U.S. Security (Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, 12/30/03)

From Iraq to homeland security to public health, President Bush's "reckless" habit of placing "ideology over facts" has resulted in "the most dangerous administration in my lifetime," Democrat Howard Dean charged over the past two days.

In Midwest campaign stops and an interview, the former Vermont governor said developments both abroad and at home give credence to his assertion two weeks ago that the United States is "no safer" with the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"If we are safer, how come we lost 10 more troops and raised the safety alert" to the orange level, Dean said Sunday night in Ankeny, Iowa.

---

BUT THE WORLD WAS JUST AS SAFE WITH SADDAM IN POWER?:

Banned Arms Flowed Into Iraq Through Syrian Firm: Files found in Baghdad describe deals violating U.N. sanctions and offer a glimpse into the murky world of weapons smuggling and the ties between 'rogue states.' (Bob Drogin and Jeffrey Fleishman, December 30, 2003, LA Times)

A Syrian trading company with close ties to the ruling regime smuggled weapons and military hardware to Saddam Hussein between 2000 and 2003, helping Syria become the main channel for illicit arms transfers to Iraq despite a stringent U.N. embargo, documents recovered in Iraq show.

The private company, called SES International Corp., is headed by a cousin of Syria's autocratic leader, Bashar Assad, and is controlled by other members of Assad's Baath Party and Alawite clan. Syria's government assisted SES in importing at least one shipment destined for Iraq's military, the Iraqi documents indicate, and Western intelligence reports allege that senior Syrian officials were involved in other illicit transfers.

Iraqi records show that SES signed more than 50 contracts to supply tens of millions of dollars' worth of arms and equipment to Iraq's military shortly before the U.S.-led invasion in March. They reveal Iraq's increasingly desperate search in at least a dozen countries for ballistic missiles, antiaircraft missiles, artillery, spare parts for MIG fighter jets and battle tanks, gunpowder, radar systems, nerve agent antidotes and more.

Pretty much all the dwarves are on record as saying sanctions should have been given more time to "work".

---

WHAT DREAMS MAY COME (via Kevin Whited):

Back Peddling (Jacob T. Levy, 12/26/03, New Republic)

It is a foul political season for those of us with sympathies for the New Democratic agenda. Joe Lieberman's campaign is showing a few signs of life, but they are far too little, far too late. Clintonistas have mostly gravitated toward Wesley Clark, still a blank slate on domestic
policy, or John Edwards, in many ways an Old Democrat who happens to have youthful good looks and enough of a drawl to remind them of the good ole days. And presumptive nominee Howard Dean is calling for a rollback of deregulation and explicitly distancing himself from Bill Clinton's Democratic Party. On the other side we face a GOP that is determined to buy its way to electoral dominance, abandoning its free-market and small-government principles in all but rhetoric. Among other things, the administration seems convinced it can impose protectionist measures while still triumphantly concluding a hemispheric free trade agreement, several smaller trade deals, and the Doha round of WTO negotiations. Unsurprisingly, it hasn't worked; the protectionist measures have torpedoed most of the trade talks.

In retrospect, it appears that the New Democratic moment was a fragile one, and its highlights more than a bit accidental. Welfare reform, NAFTA, and the WTO were all essentially products of the interaction between Clinton, a small minority of moderate Democrats, and a majority (but not an overwhelming majority) of congressional Republicans.

Pity the poor New Democrats, who have seen the failure of Clintonism lead to the co-opting of their movement by George W. Bush. Mr. Levy's post-mortem is nonsensical, as his complaint about trade amply demonstrates. Bill Clinton signed a couple treaties that Republicans initiated and passed, but couldn't get authority to negotiate further; while Mr. Bush won that authority and is cranking out new agreements quite rapidly. Meanwhile, the spirit of Welfare Reform lives on in the voucherization that lies at the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act, the MSAs in Medicare Reform and the pending privatization of Social Security.

You can hardly blame the poor guy for covering his eyes and ears and denying reality, but that's what he's doing. George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism/ownership society is the realization of Third Way dreams, but in those dreams it was Democrats not Republicans who led the way.

MORE:
MSAs Unleashed! (Greg Scandlen, 01/01/2004, The Heartland Institute)

The Medicare reform measure passed by Congress in November included a Health Savings Account (HSA) provision that renames--and dramatically expands and improves--the Medical Savings Account (Archer MSA) pilot program launched in 1996.

Unlike some other provisions of the new bill, MSA expansion will go into effect quickly. On January 1, 2004, all 250 million non-elderly Americans will be permitted to choose a Health Savings Account. By contrast, MSA participation was limited to small businesses and self-employed persons, and the number of MSAs was capped at 750,000.

For America’s senior citizens, Medicare MSAs were reauthorized by the measure and appear to be permanent.

---

THE DEER HUNTER CHRONICLES:

After Complaint, Dean Explains Himself to Party Chairman (DIANE CARDWELL and JODI WILGOREN, 12/30/03, NY Times)

Howard Dean reached out to the Democratic national chairman on Monday, a day after rebuking him as failing to stop attacks by Mr. Dean's rivals for the Democratic nomination, even as those candidates seized on the episode as grist for new criticism.

The call to Mr. McAuliffe came less than two weeks after Dr. Dean, a former Vermont governor, called former President Bill Clinton to clear the air a day after seeming to repudiate Mr. Clinton's statement that the "era of big government is over." [...]

In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Lieberman said that he was stunned that Dr. Dean wanted Mr. McAuliffe to "protect him from criticisms from other Democratic candidates" and that he had threatened "to take his supporters and go home if he doesn't get the nomination."

"What does Howard do now that he is being substantively challenged about his policies and his judgments and various misstatements and retractions?" Mr. Lieberman asked. "He goes to the Democratic Party leadership and complains we're being mean to him."

Let us pause for a moment and consider what Mr. Dean has achieved here: he actually put himself in a position where Joe Lieberman can plausibly imply he's a wimp.

---

THE FURY TURNS INWARD:

Al Qaeda Links Seen in Attacks on Top Saudi Security Officials (DOUGLAS JEHL, 12/30/03, NY Times)

Islamic militants in Saudi Arabia with links to Al Qaeda appear to be making a concerted new effort to destabilize the Saudi government by assassinating top security officials, according to senior American officials.

A series of assassination attempts in the last month, including a failed car bombing in the Saudi capital on Monday, have also included a previously undisclosed shooting in early December of Maj. Gen. Abdelaziz al-Huweirini. As the No. 3 official in Saudi Arabia's Interior Ministry, he is the kingdom's top counterterrorism official. [...]

The Saudi royal government has long been the principal target of Osama bin Laden and his followers, but the extent of the Qaeda network inside the kingdom that has become evident in recent months has surprised many Saudi and American officials. American officials say analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency have warned that the crackdown might well provoke Qaeda militants in Saudi Arabia to step up their attacks, an assessment that was first reported by Knight Ridder newspapers.

On Sunday, the British government warned that a terrorist attack could be in the final stages of preparation in Saudi Arabia. That warning amplified others issued this month by the United States, which on Dec. 17 authorized the voluntary withdrawal of family members and nonemergency personnel from the American Embassy and consulates in the kingdom.

That al Qaeda has decided to leap ahead to their final battle while they're losing all the intermediary ones suggests a certain desperation.

---

JUST IGNORE DEMOGRAPHICS AND THEY'LL CORRECT THEMSELVES, EH?:

Europe and the US: Lost in translation (Bret Stephens, Dec. 26, 2003, Jerusalem Post)

Across the Straits of Gibraltar, along every side of the Italian boot, the Middle East literally laps on Europe's shores. In America, Muslims constitute fewer than one percent of the population, according to a 2001 survey. In much of Europe, the figure exceeds 12%, and growing fast. For America, the Middle East is a place that generates oil and terrorists, both of which pose potential strategic threats. For Europe, the Middle East is a place that generates hordes of destitute people, who pose an existential one.

No wonder, then, that Europe looks with skepticism on US efforts to bring democracy to Iraq: It remembers what democracy almost brought Algeria in 1992. No wonder Europe was willing to countenance Saddam Hussein: Who else could have held that fractious country together? No wonder Europe wants to give the Palestinians a state, and quickly: What else so inflames Muslim sentiments on their own streets? No wonder no French government was ever going to go along with an unpopular American war on an Arab country: Even Bush might have thought twice if Arab-Americans were as numerous in Florida as they are in Michigan.

None of this is to say that Europeans are necessarily right on the issues. It is to say that European motives aren't so pleasingly divorced from the realities of the Hobbesian world as many observers, particularly in Israel and the US, seem to believe. The truth is that Europe generally operates according to a fairly hardboiled view of the world and its place within it; the course it has pursued for decades has been steady and consistent.

Here too we see that demographics determines policy and national futures.

---

GOTTA WEAR SHADES:

Useful Idiot: A Review of Bruce Cumings' North Korea: Another Country (Anders Lewis, Front Page)

Cumings believes that North Korea is a misunderstood land. Its leaders are not dangerous megalomaniacs. Rather, DPRK leaders have always been pragmatic and nationalistic. During the Cold War, they avoided dependence on the Soviet Union, created a productive economy, and improved living standards. The society they created is impressive. North Korea’s streets are clean, its people humble, and crime is almost non-existent. Kim Il Sung, the father of North Korean communism, was a "a classic Robin Hood figure" who cared deeply for his people. North Korea’s current leader, Kim Jong Il, is "not the playboy, womanizer, drunk, and mentally deranged fanatic ‘Dr. Evil’ of our press." Instead he is a "homebody who doesn’t socialize much, doesn’t drink much, and works at home in his pajamas." The Dear Leader also loves to tinker with music boxes, watch James Bond movies, and play Super Mario video games. The cover of Cumings’s book neatly summarizes his views. On it is a photograph of a group of uniformed women performing some type of dramatic production for North Korean soldiers. With smoke in the background, one woman stands tall and points a gun to the horizon. Coming out of the gun is a red flag. Everyone looks on in awe. The image implies that under communism, North Korea’s future - though not without struggle - is bright.

Of course it's bright--thermonuclear explosions are brilliant.

---

THE NECESSARY FASCIST INTERVAL:

Putin adds impetus to banking reform (Arkady Ostrovsky, December 30 2003, Financial Times)

Russia's slow-moving banking reform received a boost yesterday when President Vladimir Putin signed into law a long-awaited deposit insurance bill crucial to restoring consumer confidence in private banks.

The bill is one of the most important pieces of banking reform, which has been lagging behind Russia's economic progress since the 1998 financial crisis.

While political correctness requires us to moan about Putin's anti-democratic methods, he continues to restore the foundations of real democracy in Russia for the first time in 85 years.

---

SIMPLE INDIFFERENCE:

The Problem of Evil (Benjamin D. Wiker, December 2003, Crisis)

If God does not exist, then there is no evil in the world. We can illustrate this seeming paradox by watching how quickly the cri de coeur is undermined in the most thorough and powerful denial of design: Darwinism.

Charles Darwin himself famously complained in a letter to Asa Gray, “I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [parasitic insects] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” Rather than such apparent natural cruelties being the result of divine intention, Darwin chose to hang them on the vagaries of natural selection. As a result, the presence of evil was rendered unproblematic because we could only expect a mixture of good and bad results from evolution’s ongoing natural lottery.

Witness, however, the jaws of defeat already devouring the victory: If the universe and all things in it are the unintended result of the purposeless ebb and flow, expansion and collapse, explosion and fusion of matter and energy, then we have lost the grounds for complaint about all the evil in the world. The dust cannot complain to the cosmic wind that blows it recklessly hither and thither.

The irony, then, is that, while the “misery in the world” helped to confirm Darwin’s belief in a world without design, consigning the cause of the misery to evolution meant, ultimately, giving up the existence of evil. As the Voltaire of contemporary Darwinism, zoologist Richard Dawkins, has rightly noted, from the perspective of evolution, while such parasitism as Darwin complained about may seem “savagely cruel,” the truth of the matter is that “nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.” For Dawkins, this is “one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn.” In a cosmos in which a creator is absent, things are “neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”

Paradoxically, then, eliminating God because of the existence of evil means embracing an impersonal, que será será cosmos utterly indifferent not only to our complaints but even to the distinction between good and evil itself.

What's strange is that so many who know in their hearts that good and evil exist insist in their heads that they do not.

---

DEMOGRAPHICS DRIVE:

Demographics Drive Likud's Shifting Agenda (ORI NIR, DECEMBER 26, 2003, The Forward)

Driving the Likud's metamorphosis from "Greater Israel" dogmatism to separation pragmatism are not constraints of geography but of demography.

"Above all hovers the cloud of demographics," Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea of Yediot Aharonot last week, explaining his dramatic decision to come out in favor of unilateral Israeli withdrawal from most of the territories. "It will come down on us not in the end of days, but in just another few years," Olmert said, explaining that if Israel does not disengage from the West Bank and Gaza, the growth rate of Arabs in the territories and inside Israel — which is much higher than that of Jews — will sooner rather than later force Israel to choose between being a Jewish state and being a democratic one.

Olmert, the most outspoken of Likud's leaders on the need for separation, said: "We are approaching a point where more and more Palestinians will say: 'There is no place for two states between the Jordan and the sea. All we want is the right to vote.' The day they get it, we will lose everything." He added: "I shudder to think that liberal Jewish organizations that shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa will lead the struggle against us."

The demographic forecasts that Olmert alluded to are not new. Israeli demographers have been warning for years that by 2020, Jews will no longer be a majority of the population living in the region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which includes the state of Israel proper as well as the disputed West Bank and Gaza. Israel's political left has been using these forecasts to advocate speeding up the peace process to bring an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.

But only recently have demographics come to fully reverberate in Israel's political echo-chamber and begun pushing the political agenda of the ruling party.

Folk are found of saying that demographics just show trends, which are entirely plastic in their view and need not be forecasts of the future. But no matter how deep in the sand you bury your head, those numbers change the future, don't they?

---

SOMEBODY HOLLER:

Canadian conservatism needs relationship rescue: "How's that working for ya?" Canadian conservative agenda? (J.L. Jackson, December 22, 2003, Enter Stage Right)

To avoid positions on difficult subjects like traditional marriage vs. same sex marriage, limits on late term abortion vs. abortion on demand, free speech vs. hate law legislation, fighting organised crime vs. marijuana decriminalization and many other issues; has become counter-productive. The agenda only appears hidden because no one knows what it is. Well researched facts, talking points and even practised sound bites are the pragmatic solution to help all Members of Parliament deal with cultural areas that have been let slip off the Canadian conservative radar screen in the last decade or more.

Many of those who excitedly endorse the urge to merge oversimplify Canada's "Grit-lock," (characterized by the book with the same title written by Adam Daifallah and Peter White) by claiming the key to beating Paul Martin is in the number game (read Daifallah's recent National Review editorial on Canadian conservatism). Hopeful optimism holds many back from realising uniting conservatives is much more than a mathematical equation.

Conservatives in Canada don't lose because the numbers don't add up, they lose because a cohesive conservative agenda currently does not exist. It is time for a cultural conservative shift.

What Canadian conservatives need is a multi-lateral, "never give in" Canadian conservative infrastructure to thwack down the dark and dangerously deep weeds proliferating out of the swamp of Liberalism that is strangling free thought and new ideas in Canada.

Where is the Canadian conservative alternative press to boldly advance new ideas? Now that the lone Canadian conservative magazine – the Alberta Report has bit the dust where do we turn to find an empathetic and yet analytical voice? True, there are a handful of mostly economic-conservative think tanks populated by old men. And a sprinkling of other conservative non-government organisations, do in fact exist. But, considering the airplay any or all of them receive, an average Canadian (including an average conservative) would be hard pressed to name a single one. These days you can count a handful of Canadian conservative websites such as Freedom Institute and Enter Stage Right, the world of the blog and a few what might qualify as conservatish radio talk show hosts. And truth be told radio and the internet are the least expensive method of reaching the most people. It is a beginning, but deeper penetration, on a national scale, is needed to distribute the conservative message directly to the Canadian people. .

Canadian conservatives desperately need these tools to cut through the nefariously nihilistic Liberal agenda that permeates our mainstream media, our academic institutions, our Parliament, and our Liberal appointed courts. More dangerously, Liberalism has even sunk its tentacles into how Canadian conservatives think about conservatism.

At a similar time in America, we were fortunate enough to have a Russell Kirk come along and establish that there was indeed a vital and coherent conservative tradition running through our history and a Bill Buckley come along to enunciate and defend a conservative agenda. The resulting conservative revival was a decidely counter-cultural project, and proudly so. Has Canada no such men--willing, eager even, to fight the zeitgeist?

---

HAD ENOUGH?:

A Democrat breaks with tradition: Bush's strong leadership on terror war trumps my other objections. (P. Amy MacKinnon, 12/30/03, CS Monitor)

When I was growing up, the family dinner was a tradition. Above the clatter of plates, my parents discussed the world around us from their perspectives at either end of the great oak table. Together, we'd review the news of the day put into context by the events of yesterday, and always we'd think about tomorrow. Politics was a main course, and being a working-class family from Massachusetts, we were fed a healthy serving of Democratic Party principles.

I carried those beliefs along with me when I worked for Democrats in both the US House of Representatives and the Massachusetts state legislature. More important, I've always carried them with me into the voting booth.

But I expect to break with that tradition. Come November, I'll be casting my vote for George Bush.

When Mr. Bush first ran for president in 2000, I found both his politics and his campaign methods anathema to the American concept of justice. I was with the many who questioned whether his intellect, interest, and experience were commensurate with the demands of being the leader of the free world. I didn't approve of his so-called middle-class tax cuts, nor his incorporating nuclear power into his energy plan, nor his judgment in appointing an attorney general inclined to sheathe immodest works of art.

But then Sept. 11 happened. Our nation needed the strength of a leader, and I wondered where we'd find one.

It wasn't until the president stood with firefighters and rescue workers at ground zero that I began to wonder if perhaps I'd misjudged him. Previously wooden while delivering prepared speeches, the man who shouted into the bullhorn from where the World Trade Center had stood demanded to be heard. And I listened - the whole world listened.

I began to hope that our country finally had a leader who'd have the moral fortitude to say to our enemies around the world: Enough. [...]

So in November, I'll break with tradition and vote for a Republican. I'll place my trust, fears, and future in the hands of a man who has shown the world what it means to lead a nation. It's a tradition of leadership that began with Washington and Lincoln, continued with FDR, and has been resurrected by Bush.

Meanwhile, the Democrats appear poised to place their future in the hands of a man who can't even bring himself to blame Osama bin Laden for 9-11.

---

COMPLICATE REFORM?:

Serbian Radical Party surge may complicate reform (Peter Ford, 12/30/03, CS Monitor)

Serbia has stumbled again in its bumpy climb out of a bloody past, as the country's most aggressively nationalist party took the most votes in Sunday's parliamentary elections.

The Serbian Radical Party, an ultra- nationalist grouping allied with former Yugoslav president and indicted war criminal Slobodan Milosevic, won almost one-third of the votes, according to unofficial results.

Though not strong enough to form a government, the Radicals are well placed to complicate efforts by the coalition of reformist parties that is expected to try to rule, Serb analysts predict. [...]

Western governments, keen to establish a stable, democratic, and reformist government in Belgrade, are not popular in Serbia, where memories of NATO bombing during the Kosovo war are still fresh. Nor does the prospect of economic prosperity as a member of the European Union hold much appeal. [...]

"I am counting on international pressure to force (the reformists) to try something," says Mr. Stepanovic. "And I am counting on the leaders to be aware that if they fail, new elections could bring a new radicalization of the electorate."

That, say several Serb political analysts, appears to be the Radicals' plan, since they would be hard pressed to take power now and carry out campaign promises such as sharply reducing the price of bread or recovering "Serb lands" from neighboring states.

Instead they seem ready to bide their time, hoping a fragile reformist coalition would soon collapse and then call elections that would give the Radicals a chance to emerge victorious. "If that happened," says Stepanovic, "I dare not think of the consequences. Serbia would be stuck as a second-class country for the next 30 years."

Thirty years from now Old Europe will be begging the Serbs to cleanse ethnics.

---

WE COULD HAVE SENT FREDO INSTEAD OF LUCA BRAZZI:

Japan set to waive most of Iraq's debt, Koizumi tells U.S. (KANAKO TAKAHARA, Dec. 30, 2003, The Japan Times)

In a significant policy shift, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi signaled Monday that Japan is prepared to waive a "vast majority" of Iraq's foreign debt. [...]

Japan has been reluctant to waive the debt, most of which is in the form of trade insurance, because during a donors' meeting in October in Madrid, it pledged $5 billion in financial assistance to Iraq over a four-year period until the end of 2007.

Government sources also suggested that Iraq's ability to pay with oil revenues should be considered part of the discussion about whether its debt should be forgiven.

But Monday's decision by Koizumi reflects his readiness to keep in step with other countries. Earlier this month, major creditors nations, including Germany and France, agreed on debt reduction in what is viewed as a reconciliatory overture toward the United States following a deep rift over the invasion of Iraq.

With only a few days left in 2003, it seems safe to say that no essay will be written this year that's more wrong than this one was, although every other one they've written together since 9-11 has been equally mistaken.

---

"DOING HIS DUTY":

A scholarly soldier steps inside the world of Iraq's potent tribes: American officer addresses sheikhs with verses from the Koran. (Annia Ciezadlo, 12/30/03, CS Monitor)

In the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds, Lt. Col. Alan King has two secret weapons: his Palm Pilot and his Koran. [...]

Today, Iraq has more than 150 tribes and 2,000 clans, with countless sheikhs and subsheikhs, some real, some fakes. King indexes them in his Palm Pilot, neatly subdivided into tribe, subtribe, clan, sub-clan, branch, and family. Every week, he meets with a sheikh who is also a tribal scholar. In a battered binder, they're slowly amassing a guide to all of the tribes in Iraq.

His studies paid off when he met Mr. Shaalan. A Shiite sheikh from the southern town of Diwaniya, Shaalan was the perfect US ally. He fled Iraq after the 1991 uprising against Hussein and got political asylum in Britain. He had a good relationship with the US State Department. But when he offered his counsel, and the loyalty of his 200,000-member tribe, American military commanders didn't take him seriously.

"I noticed something among the officers: They have this arrogance, and this arrogance really hurts them a lot," says Shaalan, who studied law and political science in Baghdad and London. "Everyone, even a small officer, thinks he's a big man. They don't come and ask for opinion or advice - they just do what they please, and this antagonizes the people."

Except King. When they met, King told Shaalan a complicated tribal tale about a tribe crossing a river many centuries ago. "I noticed that he was talking about the history of some clans," says Shaalan approvingly. "This shows that he is doing his duty."

Shaalan has wide-ranging influence, and not just in Iraq. His clan, the Khazzal, has branches in Syria, Jordan, southern Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and even Egypt. Like most tribes, its members are Sunni in some areas and Shiite in others.

Because their influence cuts across national and sectarian boundaries, the sheikhs can help find foreign fighters who are filtering into Iraq to fight Americans. King has asked them for help in finding insurgents and former Baathist bigwigs. So far, tips from sheikhs have helped King capture numbers 23, 62, 85, 91, 97, and 99 on the US military's Most Wanted list, as well as other miscellaneous evildoers.

We could use several hundred more like him.

---

WHAT ABOUT THE YELLOWCAKE? (via John Resnick):

U.S. Soldiers Kill 3 Suspected Militants (CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, 12/29/03, AP)

American soldiers killed three suspected members of an al-Qaida linked Islamic militant group during a firefight in the northern city of Mosul, the U.S. military said Monday. Two U.S. soldiers were wounded.

The interrogation of Saddam Hussein yielded more information with the deposed leader acknowledging sending $40 billion abroad, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council said in published remarks. The Iraqi official said Saddam had provided the names of people who know where the money is.

The operation against the suspected Ansar al-Islam militants was carried out by soldiers of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division who came under small arms fire while searching homes on Sunday. The house harboring the assailants caught fire during the shootout, and Iraqi firefighters extinguished the blaze.

After the fight, U.S. troops seized two rocket-propelled grenade launchers, eight grenades and two assault rifles, the military said in a statement. The injured soldiers were in stable condition. [...]

In other developments:

- Japan pledged to forgive "the vast majority" of Iraq's nearly $8 billion debt if others do the same, a critical boost to the U.S. campaign for debt relief. China said it would consider the idea, boosting the U.S. campaign to ease Baghdad's financial burden.

Even sillier than the argument about Saddam and WMD--is there a statute of limitations or something?--is that over his link to terrorism--never mind whether he was directly linked to al Qaeda, just consider his funding of Palestinian suicide bombers and that Ansar al-Islam operated with impunity in the North of the country.

---

MUDDLE-SLINGING:

Kerry disputes Dean's resolve: Senator still No. 2 with key primary only a month away (David M. Halbfinger, December 28, 2003, New York Times)

"We need more than simple answers and the slip of the tongue," Kerry said. "Our world is complicated, and the challenges we face demand a president who knows what he's saying and knows where America needs to go."

He reminded an avid crowd in Manchester that Dean had commended the capture of Saddam Hussein one day, then on the next asserted that it did not make America any safer. "It raises serious doubts about both his realism and resolve," Kerry said.

"When he spreads unfounded rumors about the administration having prior warnings of Sept. 11 and then passes it off because someone had posted it on the Internet, it leaves Americans questioning judgment and sense of responsibility," Kerry added. [...]

"What kind of muddled thinking is it if you can't instantly say that in your heart you know Osama bin Laden is guilty, should be tried in the U.S. and given the maximum punishment?" Kerry said.

"I tell you, you don't have to listen too carefully to hear the sound of Champagne corks popping in Karl Rove's office."

You can't hear the popping over the laughter.

---

AND HALLIBURTON GOES THE WAY OF THE PLAMES...:

Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs (JEFF GERTH and DON VAN NATTA Jr., December 29, 2003, NY Times)

The Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in southern Iraq is crucial to keeping the oil flowing from the region's petroleum-rich fields. So when American engineers found the antiquated plant barely operating earlier this year, there was no question that repairing it was important to the rebuilding of Iraq. Setting the price for the repairs was another matter.

In July, the Halliburton Company estimated that the overhaul would cost $75.7 million, according to confidential documents that the company submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. But in early September, the Bush administration asked Congress for $125 million to do the job — a 40 percent price increase in just six weeks.

The initial price was based on "drive-by estimating," said Richard V. Dowling, a spokesman for the corps, which oversees the contract. The second was a result of a more complete assessment. "The best I can lamely fall back on is to say that estimates change," said Mr. Dowling, who is based in Baghdad. "This is not business as usual."

The rebuilding of Iraq's oil industry has been characterized in the months since by increasing costs and scant public explanation. An examination of what has grown into a multibillion-dollar contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure shows no evidence of profiteering by Halliburton, the Houston-based oil services company, but it does demonstrate a struggle between price controls and the uncertainties of war, with price controls frequently losing.

Imagine the disappointment of the Timesmen when even Jeff Gerth couldn't find a scandal at Halliburton.

---

AXIS OF GOOD FILES:

Poland, Israel Sign Missile Deal (MONIKA SCISLOWSKA, December 29, 2003, Associated Press Writer)

Poland and Israel on Monday signed a deal worth some $350 million over the next 10 years to provide the Polish army with some 2,700 state-of-the-art Israeli anti-tank missiles.

The "Spike'' missiles, to be delivered between 2004 and 2013, will be produced under license from the state-owned Israeli Rafael arms corporation by Mesko, a Polish firm. Mesko will use components from Rafael, which will supply an initial batch of Israeli-made missiles next year.

The Spike is optically guided, can be shoulder-fired or mounted on vehicles or helicopters, and has a range of 4,000 yards, according to Rafael's Web site.

It will replace the Soviet-era missiles still in use by the Polish military.

The new missile program is part of a wider effort to bring the country's armed forces up to the standards of NATO, which Poland joined in 1999.

Monday's signing ceremony in Skarzysko Kamienna, 90 miles south of Warsaw, was attended by Polish Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski and Israeli Defense Ministry director Amos Yaron.

Israel gets it.

---

WHY ARE WE DOING TV AGAIN?

Clark's New TV Ad Features Bill Clinton(Liz Sidoti, December 29, 2003, AP)

Clark's rivals were quick to complain that he was using an image of Clinton when he did not become a registered Democrat until after he entered the race in September and when he has praised Republican presidents.

[...]Jay Carson, a Dean spokesman, said the ad "doesn't make up for a lifetime of voting Republican. We're looking forward to seeing the Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney ad."

Carson said Dean isn't concerned that voters will take the image of Clinton as an endorsement of Clark.

"Voters in America are very smart," he said. "They're not going to read a couple seconds of footage in an ad as anything more than a couple seconds of footage in the ad."

So, by Mr. Carson's clairvoyance, either we won't be seeing any Dean TV ads because Americans are too smart to be swayed by them? Or they'll just be aimed at the "dumb" Americans who'll read them for more than what they are? Still baffled . . . . I guess I'll be seeing the ads.

---

FOLLOW THE MONEY (via Tom Corcoran):

The Politics of Autism: Lawsuits and emotion vs. science and childhood vaccines. (Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2003)

None of this is to deny that the incidence of autism may be rising, though there is a dispute about why. The definition of the disease has broadened in recent years, encompassing even mild learning disabilities, and doctors have become better at diagnosing it. Some statistics show that as autism diagnoses rise, those for mental retardation fall--suggesting children were previously misdiagnosed. Parents are also more keen to have a proper diagnosis, because many schools now offer more extensive educational services for autism than they do for other disorders.

The good news is that research is beginning to reveal autism's causes and signs, in particular evidence of a genetic link. Studies have found that if one identical twin has autism the other has a very high chance of having severe social impairment. Scientists are already focusing on a handful of genes that may play a role.

In a important study this year, researchers found that a small head circumference at birth, followed by a sudden growth spurt of the head before the end of the first year, is a reliable early warning sign. (Brain growth that early can't be triggered by vaccines.)

Finding a genetic link would be helpful because one suspects the growing number of diagnoses (especially of the related ADHD and Asperger's syndrome) are more a social/political matter than a medical one.

---

WE COULD MAKE THEM DRIVE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD ANYWAY:

For a cool 8.8 trillion dollars, all Britain can be yours... (AFP, 12/29/03)

Want to buy a largish island off France? Slightly used, with annex. Rains a bit. Trains often late. Nice gardens. Food dubious, but lots of places to drink.

Yours for under five trillion pounds. Or 7.1 trillion euros. Or 8.8 trillion dollars.

If the 58,789,194 occupants ever care to sell, that is.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) whipped up a price tag for the United Kingdom -- that's Britain, comprising England, Wales, Scotland, plus Northern Ireland -- in a year-end tally of the nation's capital assets.

In other words, we could buy the second greatest nation on Earth for about 80% of one year's GDP.

---

MINORITY LEADER:

Back to the drawing board? (Lexington, Dec 18th 2003, The Economist)

PERHAPS Al Gore really is cursed. Last week this column argued that his endorsement made Howard Dean look unstoppable. Then a diabolus ex machina appeared to throw a weighty obstacle in the good doctor's path. The unearthing of Saddam Hussein has not only left Dr Dean looking visibly discombobulated; it has also relaunched the search for an alternative Democrat to take on George Bush. It may be hard to overhaul the former Vermont governor so late in the day, but that has not stopped the Anyone But Dean lot marching into action again.

Saddam's discovery solidified the party establishment's swirling fears about Dr Dean's anti-war insurgency. What happens if the Baathist “dead-enders” really do come to a dead end? Or if Mr Hussein's trial fixes the spotlight on his crimes against humanity rather than those missing weapons Dr Dean bangs on about? The White House will paint Dr Dean as the man who would have left a monster in power. Many Democrats worry that this could spell doom not just in the presidential fight but also in the battles for the Senate and the House.

For one man, the resumption of the search for an ABD candidate could not have come at a better time: Dick Gephardt.

Anyone who's read What it Takes or just observed Mr. Gephardt's futile attempts to retake the House for ten years, will find the notion of him as Democratic Party savior mind-boggling.

---

BEANS VS. BYTES:

The internet in a cup: Coffee fuelled the information exchanges of the 17th and 18th centuries (The Economist, Dec 18th 2003)

WHERE do you go when you want to know the latest business news, follow commodity prices, keep up with political gossip, find out what others think of a new book, or stay abreast of the latest scientific and technological developments? Today, the answer is obvious: you log on to the internet. Three centuries ago, the answer was just as easy: you went to a coffee-house. There, for the price of a cup of coffee, you could read the latest pamphlets, catch up on news and gossip, attend scientific lectures, strike business deals, or chat with like-minded people about literature or politics.

The coffee-houses that sprang up across Europe, starting around 1650, functioned as information exchanges for writers, politicians, businessmen and scientists. Like today's websites, weblogs and discussion boards, coffee-houses were lively and often unreliable sources of information that typically specialised in a particular topic or political viewpoint. They were outlets for a stream of newsletters, pamphlets, advertising free-sheets and broadsides. Depending on the interests of their customers, some coffee-houses displayed commodity prices, share prices and shipping lists, whereas others provided foreign newsletters filled with coffee-house gossip from abroad.

Rumours, news and gossip were also carried between coffee-houses by their patrons, and sometimes runners would flit from one coffee-house to another within a particular city to report major events such as the outbreak of a war or the death of a head of state. Coffee-houses were centres of scientific education, literary and philosophical speculation, commercial innovation and, sometimes, political fermentation. Collectively, Europe's interconnected web of coffee-houses formed the internet of the Enlightenment era.

For all the greater ease of access, volume of info available and self-correcting possibilities of the net, the coffee-house was superior by virtue of human contact.

---

AL QAEDA--THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING:

TERRORISM: The Unexpected Peace Dividend (Austin Bay, December 29, 2003, Strategy Page)

The War on Terror has had an unintended, and welcome, side effect; world peace. Since September 11, 2001, and the aggressive American operations against terrorist organizations, several long time wars have ended, or moved sharply in that direction. Many of these wars get little attention in American media, but have killed hundreds of thousands of people over the last decade. These include conflicts in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chad, Congo, Kashmir, Israel, Kurdistan, Philippines, Burundi, Somalia and Sudan. Some of these conflicts diminished because they had been going on for a while and, as is usually the case with wars, eventually the participants are worn down and make peace. But in all these sudden outbreaks of peace there was another factor; an American crackdown on terrorist activities around the world. The rebels in most of these wars depended on money raised outside their country to keep the fighting going, and on gun runners able to get weapons in. American anti-terrorism operations, energized by the shock of the September 11, 2001 attacks, now included cooperation from many nations, especially in Europe, that had tolerated, on their territory, fund raising, recruiting and public relations efforts by various rebel groups. No more. Most of these rebel organizations had already been declared "terrorist groups" (which they were, as most rebellions use terror, the American Revolution included). Once the U.S. and other nations began to crack down on the fund raising and other activities, it became difficult to keep many wars going. [...]

All of a sudden, rebels in many conflicts around the world discovered that negotiation offered better prospects than did continued fighting. And so it came to pass that in the wake of September 11, 2001, peace broke out in many odd parts of the world. And hardly anyone noticed.

One of the most striking aspects of all this is that, while it is we who are considered ignorant of the rest of the world, anyone who understood America and its history even a little would have known that if they just didn't attack us we'd not have paid any attention to what they were doing in the Middle East. Al Qaeda's doomed its own project on 9-11, and those of many other terror regimes and groups.

---

ONE FOR THE DOCTOR:

Tough pill for the Democrats (George Will, December 28, 2003, Townhall)

Arthur Goldberg was a fine public servant -- secretary of labor, Supreme Court justice, ambassador to the United Nations -- but a dreadful candidate for governor of New York in 1970, when it was said that if he gave one more speech he would lose Canada, too. Howard Dean is becoming Goldbergean.

Regarding foreign policy, Dean recently said not only that America is no safer because Saddam is captured, but that America is ``no safer today than the day the planes struck the World Trade Center.'' Well. He says he supported the war to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan, although he thinks it made us no safer. And even though he says the war in Iraq made us no safer, he says he would ``not have hesitated'' to attack Iraq if the U.N. had given us "permission.''

Because Dean's foreign policy pronouncements have been curiouser and curiouser, his recent domestic policy speech did not get the attention it deserved for its assertion that America is boiling with "anger and despair.'' Republicans are, Dean says, trying to ``dismantle'' the welfare state -- presumably when they are not enriching Medicare's entitlement menu -- and they aim ``to end public education.''

If Mr. Will understood the achievements embodied in the major legislation that Mr. Bush has passed, he'd recognize that Mr. Dean is right on domestic policy. Eight years of Bushism will radically transform the welfare state--into an opportunity society--and voucherize public education.

---

STOP ME, BEFORE I KILL AGAIN:

THE FORMER GOVERNOR: Dean Wants Party Leader to Slow Rivals' Attacks (JODI WILGOREN, 12/29/03, NY Times)

Complaining about the torrent of attacks raining down on him from his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Howard Dean on Sunday criticized his party's national chairman, Terry McAuliffe, for not intervening to tone down the debate.

It's practically a zen koan.

MORE:
Battling the Bush advantage in campaign finance (GEORGE SOROS, 12/29/03, Straits Times)

I and a number of other wealthy Americans are contributing millions of dollars to grassroots organisations engaged in the 2004 presidential election.

Here we get not only an oxymoron--a grassroots movement funded by a few billionaires--but a palindrome.

---

THE DEMOCRATS--OUT OF THE LOOP AND BEHIND THE CURVE:

US sees tide turn on Iraq insurgents: The resistance, though fractured, still tests coalition. By Dan Murphy, 12/29/03, CS Monitor)

Surveying Tikrit from their compound on a bluff high above the Tigris River, a short distance from where Saddam Hussein was captured two weeks ago, America's military commanders are convinced they've finally turned the corner against the insurgency in the former dictator's home base.

Attacks on soldiers have dropped steeply in the Tikrit area over the past month. After more than six months of intensive raids, foot patrols, and intelligence gathering, commanders believe they have tapped into the rhythm of the insurgency. "We're making steady, [unstoppable] progress,'' says Lt. Col. Steve Russell, who commands the 1st Battalion of the 22nd Infantry. [...]

[T]though attacks on coalition forces have fallen across the country, to about 15 a day from more than 30 a day in early November, Iraqis are still wary of violence. "We feel like we're in a ring of fire,'' says Abu Junaidi, a security guard at an apartment building that was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade last week. "We're no closer to peace."

To be sure, the methods used in Tikrit may yield fruit in other parts of the country. In Tikrit, US forces have been able to hopscotch from one captured insurgent to the next as Hussein loyalists have cracked under interrogation, a painstaking process that led to key Hussein aides and less well-known financiers who were using local businesses around Tikrit as fronts for attacks on US forces.

Troops say Hussein's capture deprived local insurgents of their motivation. "Their sails may have been full, but with Saddam captured, the wind dropped,'' says Russell.

Of the 55 officials and Hussein aides on the original "deck of cards" most-wanted list, only 13 are still at large. On Saturday, the US announced $1 million rewards for information leading to the arrest of 12 of the remaining fugitives.

The most senior official still at large, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, has a $10 million price on his head. Mr. Duri has been described by some US officials as a key figure in the insurgency, though most Iraqis find this hard to believe. Even under Hussein, when jokes about the president were dangerous, his No. 2 was a frequent figure of fun to Iraqis. Most people here saw him as a bumbling sycophant.

But one man whose importance to the insurgency is beyond doubt was No. 4 on the list, Abid Hamid Mahmoud al-Tikriti, a Hussein cousin who ran the Special Security Organization, the top-tier in Hussein's sprawling security apparatus dedicated both to protecting to Baath leaders and to spying on them.

Mr. Tikriti's arrest last June was, in hindsight, the beginning of the end for the network of insurgents in and around Tikrit, says Russell. "When we captured No. 4 it gave us some key documents and information,'' he says.

As with the economy, by the moment at which Democratic criticism of the Administration became most heated, the situation had already turned.

---

THE ATLANTIC CENTURY IS OVER:

Asian forces in Iraq signal global shift (Christopher Lingle, 12/29/03, CS Monitor)

[W]hile editorial writers and politicians anguished over the Bush administration's insensitivities toward the French and the Germans, US allies in Asia were stepping up to the plate.

In particular, the democratically elected governments of both Japan and South Korea have been generally supportive of US policy in Iraq and have pledged materiel and manpower to join coalition forces. Indeed, Japan pledged active involvement in the Paris Club, the informal group of official creditors studying ways to reduce Iraq's debt, before Mr. Baker even left on his trip last week. In another sign of solidarity, Japan is likely to forgive up to two-thirds of the $4 billion Iraq owes Japan. And Tokyo has offered $5 billion for reconstruction in Iraq.

In the cases of Japan and Korea, their decisions to support US efforts in Iraq came despite the fact that several Japanese diplomats and South Korean reconstruction engineers were gunned down this fall by Iraqi guerrilla forces in separate attacks. The two countries remained firm in their commitment of support in the face of considerable pressure from protestors urging their governments to avoid further entanglement in Iraq.

From an economic standpoint, Japan contributes significantly more than either Germany or France respectively. But even when the GDP of the two European powerhouses is combined ($3.7 trillion), it is only a smidgen more than is Japan ($3.55 trillion). Adding South Korea's GDP ($931 billion) to Japan's means that together they are significantly more important as economic forces than the European counterparts.

It is also true that Japan's population (127 million) is larger than either France's (60 million) or Germany's (82 million). The combined population of Korea and Japan represents a larger mass of humanity than the total of France and Germany.

Which is a problem for the Democrats, who are an Atlanticist (Europeanized) party.

---

NO ROLLING OVER:

Red Dawn’s New Day: An interview with John Milius. (Johnny Dwyer, 12/28/03, NY Press)

When I watched the film recently, it seemed like the Wolverines were sort of a mujahideen, at least in a strategic sense, the attacks on convoys–this is stuff we’re seeing now. Were you addressing the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Yeah. The movie was made because the Soviets were in Afghanistan. Actually, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan the year before. Remember, we wouldn’t let them go to the Olympics or they withdrew from the Olympics, and that’s when the movie was made; that’s when the people at MGM decided we’re going to make this patriotic movie that’s mirroring the situation in Afghanistan, and we’ll release it during the Olympics.

And the movie was very successful. It was just roundly hated by the liberal community and critics. I was vilified and excoriated to a degree–and I was one who was used to being vilified and excoriated for my movies–but that movie really got their dander up.

I think the movie is a very complicated look at what war does to people. I don’t think any of the characters are resolved as to their role in the whole thing; it seems like a bunch of them want to be children rather than fighting.

Yeah, and you see the tremendous cost of everything. Nobody comes out of it whole or unscarred. The ones that in the end, when they get away, they’re looking down on this vast plain and say, "We’re free now." And he says, "Free to do what?"

In Iraq the tables have turned; the United States is in a situation where we’re occupying a country and we have to make ourselves open to the attacks that the Wolverines were perpetrating in Red Dawn.

I think that’s a whole other thing. We’re doing what we said we’re going to do. Bush was very clear after 9/11 about what he was going to do, and he hasn’t really deviated from that, even though people haven’t liked it or anything else. He’s been fairly resolute in saying, "You’re either for us or against us." And where we find people against us, we’re going to go get ’em and we’re not going to tolerate blowing apart our cities and killing tens of thousands of Americans. We’re not going to roll over.

It’s very interesting. Again, it’s one of these cases where, when people are not involved directly, they don’t seem to care. We have a more [divided] nation now than we did in Vietnam.

The simple fact is that while we've had little trouble pacifying the nations we've conquered, no one could pacify a resistant America.

---

THE SPIRIT OF DICK TUCK LIVES:

The T-Shirt That Launched 1,000 Quips (Dana Milbank, December 28, 2003, Washington Post)

As if things weren't going badly enough for John F. Kerry, the senator from Massachusetts has been bitten by a Psycho Chihuahua.

The attack occurred 10 days ago in Hopkinton, N.H., when Kerry went to speak to a class at Hopkinton High. This appearance resulted in a most unhelpful photo for the onetime front-runner for the Democratic nomination, snapped by Concord Monitor photo editor Dan Habib. The image is of Kerry making an earnest point to student Mark LaGuardia, who, unbeknownst to the candidate, is wearing a T-shirt that proclaims on the back: "Your mouth keeps moving but all I hear is 'BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.' "

The student told the Monitor that he did not mean to make a political statement with the shirt, which features the likeness of "Psycho Chihuahua," a talking Mexican dog whose appearance in Taco Bell commercials is the subject of recent litigation. "I completely forgot that he" -- Kerry, not the Chihuahua -- "was coming," LaGuardia, 17, told the Monitor. "I asked, 'Do I have time to ride home to change?' But I didn't."

One finds this explanation suspect; LaGuardia admitted that he is a Republican.

If you're a dwarf, even a chihuahua is an attack dog.

---

THE DEER HUNTER CHRONICLES:

Dean criticizes Cheney task force, but had own secret energy group (JOHN SOLOMON, December 28, 2003, Associated Press)

Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean has demanded release of secret deliberations of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. But as Vermont governor, Dean had an energy task force that met in secret and angered state lawmakers.

Dean's group held one public hearing and after-the-fact volunteered the names of industry executives and liberal advocates it consulted in private, but the Vermont governor refused to open the task force's closed-door deliberations.

In 1999, Dean offered the same argument the Bush administration uses today for keeping deliberations of a policy task force secret.

"The governor needs to receive advice from time to time in closed session. As every person in government knows, sometimes you get more open discussion when it's not public," Dean was quoted as saying.

Dean's own dispute over the secrecy of a Vermont task force that devised a policy for restructuring the state's near-bankrupt electric utilities has escaped national attention, even though he has attacked a similar arrangement used by President Bush.

Even Karl "Boy Genius" Rove isn't smart enough to have designed this creature.

MORE:
Dean predicts backers may stay home if he doesn't win the nomination (MIKE GLOVER, December 28, 2003, Associated Press)

Howard Dean said Sunday that the hundreds of thousands of people drawn to politics by his campaign may stay home if he doesn't win the Democratic presidential nomination, dooming the Democratic Party in the fall campaign against President Bush.

"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?" he said during a meeting with reporters. "I don't know where they're going to go. They're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician."

From his lips to Gaia's ears.

---

IT'S LIKE LOOKING IN A MIRROR

From Patrician Roots, Dean Set Path of Prickly Independence (Rick Lyman, New York Times, 12/28/03)

The Park Avenue building where Howard Dean grew up has a neurologist's office on the ground floor and a church just behind. His mother, Andree Maitland Dean, is eager to emphasize that the family's three-bedroom apartment there is not luxurious.

"Look around," Mrs. Dean said in a recent interview, gesturing at the quarters where her boys grew up. "Howard didn't have the least bit of a glamorous upbringing."

Explaining that every time she had a baby, the dining room would serve as a bedroom for the newborn and his nurse, she concluded, "I don't think we could even keep up with the Bushes."

Like her son, Mrs. Dean chafes at the notion that the family lived the kind of privileged existence that many associate with America's current first family — despite the striking similarities between the two families that even a cursory look reveals.

George Walker Bush and Howard Brush Dean III are from opposite sides of the nation's political fault line. Yet besides energizing the left wing of his party, Dr. Dean has some Republicans worried that the characteristics he shares with President Bush could appeal to swing voters, especially when Dr. Dean's current image as a Vermont liberal is leavened with details of the fiscally conservative way he governed Vermont for 11 years. . . .

Other, deeper similarities are apparent only to those who have spent significant time with each man: temperaments prone to irritation; political skills that play better in small groups than on television; rock-solid confidence in their own decisions.

In addition, each man is seen as being his own worst enemy on the campaign trail, President Bush for mangling his English and fumbling answers, Dr. Dean for creating unnecessary crises by speaking his mind too swiftly.

Too much can be made of these similarities, of course. Certainly Dr. Dean, 55, and his family feel it is misleading to tag them as Bushlike bluebloods, despite the fact that they own a Park Avenue apartment and an East Hampton country house.

"I don't hide who I am," Dr. Dean said. "I am not in the least bit embarrassed about how I grew up. But, now, it wasn't quite as opulent as everybody might think." . . .

All told, for instance, Dr. Dean's parents have given him and his family nearly $1 million in cash gifts over the last two decades, including a single gift of $200,000 in the early 1980's. And his wife's parents gave the couple $60,000 in 1985 to help them pay $161,700 in cash for the family's house on Burlington's south side, freeing the couple from monthly mortgage payments. . . .

Mrs. Dean sees her son's unpretentiousness as something he learned at home, pointing out that her own parents taught her to treat people in an egalitarian way.

"When I was growing up," she said, "we didn't even treat the servants like servants."

This is, over all, a positive profile of Dr. Dean. You can see signs that the Times wants to do a hit piece (it's always a sign of journalistic mischief when they go interview the candidate's mother), that it planned to make Dr. Dean look pampered and spoiled and delusional, but that it just can't do it.

Once a politician's story gells for a campaign, journalists are powerless before it. Dr. Dean's story going into the primaries is set, and it is one that the Times can't help loving. He is the son of privilege, a product, like so many of the Times' beloveds, of Park Avenue, the Hamptons and prep school. He is a trust-fund baby whose inherited financial security has allowed him the freedom to despise the source of his good luck.

Thus, while elite, he is not snobby. Thus, he turns up the chance to follow his father to Wall Street. Thus, he is exposed to anti-Americanism for the first time in England and turns away from the Republican Party. Thus, his parents are mildly prejudiced, but he asks for a generic black roomate. Thus, he chooses to be a doctor to help people. Thus, he moves to bucolic Vermont and gives himself up to politics. No wonder the Times must love him. God help them, they love him so.

---

CULTURE CLUB:

Whisky odyssey: Novelist Iain Banks waxes lyrical about the appeal of following your nose and how it led to his first non-fiction book and whisky travelogue Raw Spirit: In Search Of The Perfect Dram (Graeme Virtue, 28 December 2003, Sunday Herald)

BOOZE is close to the heart of novelist Iain Banks, even when it’s not actually glugging down his throat. From his journalist anti-hero raging against the process of chill-filtering whisky in Complicity, to a sci-fi mercenary forcing up the last couple of pints as a diversionary tactic in Consider Phlebas, alcohol percolates through almost all his output, whether it’s set in space or Speyside. His latest – a non-fiction tome that filled out many a Christmas stocking this year – is brimming over with the stuff. Raw Spirit is a rambling, pleasingly unrefined whisky travelogue subtitled In Search Of The Perfect Dram, which sees Banks criss-crossing his native Scotland in various modes of transport sniffing out the best nips.

So, who better to discuss swally than a man who’s spent six months of this year sampling whisky and calling it work? That’s the plan: get him in the pub, ply him with drink and then set the world to rights. It’s perfect, apart from one detail: today, Iain Banks – famed curry-eater, petrolhead, creator of worlds and all-round grande patron – is hungover.

You can’t begrudge him. Last night was the launch party for Raw Spirit, so he took plenty of the stuff on board. And, while he’s not one of those wimps who wince at the sound of their own voice when they’ve over-indulged the night before, he politely declines a dram of his beloved Lagavulin.

Even hungover, though, he’s good company; witty and engaging, if a little preoccupied. His amiable, brushy appearance – slightly chaotic hair, tamed beard, understatedly stylish specs – doesn’t appear to have changed all that much in the 20 years since the publication of his cult debut The Wasp Factory.

The whisky book, he explains, was a complete no-brainer. “When I was asked to do it, I felt like smacking my forehead in a Homer-ish kind of way, wondering why I hadn’t thought of it myself. Scotland. Driving. Whisky. All my buttons had been punched at the same time.”

Phlebas appears to be out of print, but Player of Games is available and is likewise part of Mr. Banks's terrific series about "The Culture"--fine, thoughtful science fiction.

MORE:
-ESSAY: A Few Notes On The Culture (Iain M Banks)
-IAIN BANKS (1954-) (Guardian)
-Iain (M.) Banks Resource Page
-Iain M. Banks (Ex Libris)
-INTERVIEW: Getting Used To Being God: Chris Mitchell meets the relentlessly imaginative Iain (M.) Banks (Spike, September 1996)
-INTERVIEW: Iain M. Banks (Nick Gevers, Science Fiction Weekly)
-ESSAY: THE CULTURE AS AN IDEAL SOCIETY (Thomas Gramstad, June 5, 2000, Laissez Faire City Times)
-ESSAY: Analysis of The Bridge (Richard Puchalsky)

---

THE ZEALLESS SECULARISTS (via Mike Daley):

The Final Freedom: Suicide and the New Prohibitionists (Tom Flynn, Free Inquiry)

This issue's special section on physician-assisted suicide puts me in mind of a larger issue: suicide, period. While suicide has never been exactly popular, a new assault on our right to suicide is brewing. It's something secular humanists ought to resist.

If they wanted to show us all that they are a serious resistance movement they'd take a page from the Jews atop Masada. As is, they're all talk, no action.

---

RIPE GRAPES:

The two-nation trap: A divide-and-conquer strategy may be tempting. But a Democratic presidential candidate must speak to all of the people. (Alan Wolfe, 12/28/2003, Boston Globe)

FACING A BITTERLY DIVIDED country, the Republican candidate decided that the only way to win was to secure his base. The math, he knew, worked in his favor. The opposition was divided, and the presence of more than two candidates in the race meant he could still be elected even if he won a minority of the popular vote. By capturing all of the states in the region where he had the most support, moreover, he would win in the electoral college - no matter how much he ignored the region where he was most disliked. Victory achieved in this fashion would no doubt make governing difficult, since the losers would view him as illegitimate and would resist his policies. But victory was the first priority; without it, none of his ambitious plans for the country could take effect.

The scenario, as any historian of 19th-century America will immediately recognize, is the one that resulted in the election of Abraham Lincoln. America was so bitterly divided in 1860 that none of the four candidates who ran for president that year could speak for the country as a whole. The only alternative was to unify one particular region and hope for the best. Lincoln did precisely that, winning every Northern state except New Jersey (which was divided between him and Stephen A. Douglas) and losing every Southern and border state. He obtained less than 40 percent of the popular vote. And even though Lincoln won a significant electoral college majority, his victory failed to stop the onset of the Civil War.

Given the political realities of the 19th century, Lincoln had no choice but to follow a ''two nation'' political strategy. This is no longer the case. Throughout much of the 20th century, protecting Americans against economic depression and securing our way of life against totalitarianism encouraged politicians to follow a ''one nation'' ideal and insist on what we all had in common. FDR might have railed against businessmen for their undue influence, but the New Deal was broadly supported by Northeastern liberals, Midwestern union members, and others, and it dispensed its largesse to the South and the West. Military mobilization in both World War II and the Cold War drafted young people from all over the country, spurred industrial production across the heartland, and brought new generations of Southern military officers to prominence.

Because policies became national in scope during the 20th century, so did politics. Whatever differences existed over race or economic regulation, both parties tried to build inclusive coalitions. Democrats combined in one party urban African Americans and Southern segregationists. Republicans appealed to the upwardly mobile in the Northeastern suburbs as well as the newly rich in the Southwest. There were exceptions to this search for inclusion, but even they proved the rule. When Senator Joseph McCarthy accused others of being ''un-American,'' his divide-and-rule tactics were - eventually - brought to an end by a bipartisan establishment that valued moderation over extremism.

The New Deal and the Cold War are, as they say, history, and because they are, there is much talk of how we are once again becoming two nations divided by race, region, ideology, culture, and religion. Such claims are often exaggerated. While Americans may have real differences on subjects like gay marriage, stem cells, and the war in Iraq, none of our divisions come close to those that faced Lincoln - or, for that matter, Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. There is no compelling reason for politicians to repudiate the one-nation politics of the 20th century in favor of the two-nation strategies of the 19th. Yet that is exactly what is happening. We are having Civil War politics without having a civil war.

It's always strange when someone sets up an analogy themself and then argues against it. You'd think the obvious point is that when no great moral issues divide the country it is possible to unify across regions, cohorts, etc., but that when moral issues are at stake there are definite geographic, socio-economic, etc., divides that can't be papered over. On a variety of issues like abortion, homosexuality, evolution and prayer in schools, and the like, a majority of Americans, especially those in the Red states are diametrically opposed to the progressive ideology of the coastal elites (Blue Staters in NY, LA, Boston, Washington, etc.). This doesn't necessarily mean civil war is coming, but you do have to wonder if the majority won't eventually tire of having the nation's morality debased by the minority and force a retrenchment by any means necessary.

---

TAKING THE CURE:

Where U.S. Translates as Freedom (THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, 12/28/03, NY Times)

I found the cure.

I found the cure to anti-Americanism: Come to Poland.

After two years of traveling almost exclusively to Western Europe and the Middle East, Poland feels like a geopolitical spa. I visited here for just three days and got two years of anti-American bruises massaged out of me. Get this: people here actually tell you they like America — without whispering. What has gotten into these people? Have all their subscriptions to Le Monde Diplomatique expired? Haven't they gotten the word from Berlin and Paris? No, they haven't. In fact, Poland is the antidote to European anti-Americanism. Poland is to France what Advil is to a pain in the neck. Or as Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign affairs specialist, remarked after visiting Poland: "Poland is the most pro-American country in the world — including the United States."

What's this all about? It starts with history and geography. There's nothing like living between Germany and Russia — which at different times have trampled Poland off the map — to make Poles the biggest advocates of a permanent U.S. military presence in Europe. Said Ewa Swiderska, 25, a Warsaw University student: "We are the small kid in school who is really happy to have the big guy be his friend — it's a nice feeling."

Even the nicest big kids though have a tendency to blow off the little kids when they're inconvenient. So we should formalize the Polish alliance with a bilateral trade agreement and defense pact.

---

TAKE THE OSIRAK OPTION:

Saddam’s captured, Gaddafi’s given up … so why are we still on orange alert?: The war on terror changed last week, and things finally looked set to improve. But then alerts were issued, flights cancelled and it was back to business as usual. What now? (Trevor Royle, 12/28/03, Sunday Herald)

The rehabilitation of Libya has been a marked success and a sign that the war against terrorism will be fought not just with precision weapons but also with diplomacy and economic muscle. Iraq was bombed into submission and its leader Saddam Hussein deposed. Libya escaped that fate, as did Gaddafi, who will stay in power as long as he keeps on the right side of the US. Ahead lies a campaign to deal with the other countries who top the State Department’s list of potential enemies – Iran, Syria and North Korea. Other lesser rogue states also require attention, notably Sudan and Cuba, and there is pressure to deal with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but these are the big three as far as those leading the war against terrorism are concerned.

North Korea poses the clearest threat. Not only is the country unstable and economically bankrupt but its leader Kim Jong-il has gone out of his way to defy the world over the production of nuclear weapons. If the US had not been distracted by the need to deal with Iraq first there is little doubt Kim would have been put at the top of the list. Not only was he was in the process of developing nuclear weapons but his belligerent stance meant the Korean peninsula was always on the brink of war. On the diplomatic front he was usually one step ahead of Washington’s attempts to bring him to heel during the run-up to the war in Iraq when US attention was diverted. First he insisted on bilateral talks with the US, then he insisted these should take place in China, a demand to which the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, was forced to concede.

However, in the wake of the Libyan deal the US is keen to re-engage with North Korea and force it back to the negotiating table to begin the process of decommissioning its potential for making nuclear weapons. A military attack remains a possibility. The Pentagon has drawn up plans for a precision strike on the suspected nuclear facility at Pyongyang, similar to Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Osirak plant in 1981, but that could prompt Kim into attacking his southern neighbour and starting a regional war. The knowledge that North Korea already has a nuclear weapon has also concentrated minds in Washington.

According to the Sunday Herald’s diplomatic source, this is what makes Kim different from Saddam – he actually has weapons of mass destruction and would be prepared to use them. “By the end of the decade, North Korea will have developed a ballistic missile capable of hitting California. If they are armed with nuclear weapons the threat is obvious and no President could tolerate such a situation. Kim has every reason to spin out the negotiations and to fight hard for concessions.”

Bombing the facilities would set an example and establish the principle that we will not tolerate nuclear and missile programs in unfriendly states.

---

THE RIGHT KIND OF FRIENDS:

'I couldn't have looked my friends in the face if I had opposed the war': She's the firebrand left-wing MP who stunned the Commons into silence when she backed Tony Blair over Iraq. Many said she saved the Prime Minister's skin. After a momentous year, Ann Clwyd talks to Kamal Ahmed (Kamal Ahmed, December 28, 2003, The Observer)

Earlier this year Clwyd was sitting in her office in one of the more obscure corridors of the House of Commons when she received an email with a Pentagon address on it. Opening it up, she saw at the bottom that it was from Paul Wolfowitz, the American Deputy Defence Secretary, leading Republican, neo-conservative and backer of the American 'new world order', including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

Now, any self-respecting left-wing Labour MP - as Clwyd is - might be expected to tut a little, maybe point out to one of her staff that she had received something 'from that warmonger Wolfowitz' and consign it to the trash icon on her desktop.

Not Clwyd. Indeed, she agreed with most of what Wolfowitz was saying on the issue. 'I wrote this piece about these plastic shredders, and the disgusting barbarity of Saddam's regime,' Clwyd said. 'They were used as an instrument of torture. If you were put in head first you died quickly, if you were put in feet first you died more slowly. 'One of the emails I got after that piece, and I got a lot, was from Wolfowitz. It said that he totally agreed with my reasons for supporting the war.'

In May, following an invitation from Wolfowitz, the two met in the Pentagon.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, and as far as many in the anti-war coalition are concerned the man most to blame for events in Iraq, put his head around the door. 'You're the man with the brains,' he said cheerily, gesturing to his deputy. 'I'm just the office boy.'

For Clwyd, it completed a journey. The woman who had once demonstrated with the women of Greenham Common to remove American bases from British soil was breaking bread with someone many of her colleagues consider to be the enemy. 'It was too good an opportunity to miss,' she said. 'He was a very charming man, an intellectual. We joked, and I told him I dreaded to think what my colleagues would think, me sitting here speaking to a neo-conservative in the Pentagon. For me, it was bizarre, talking to someone who had the reputation of Wolfowitz.'

Wow! The necons got to her too?

---

RUN UP THE WHITE FLAG:

-For 2004, Bush Has Strength in the White Male Numbers: His wide advantage in that right-leaning group may trump Democrats' edge elsewhere. (Ronald Brownstein, December 27, 2003, LA Times)

White men compose just under 40% of the electorate, with white women just over 40%, and minorities composing the rest.

White men have given Democrats problems in presidential elections for decades. Since the 1970s, Democrats have won when they keep the Republican advantage within sight and lose when they can't.

"It's a damage minimization strategy," Teixeira said. "If it's too much of a landslide with white men, it just creates a hole you have to dig out of."

But just reaching that minimal standard of support hasn't been easy for Democratic nominees. Republican incumbents Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 carried white men by 35 percentage points en route to landslide reelections, according to network exit polls.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Democrat Michael S. Dukakis by 27 percentage points among white men, the same advantage Reagan enjoyed over Jimmy Carter in 1980.

During the 1990s, Bill Clinton significantly reduced those margins, losing white men by just 3 percentage points in 1992 and 11 points in 1996, according to exit polls. But Clinton didn't win a much higher percentage of the white male vote than Carter, Mondale and Dukakis did; the GOP margins fell in the 1990s because independent candidate Ross Perot siphoned away so many white men from Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996.

With Perot off the ballot in 2000, the Republican advantage among white men ballooned again, as Bush carried them by 24 percentage points over Al Gore. That margin was just small enough to allow Gore to narrowly edge Bush in the popular vote by running strongly with other groups.

But now leading strategists in both parties say Bush has the potential to run even better with white men in 2004 — which could create a deficit too great for Democrats to overcome.

"I don't know if it can get back to the [Reagan] level, but he does have the potential of widening the margin from 2000," said Matthew Dowd, the polling director for Bush's campaign.

Stanley B. Greenberg, the pollster for Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 1992, agreed. "Younger, married white men are disastrously, overwhelmingly Republican," he said. "They are trending more Republican over time. Everything about George Bush speaks to them."

Recent polls underscore the challenge for Democrats with white men. In an ABC/Washington Post survey released last week, white men preferred Bush over an unnamed Democrat in 2004 by 62% to 29%, a head-turning 33-point margin; by contrast, white women gave Bush just a 10-point lead.

"just a 10-point lead"?

---

TOUGHEN UP, GRANNY

A Young German’s Broadside. He questions pensions and becomes a celebrity (Mark Landler, International Herald Tribune, 27/12/03)

Five months after he heaved a big rock into the murky water of German politics, Philipp Missfelder still professes not to understand why it set off such waves of protest. "I didn't say anything racist. I didn't say anything unfriendly to people from other countries," said Missfelder, a husky 24-year-old in a V-neck sweater who looks like anything but a rock-thrower. "I was only talking about things that are important to people in my generation."

What Missfelder said, in an interview published in the Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel, was that old people were soaking up Germany's financial resources with lavish pensions and gold-plated health care plans. Such largess, he said, came at the expense of young Germans, who he warned would be strangled by the burden of supporting an ever-larger population of retirees. The other day, as he sat in a café near the Technical University of Berlin, where he studies history, Missfelder described what he regards as the systemic abuse of Germany's welfare system.

"In every town in Germany, old people go to the doctor to socialize or talk about the weather," he said. "If every appointment cost E10, they would say, 'It's not so bad, I'll stay home.'"

In Tagesspiegel he was even less polite, complaining about 85-year-olds getting costly hip replacements. Why, he mused, couldn't they just make do with crutches, like in old times? For a well-spoken, disciplined college student who runs the youth organization of Germany's largest conservative party, the Christian Democrats, it was a conspicuously intemperate debut. Elderly voters are a powerful force here, not to mention the bedrock constituency of his party.

Herr Missfelder has joined the issue with the compassion and sensitivity young Germans have always been famous for. An aging population expecting early retirement and generous state pensions and healthcare will eventually be insupportable. The cause of euthanasia appears to have a bright future in Germany.

But this story also shows how stark and selfish individualism and free-enterprise can be when they are not buttressed by commitments to faith and family. One might well forgive those elderly Germans who spit scorn on their grandchildren for not raising large enough families to support them. More delightful is the thought that one day the German government will tell Herr Missfelder it intends to implement all his suggestions gratefully and that his grandparents will be moving in with him shortly.

---

EXPLOIT THE TRAGEDY:

Tragedy overwhelms quake city (Jason Burke, Kamal Ahmed and Neda Ghasemi in Tehran, December 28, 2003, The Observer)

'The disaster is far too huge for us to meet all of our needs,' said Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, declaring three days of mourning. He has opened Iranian airspace to all planes carrying aid or relief workers and waived visas for foreign relief personnel.

But the death toll keeps rising. The leader of one local relief team, Ahmad Najafi, said that 200 bodies had been pulled from the rubble in one street in just an hour.

The Iranian regime is already being criticised for the chaotic rescue effort. Until the arrival of Western teams, the authorities had only a few drug-sniffing dogs to look for survivors. One local man interrupted Interior Minister Mousavi Lari Abdolvahed as he spoke to reporters in Bam yesterday. 'My father is under the rubble,' the man said. 'I've been asking for help since yesterday, but nobody has come to help me. Please help me. I want my father alive.'

Lari stressed to reporters that the death toll issued by his ministry was 'only an estimate'. 'There is not a standing building in the city. Bam has turned into a wasteland,' he said.

With hospitals destroyed, military transport planes have had to evacuate many wounded for treatment to the provincial capital, Kerman, and even to the Iranian capital, Tehran, 630 miles to the northwest, where stunned families, still covered in mud, wander the airport.

Tempers flare in battered backstreets of Bam (AFP, December 27, 2003)

In Bam, the grim priority now appears to be finding dead bodies, loading them into pick-up trucks and driving them out of town for quick burial.

But the Iranian government's refusal to publicly acknowledge any need for foreign search teams has also fueled anger in a region that is one of Iran's poorest.

The leagues of volunteers also appear to be lacking in organisation. After all, organising the work of various government ministries, the army, air force, Revolutionary Guards and Basij volunteer militia is no simple task, even if the Islamic republic has been working on it for near-on 25 years.

That was highlighted earlier Saturday, when Iranian Health Minister Massoud Pezeshkian called on international donors not to send volunteer workers, but send drugs and equipment.

"We don't really need them (foreign volunteers). We have a lot of volunteers coming in from all over Iran, in fact so many that we are having difficulties coordinating," Pezeshkian said.

Hassan Salehi, a 32-year-old computer engineer who sped down from Tehran in his beat-up old car, wondered what was holding the aid effort up.

"The Red Crescent are slow. Even I beat them in getting here," he complained, saying relief teams only began to appear on the streets around where his parents and sister lived hours after he completed his 15-hour drive from the capital to the other end of the country.

We should obviously be helping as much as we can just because it's the right thing to do, but also because we recall that the failure of the Somoza regime to respond effectively and responsibly to Nicaragua's big quake in 1972 helped spell the doom of the regime. There is an opportunity for future freedom in Iran even amidst this horrific rubble.

MORE:
US sending medicine, food to Iran: Boston team to join relief bid as toll hits 20,000 (Charlie Savage, 12/28/2003, Boston Globe)

The United States will send search-and-rescue teams, food, and medical supplies to its longtime adversary Iran, the White House announced yesterday, as the death toll climbed to at least 20,000 from Friday's massive earthquake that devastated the ancient city of Bam.

More than 200 civilian disaster response specialists are being flown into Iran, while the US military is delivering more than 150,000 pounds of medical supplies from bases in Kuwait. The assistance could be on the ground as early as midafternoon today. [...]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage personally offered the aid along with US condolences on Friday night to Iran's UN ambassador, Mohammad Zarif. The call was a rare moment of direct official contact with the Iranian government, with which the United States had not had diplomatic relations since revolutionaries overthrew the US-backed Shah in 1979 and took American Embassy workers hostage.

---

DEAN VS. THE DEMOCRATS:

As Pre-Primary Season Closes, Questions Cling to Dean's Gains (Dan Balz, December 28, 2003, Washington Post)

[T]here is general agreement that the party establishment is not capable of mounting a stop-Dean movement. "What establishment?" one Democrat said sarcastically. "The only thing that could have an impact is if Bill Clinton came out and said, I don't appreciate a repudiation of my administration. The only people capable of doing it [a stop-Dean movement] are the unions, and they're pretty well split." [...]

"Democratic Party activists, whatever their ideological perspective, have a view that their leaders have been completely ineffective in combating President Bush," one Democratic strategist said. "The leaders have a view that either they're doing the best they can or that more clever centrism is better or they need someone with a military background at the head of the party."

Al From, who heads the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, credited Dean with running a successful campaign but questioned whether he can effectively lead the party as nominee. "We need to lay out a reason to replace Bush," From said. "We can't just depend on the fact that the activists in our party are angry at him and like Dean. There aren't enough of them."

But another centrist leader, Simon B. Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network, said party leaders here should recognize what Dean has done. "The Washington party is a failed party, and Dean's criticism of the Washington party is incredibly accurate," he said. "We're completely out of power and heading for permanent minority status if we don't start modernizing the party. Dean has been a modernizer and innovator, and should be embraced for it. Instead he's being attacked for doing it differently."

Those fault lines will animate the coming 60-day battle for the nomination. With the race as it now stands, the issue facing Democrats is whether anybody can stop Dean but Dean himself.

All those vulnerable congressional Democrats should have a fun time with their own nominee attacking them.

MORE:
-Dean denounces Democratic Leadership Council, stuns centrists (RONALD BROWNSTEIN, 12/25/03, Los Angeles Times)

During a campaign stop Tuesday in Seabrook, N.H., where he received an endorsement from the 1,000-member New Hampshire chapter of United Auto Workers, Dean said he stood by his remarks about the DLC. On Monday, he called the DLC, "sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party ... the Republican wing of the Democratic Party." [...]

Tension between Dean and the DLC first seriously emerged early this year when Dean began identifying himself as the representative of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

That was a designation liberals sometimes used during the Clinton years to distinguish themselves from centrist "New Democrats" who pushed ideas such as welfare reform, balancing the federal budget, and completing the North American Free Trade Agreement -- all ideas staunchly opposed on the left.

Dean's declaration Monday was more than rhetorical positioning; it also reflected his political strategy.

All year he has argued that Democrats' first priority should be to mobilize their core supporters, such as women's groups, blacks, union members and gay rights activists.

That directly inverts the argument from Clinton, first advanced by the DLC in a 1989 study titled The Politics of Evasion, that Democrats could only win the White House by reconnecting with moderate swing voters because their base no longer constituted a national majority on its own.

---

RETURN TO SENDER:

For Your Information . . . (TOM ZELLER, December 28, 2003, NY Times Magazine)

Of the many cultural by-products borne of the Internet, perhaps the most ubiquitous (after spam) is the forwarded e-mail. Quirky Web sites, tiresome chain mail, odd photos - all of these seem to fulfill the near reflexive need among late-night Web surfers and idle office desk jockeys to say, with a click or two, "get a load of this."

NYTimes.com keeps track of these urges when they are inspired by the newspaper's online offerings. As with many news sites, each story offers users the option to "E-mail This Article," and the top 25 most e-mailed articles are tracked and listed on the site every day. [...]

In the slide shows at right is a look at some of the top 100 most e-mailed stories of 2003 from The New York Times on the Web.

Kind of interesting--unfortunately, the frequency with which he's forwarded explains why they let Krugman keep it up.

---

"POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS":

Presidential Campaign Was Cited During Talks to Seal Dean's Papers as Governor (RICK LYMAN, 12/27/03, NY Times)

Last January, as his presidential campaign was stirring to life, Howard Dean was asked why he had decided to keep nearly half of his records as governor of Vermont under seal until 2013.

"Well, there are future political considerations," Dr. Dean told statehouse reporters. "We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

Dr. Dean now says he was joking about why he invoked executive privilege to keep 145 boxes of his official records — about 47 percent of them — under a 10-year seal. But there is ample evidence in the letters and e-mail correspondence between the former Vermont governor's counsel, David M. Rocchio, and the state archivist, D. Gregory Sanford, that a possible presidential race was indeed part of the discussions concerning how long to keep the records private.

Given the Doctor's willingness to repeat many of his own foolish statements, like that we're no safer with Ba'athism gone from Iraq, one can only wonder at what kinds of prior statements and writings even he thinks would be too embarrassing to risk revealing to the American people.

---

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF OBVIOUS QUESTIONS:

What causes cancer? (Or, Merry Christmas!) Part I (Charles Murtaugh, 12/23/03)

[W]here do mutations come from, and what do they have to do with chemicals? This question was recently raised by (not-at-all-unbalanced) MIT professor William Thilly, in a Nature Genetics article entitled, "Have environmental mutagens caused oncomutations in people?". In this magisterial review, which I would rank as my favorite scientific paper of the year, Thilly surveys decades of work by his lab and others on the mechanisms of gene mutation, and points out a critical missing link in the literature:

"Cigarette use and sun exposure serve as clear examples [of environmental/chemical agents causing] lung and skin cancers. It was reasonable, therefore, to seriously consider the hypothesis that known and unknown environmental factors were acting as mutagens in the tissues at risk. A wide variety of nonhuman experimental systems, including human cells, were used to show that thousands of chemicals and forms of radiation had mutagenic activity. These mutagens were thus designated 'potential carcinogens'. But whether any of these potential carcinogens, save sunlight, had actually caused genetic change in humans was not experimentally tested.

. . [much literature review omitted]

The various observations cited above are consistent with the hypothesis that ordinary environmental mutagens contribute to point mutagenesis in humans to a negligible extent. Therefore, such mutagens (save for sunlight), acting as mutagens, may have little, if any, effect on human cancer risk."

For be it from us to drag a Harvard doctoral candidate like Brother Murtaugh down to our level, but does not the near immutability of the genome, at least as a function of environmental factors, have obvious implications for Darwinists?

---

THE PERILS OF A NOVELTY HIT SONG:

JOHNNY PAYCHECK B. 1941: Too Bad to Be Forgotten (ANN PATCHETT, 12/28/03, NY Times Magazine)

It has been said that Mother Teresa's greatest act of humility was to die in the wake of grief that belonged to Princess Diana, and so slipped away with relatively little fanfare. Anyone who hoped for recognition in death in Nashville should know that 2003 was the sole property of Johnny Cash. Even though Johnny Paycheck beat the Man in Black off the stage by half a year, his passing, like so much of his music, will most likely be remembered as a footnote to another, greater singer.

---

GOOD MAN, BAD BEER:

JOSEPH COORS SR., B. 1917: Potent Brew (JAMES TRAUB, 12/28/03, NY Times Magazine)

Coors was born into a Colorado brewing family that shared the don't-tread-on-me philosophy common in the West, especially among family-owned businesses. Coors himself was just a garden-variety conservative until 1953, when he happened across the book that converted so many merely disgruntled right-wingers into active members of a movement: Russell Kirk's ''Conservative Mind.'' In the 1960's, he became an important supporter of Ronald Reagan and served a cantankerous term as regent of the University of Colorado, then boiling with student agitation. He came to the attention of Paul Weyrich, another movement figure who dreamed of establishing a policy institute that could germinate conservative thought as groups like Brookings had long done for liberals. In 1973, Coors gave the organization $250,000, plus another $300,000 for a building. And so the Heritage Foundation was born.

In 1977, he financed another institution, the Mountain States Legal Foundation. When Reagan was elected president, Coors was identified as a member of his kitchen cabinet; Mountain States' president, James Watt, became secretary of the interior and set off on what environmentalists deemed a reign of terror. As if all that weren't enough, Coors and his brother Bill waged a bitter struggle with workers that ended with the ousting of the company's unions. Joseph Coors was an easy guy to boycott. Bill once described his brother's politics to The Rocky Mountain News, not admiringly, as ''far right to Attila the Hun.''

It is time, however, to give the Hun his due.

Who even knew it was possible to say that in a not admiring way?

---

YES, HE DID:

What Made Sammy Run? (GARY GIDDINS, December 28, 2003, NY Times Book Review)

Is it possible for an entertainer who achieved the pinnacles of success -- wealth, fame, power, a critical and collegial regard verging on awe, at least during the long climb to the top -- to be remembered primarily as a cultural martyr? In the case of Sammy Davis Jr., a qualified ''yes'' seems reasonable. Unlike Frank Sinatra, whose music will ultimately obliterate the man's boorish qualities, Davis has virtually disappeared from the cultural landscape while his immense, long-lived celebrity clouds the minds of those who endured it. To many of us born in the 1940's and 1950's, he has become a joke: a bejeweled, Nehru jacket-wearing, women-and-stimulants-pursuing, faux-hipster caricature who cackled at racially stupid jokes that were designed to show how progressively good-natured the tellers and their victim-buddy were.

Yet Davis had once been renowned as a performer of spectacular gifts who could do everything. Sadly, ''everything'' usually proves to be the most evanescent of talents. His early appearances were virtuoso displays of dancing, singing and mimicry that defied indifference; he would stop at nothing until he brought the entire audience into his fold. There weren't many holdouts in the 1950's, beyond the kind of bigots who barraged Eddie Cantor with hate mail because he had mopped Davis's brow after presenting him on the ''Colgate Comedy Hour'' in 1952. Sammy was the dazzling kid (actually 26 years old) in a troupe called the Will Mastin Trio featuring Sammy Davis Jr. The unbilled partner was Sammy Davis Sr., his father. Mastin, 72 when he made his national debut, was said to be an uncle, though he was unrelated.

It was a strange, unforgettable act. The two older men, natty and understated, offered precision soft-shoe with some winging and spins thrown in, before stepping back to give the spotlight to the prodigal man-boy whose energy and autonomy made you wonder why the others were there at all. Davis had performed with them since the age of 4 -- he never attended school, never knew any other life, never bonded with his mother, who had once appeared in a Mastin revue. Now he was carrying his mentors.

Yet when he died in 1990, the man who had been so generous, so profligate with his talent was largely derided or ignored. Where had he gone wrong?

Here's our interview with Davis's friend, biographer, and ghost writer, Burt Boyar.

---

ALL ABOUT SEX:

Mr. Hitchens's Revisionism of His Own History (Sean Wilentz, History News Network)

In his interview with the right-wing web magazine FrontPageMag.com, re-posted on HNN, Christopher Hitchens claims that his moment of truth about Islamic fascism arrived in 1989, and that by September 11, 2001, he had fully come to "[t]he realization that American power could and should be used for the defense of pluralism." He then says that after seeing the World Trade Center atrocities on television, he was exhilarated: "Here we are then, I was thinking, in a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate. Fine. We will win and they will lose."

Mr. Hitchens was thinking nothing of the sort, and he knows it. He was thinking, in standard, knee-jerk anti-American terms, that America was largely to blame for bringing on the attacks. And he said so, in a particularly sickening column for the Guardian published on September 13, 2001:

With cellphones still bleeping piteously from under the rubble, it probably seems indecent to most people to ask if the United States has ever done anything to attract such awful hatred. Indeed, the very thought, for the present, is taboo. Some senators and congressmen have spoken of the loathing felt by certain unnamed and sinister elements for the freedom and prosperity of America, as if it were only natural that such a happy and successful country should inspire envy and jealousy. But that is the limit of permissible thought.

In general, the motive and character of the perpetrators is shrouded by rhetoric about their "cowardice" and their "shadowy" character, almost as if they had not volunteered to immolate themselves in the broadest of broad blue daylight. On the campus where I am writing this, there are a few students and professors willing to venture points about United States foreign policy. But they do so very guardedly, and it would sound like profane apologetics if transmitted live. So the analytical moment, if there is to be one, has been indefinitely postponed.

We're firmly of the opinion that when Leftists fight among themselves we all win, and Mr. Hitchens's inability to disavow his pro-Soviet past makes him an at best problematic ally--he deserves most of what he gets. But the essay cited here, while terribly silly, is somewhat less cut and dried than the quoted passage suggest, So is this war? (Christopher Hitchens, September 13, 2001, The Guardian). And Mr. Hitchens did come around to a full-throated, even if self-contradictory, defense of Western civilization pretty quickly,   Let's not get too liberal (Christopher Hitchens, September 21, 2001, The Guardian). More importantly, the grudge Mr. Wilentz carries has little to do, in all likelihood, with his sensibilities being offended on September 13th, and much to do with with his sycophantic defense of Bill Clinton, who Mr. Hitchens always took great relish in fileting. That being the probable source of the current brawl, we've a rooting interest in Mr. Hitchens.

---

ENTER READING:

The Best Books of 2003 (Steven Martinovich, December 22, 2003, Enter Stage Right)

If you aren't a regular ESR reader, you should be, and Brother Martinovich's book picks and reviews are an excellent intro.

---

MISMATCH:

Arguing With Oakeshott (DAVID BROOKS, December 27, 2003, NY Times)

We can't know how Oakeshott would have judged the decision to go to war in Iraq, but it is impossible not to see the warnings entailed in his writings. Be aware of what you do not know. Do not go charging off to remake a society when you don't understand its moral traditions, when you do not even understand yourself. Do not imagine that if you conquer a nation and impose something you call democracy that the results will be in any way predictable. Do not try to administer a country from behind a security bunker.

I try to reply to these warnings. I concede that government should be limited, prudent and conservative, but only when there is something decent to conserve. Saddam sent Iraqi society spinning off so violently, prudence became imprudent. The Middle East could not continue down its former course.

I remind Oakeshott that he was ambivalent about the American Revolution, and dubious about a people who had made a sharp break with the past in the name of inalienable rights and other abstractions. But ours is the one revolution that worked, and it did precisely because our founders were epistemologically modest too, and didn't pretend to know what is the good life, only that people should be free to figure it out for themselves.

It comes as no surprise that Oakeshott gets the better of Mr. Brooks--the Revolution was a mistake, even if a noble one. Had America remained a part of the empire the Civil War and WWI would both have been avoided in all likelihood; reason enough to regret we parted ways.

---

DO THEY REALLY WANT TO PROVIDE A PRETEXT?:

US has to seek its elusive 'most wanted' everywhere (Mohsen Asgari and Mark Huband, December 27 2003, Financial Times)

Earlier this month, General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, vowed that he "will be captured some day, just like we captured Saddam Hussein".

But Gen. Myers went on to say that the al-Qaeda leader was likely to be hiding out "where he has some support, where he can buy support, and probably in very difficult terrain".

The common belief is that this terrain lies somewhere on the 1,500-mile frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a wild and lonely place. The terrorist chief and a handful of his followers could be anywhere in the high mountain passes or the tribal lands where neither the writ of Islamabad or Kabul counts for much.

But sporadic and un-confirmed sightings of have also begun to crop up further afield, including in Kashmir, Pakistan's tribal areas and Baluchistan on the border with Iran.

Even if these do not amount to a reliable guide to his whereabouts, they are a tribute to his elusiveness. In one recent account, a man with links to Iran's intelligence services and hard-line Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC) has told the Financial Times that he saw the al-Qaeda leader in Iran two months ago. He saw him arrive at an RGC guest house close to the small town of Najmabad, west of Tehran, on 23 October.

It's just hard to believe the Iranians could be that foolish.

---

PARANOIA NEVER GOES OUT OF STYLE:

The Second Coming of Philip K. Dick: The inside-out story of how a hyper-paranoid, pulp-fiction hack conquered the movie world 20 years after his death. (Frank Rose, December 2003, Wired)

Dick's anxious surrealism all but defines contemporary Hollywood science fiction and spills over into other kinds of movies as well. His influence is pervasive in The Matrix and its sequels, which present the world we know as nothing more than an information grid; Dick articulated the concept in a 1977 speech in which he posited the existence of multiple realities overlapping the "matrix world" that most of us experience. Vanilla Sky, with its dizzying shifts between fantasy and fact, likewise ventures into a Dickian warp zone, as does Dark City, The Thirteenth Floor, and David Cronenberg's eXistenZ. Memento reprises Dick's memory obsession by focusing on a man whose attempts to avenge his wife's murder are complicated by his inability to remember anything. In The Truman Show, Jim Carrey discovers the life he's living is an illusion, an idea Dick developed in his 1959 novel Time Out of Joint. Next year, Carrey and Kate Winslet will play a couple who have their memories of each other erased in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Memory, paranoia, alternate realities: Dick's themes are everywhere.

At a time when most 20th-century science fiction writers seem hopelessly dated, Dick gives us a vision of the future that captures the feel of our time. He didn't really care about robots or space travel, though they sometimes turn up in his stories. He wrote about ordinary Joes caught in a web of corporate domination and ubiquitous electronic media, of memory implants and mood dispensers and counterfeit worlds. This strikes a nerve. "People cannot put their finger anymore on what is real and what is not real," observes Paul Verhoeven, the one-time Dutch mathematician who directed Total Recall. "What we find in Dick is an absence of truth and an ambiguous interpretation of reality. Dreams that turn out to be reality, reality that turns out to be a dream. This can only sell when people recognize it, and they can only recognize it when they see it in their own lives."

Like the babbling psychics who predict future crimes in Minority Report, Dick was a precog. Lurking within his amphetamine-fueled fictions are truths that have only to be found and decoded. In a 1978 essay he wrote: "We live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups. I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudorealities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives. I distrust their power. It is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing."

Viewed in this context, Dick's emergence in Hollywood seems oddly inevitable. His career itself is a tale of alternate realities.

We've several reviews posted of various of his books and stories. One of the best Philip K. Dick stories though is true, and concerns him "informing" on fellow science fiction writer Thomas Disch to the FBI.

---

SUBJECTION:

The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery: The problem wasn't that the leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened. (Rodney Stark, 07/18/2003, Christianity Today)

As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians.

Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe, except at the southern and eastern interfaces with Islam where both sides enslaved one another's prisoners. But even this was sometimes condemned: in the tenth century, bishops in Venice did public penance for past involvement in the Moorish slave trade and sought to prevent all Venetians from involvement in slavery. Then, in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.

It is significant that in Aquinas's day, slavery was a thing of the past or of distant lands. Consequently, he gave very little attention to the subject per se, paying more attention to serfdom, which he held to be repugnant.

However, in his overall analysis of morality in human relationships, Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all "rational creatures" are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, "thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion." Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for "one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end."

Here Aquinas distinguished two forms of "subjection" or authority, just and unjust. The former exists when leaders work for the advantage and benefit of their subjects. The unjust form of subjection "is that of slavery, in which the ruler manages the subject for his own [the ruler's] advantage." Based on the immense authority vested in Aquinas by the Church, the official view came to be that slavery is sinful.

This may well overstate the moral case against slavery, but is nonetheless enlightening.

---

CIRCULAR LOGIC:

Path led from science to faith The design is apparent to many (Bob Dewaay, December 27, 2003, Minneapolis Star Tribune)

I read with interest Gregory Korgeski's Dec. 13 counterpoint decrying creationism and fundamentalism. After learning that no "reputable" scientists endorse creationism, I learned that fundamentalists who take their sacred texts literally are dangerous to the well-being of society.

These arguments are self-serving in that they admit no evidence to the contrary. In Korgeski's thought, being a creationist makes you disreputable and being a fundamentalist makes you a likely menace to society.

I was raised in a church that taught that the Bible was mostly mythology, that there were no miracles, and that evolution was true. Seeing no need for religion, I left the church and took up the study of science.

As a chemical engineering student at Iowa State University I was required to study organic chemistry. I studied the complexity of molecules in the body that made life possible. That study convinced me that evolution was impossible and that life had to come from an intelligent designer.

The church led me away from belief in God and science led me to it. I became a Christian and began to study the Bible for myself. Now I am a "fundamentalist" preacher. [...]

Back to Korgeski's article -- I wonder, given the lack of any authoritative text, the lack of a supreme "law giver," and the lack of any rational explanation of how moral guidance "evolved" from random processes, how Korgeski can take it upon himself to give his readers moral guidance. At least we fundamentalists have a source of moral guidance outside of the fickle "self."

That's the curious thing about the scientific religion, is that it was supposed to lead us all away from God, but has brought us full circle.

MORE:
Does Science Point to God?: The Intelligent Design Revolution (Benjamin D. Wiker, Crisis)

The ID movement directly contradicts the modern secularist intellectual trend that has so thoroughly dominated Western culture for the last two centuries (even though this trend began 500 years ago, in the early Renaissance). Although this secularization has reached nearly every aspect of our culture, its source of authority has always been in a kind of philosophic and scientific alliance.

In philosophy, the secularized intellect denies the existence of any truth beyond what is humanly contrived, and this denial (a kind of intellectual non serviam) manifests itself in the wild, manic-depressive intellectual swings so characteristic of modernity, between self-congratulatory claims of omniscience and self-pitying lamentations of complete skepticism. The secularization of science manifests itself in the belief that nature has no need for an intelligent designer but is self-caused and self-contained. Secularized science has as its aim the reduction of apparent design, whether cosmological or biological, to the unintelligent interplay of chance and brute necessity (either the necessity of law or of the physical constituents). Since nature itself has no intrinsic order, then (by default) the human intellect is the only source of intellectual order. Secularized science thus supports secularized philosophy, and secularized philosophy functions as the articulate mouthpiece of the alliance.

The ID movement seeks to restore sanity to science, philosophy, and hence culture by investigating the possibility that nature, rather than being the result of unintelligent, purposeless forces, can only be understood as the effect of an Intelligent Designer. But again, to say that the ID revolution contradicts the claims of secularized science does not mean that the contradiction arises from some contrariety or conspiracy on the part of ID proponents. It arises from the evidence of nature itself, and the ID movement is merely pointing to the evidence nature has provided (even while, as an active mode of scientific inquiry, it seeks to uncover more). In science, it points to the growing evidence of intelligent fine tuning, both cosmological and biological, and to the various failures of secularized science to make good its claims that the order of nature can be completely reduced to unintelligent causes. As more and more evidence is gathered, secularized philosophy will be forced to confront the scientific evidence that truth is not, after all, a mere human artifact, because a designing intellect has provided the amazingly intricate beings and laws to which the scientific intellect must conform if it is truly to have scientia—a knowledge of nature. Soon enough, secularized culture will be compelled to realign.

That is not, however, the story you will hear from the critics of ID, who seek to declaw it by denying that it is, at heart, a scientific revolution. According to its most acerbic adversaries, ID is merely a religious ruse wearing a scientific facade. For philosopher Barbara Forrest, “The intelligent design movement as a whole…really has nothing to do with science,” but is rather “religious to its core…merely the newest ‘evolution’ of good old-fashioned American creationism Zoologists Matthew Brauer and Daniel Brumbaugh charge that the ID movement “is not motivated by new scientific discoveries” but “entirely by the religion and politics of a small group of academics who seek to defeat secular ‘modernist naturalism’ by updating previously discredited creationist approaches.” The most outspoken critic of ID theory, philosopher Robert Pennock (who has published two anti-ID books), likewise asserts in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics that ID is merely a “theological movement” with a “game plan…little different than that of the ‘creation scientists’” and suspects that at the heart of the ID urge is a regrettable and benighted “tendency to anthropomorphize the world,” to see design in nature only because we are designers ourselves. [...]

Allow me to point out to Pennock that the “tendency to anthropomorphize the world” is coming from the world itself, or more accurately, from the entire cosmos. In fact, in physics it is called the anthropic principle. In short form, it is the discovery that the universe appears rigged, astoundingly fine-tuned, suspiciously calibrated as part of some kind of a conspiracy of order to produce life—indeed intelligent life. This fine-tuned conspiracy occurs on all levels, from the fundamental constants governing the formation of all the elements in the cosmos, to the extraordinarily precise relationship of planets in our solar system, to the delicate balances on our own planet.

If, for example, the strong nuclear force that holds together the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms were a tad weaker, elements other than hydrogen would either be unlikely or impossible; if a tad stronger, you wouldn’t have hydrogen. Change the ratio of the mass of the electron to the proton just a mite and molecules cannot form. If gravity were made just a bit weaker, stars large enough to produce the heavier elements necessary for biological life would not exist; a bit stronger, and stars would be too massive, producing the necessary elements but burning too rapidly and unevenly to support life. Fiddle a smidgeon with the expansion rate of the universe, and you either cause it to collapse or exceed the ideal rate at which galaxies, and hence solar systems, can form.

Or to focus on our own home in the Milky Way, it has become increasingly clear that the conditions of our solar system are wonderfully intricate. For example, our sun is not a typical star but is one of the 9 percent most massive stars in our galaxy, and it is also very stable. Further, the sun hits the Goldilocks mean for life—neither too hot (like a blue or white star) nor too cold (like a red star)—and its peak emission is right at the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum—the very, very thin band where not only vision is possible but also photosynthesis. Earth just “happens” to have the right combination of atmospheric gases to block out almost all the harmful radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum but, strangely enough, opens like a window for visible light. Jupiter is deftly placed and sized so that it not only helps to balance Earth’s orbit but also acts as a kind of debris magnet keeping Earth from being pummeled. Our moon is just the right size and distance to stabilize Earth’s axial tilt so that we have seasonal variations but not wildly swinging temperature changes.

This article is too short to summarize the already vast but continually growing literature on such cosmic fine- tuning. I have given just a taste so that I could return to an earlier point and make it more explicit: The ID movement, understood in its proper and widest context, is cosmological in scope, looking for evidence of design in all of nature, and biology is just one aspect of nature where it seeks evidence of fine-tuning. Against those who would so jealously guard biology from ID, one must ask: How could the fundamental physical constants be fine-tuned, our solar system be fined-tuned, the atmospheric and geological features of our planet be fine-tuned, but all biological beings and processes be the result of unintelligent, purposeless forces?

In addition, the ID approach is both quite natural and scientifically fruitful. The discovery of such exceedingly precise fine-tuning not only draws one to the conclusion that a designer is behind it all but also leads to further scientific discovery. As a famous instance of the first, astronomer and mathematician Fred Hoyle was so astonished at the remarkable chain of “coincidences” necessary for the production of oxygen and carbon in the universe, he concluded that “a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” That statement was uttered mid–20th century as a result of Hoyle discovering the wildly improbable presence of just the right nuclear resonance levels in carbon and oxygen to allow for the formation of these most necessary elements for life. For Hoyle, such wonderful calibration could not be an accident: “I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.”

-Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics Benjamin D. Wiker answers criticism of the Intelligent Design movement...this time from Christians themselves. (Benjamin Wiker, July/August 2003, Crisis)

---

FIRST TO WORSHIP:

Ox and Ass (Giovanni Papini)

It was not by chance that Christ was born in a stable. What is the world but an immense stable where men produce filth and wallow in it? Do they not daily change the most beautiful, the purest, the most divine things into excrement? Then, stretching themselves at full length on the piles of manure, they say they are “enjoying life.” Upon this earthly pig-sty, where no decorations or perfumes can hide the odor of filth, Jesus appeared one night, born of a stainless Virgin armed only with innocence…

First to worship Jesus were animals, not men. Among men he sought out the simple-hearted: among the simple-hearted he sought out children. Simpler than children, and milder, the beasts of burden welcomed him.

Though humble, though servants of beings weaker and fiercer than they, the ass and the ox had seen multitudes kneeling before them. Christ’s own people, the people of Jehovah, the chosen people whom Jehovah had freed from Egyptian slavery, when their leader left them alone in the desert to go up and talk with the Eternal, did they not force Aaron to make them a golden calf to worship? In Greece the ass was sacred to Ares, to Dionysius, to Hyperborean Apollo. Balaam’s ass, wiser than the prophet, saved him by speaking. Oxus, King of Persia, put an ass in the temple of Ptha, and had it worshiped. And Augustus, Christ’s temporal sovereign, had set up in the temple the brazen statue of an ass, to commemorate the good omen of his meeting on the eve of Actium an ass named “the Victorious.”

Up to that time the kings of the earth and the populace craving material things had bowed before oxen and asses. But Jesus did not come into the world to reign over the earth, nor to love material things. He was to bring to an end the bowing down before beasts, the weakness of Aaron, the superstition of Augustus. The beasts of Jerusalem will murder him, but in the meantime the beasts of Bethlehem warm him with their breath. In later years, when Jesus went up to the city of death for the Feast of the Passover, he was mounted on an ass. But he was a greater prophet than Balaam, coming not to save the Jews alone but all men: and he did not turn back from his path, no, not though all the mules of Jerusalem brayed against him.

Hard to find a preacher who'll mix it up like that these days.

---

GOLDEN HORN TO GOLDEN ARCHES:

Commerce or Commissar? (Paul Cantor, December 24, 2003, Mises.org)

The best way to approach the historic city of Yalta is from the sea, the Black Sea to be precise. Seen up close the city looks a bit rundown, but viewed from a ship, Yalta is an impressive sight, nestled up against the Crimean Mountains, just the way the Russian Czars wanted it when they chose this spot for their summer getaways. But the tourist seeking out the old Czarist playground has a surprise in store as he draws near Yalta. Looming up just behind the docks is a monumental statue of a familiar figure, but it is not one of the Romanovs˜instead it is the man who brought their dynasty to an end--Vladimir Lenin. I hardly expected to see a monument to Lenin when I traveled to post-Soviet Yalta.

But my shock was cushioned by the appearance of an even more familiar shape right next to Lenin as viewed from the sea. The monument to the Communist leader of the Russian Revolution is now partially eclipsed by one of the grand international symbols of capitalism--two large McDonald's banners. Lenin famously said that, come the revolution, capitalists would be found willing to sell the rope by which they would be hanged. He did not foresee that, when the communists were at the end of their rope, the capitalists would be back to sell burgers, fries, and a shake, right under his stony eyes. I took pleasure in the fact that Lenin now casts a rather lonely figure in the harbor of Yalta, whereas the McDonald's seems to be filled with satisfied customers at all times, day and night.

The juxtaposition of Lenin and McDonald's is curiously symbolic of the whole history of the Black Sea region. For over two thousand years, two forces have contended with each other in this strategically located area. On the one hand have been would-be conquerors like Lenin or Suleiman the Magnificent, men who wanted to impose a single way of life on the whole region, whether a political ideology like Communism or a religion like Islam. On the other hand have been the commercial forces like McDonald's, merchants and businessmen who have taken advantage of the fact that people live differently in the region and therefore want to trade with each other.

This contrast became evident to me in the course of a two-week cruise I took on the Black Sea last summer, a trip that included three ports in Turkey, three in Ukraine, one in Romania, and one in Bulgaria. With visits to one historic or archaeological site after another, and plenty of deck time to read up on the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, I began to see a pattern unfold.

Even FDR couldn't put Yalta under permanent bondage.

---

THE DEER HUNTER:

Dean not ready to sentence bin Laden (The Associated Press, 12/26/2003)

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean says it's premature to recommend what penalty Osama bin Laden should face before he's been legally determined to be guilty of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Asked whether bin Laden should be tried in the United States and put to death, Dean told the Concord Monitor: "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

In an interview with the New Hampshire newspaper for Friday editions, Dean added: "I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."

Let's take his point seriously for a second, before we marvel at his capacity to fire rounds into his own melon, shouldn't we have had this evidentiary proceeding before we toppled a sovereign government in pursuit of the suspect (a war, Afghanistan, which he claims to have supported)?

---

AXIS OF GOOD FILES (via Mike Daley):

Science Pact Signed With Israel (Shebonti Ray Dadwal, 12/25/03, Financial Express)

Taking their fast-growing ties a step further, India and Israel on Tuesday signed a statement on co-operation in science and technology. Following talks between minister of state for science and technology Bachi Singh Rawat and his Israeli counterpart Eleizer Sandberg, several areas of co-operation were identified, including joint development and upgradation of science and technology projects as well as joint projects in space. The minister reviewed the nine ongoing projects signed between the two countries besides exploring new areas of co-operation, mostly in the field of genomes. [...]

Due to the acutely-felt need for security, Israel has ensured that its space programme is almost completely indigenous. Despite co-operating with several countries including the US, Canada and some Latin American states on projects, it has consciously retained its independence regarding space-based research and development, specialising particularly in satellite miniaturisation. Yet, Israel chose to use an Indian vehicle to launch the Tauvex telescope.

One of the inescapable facts that makes the imagined victory of Islamicism impossible is that the Middle East is book-ended by nuclear-armed Jewish and Hindu states.

---

GOT A GIFT CERTIFICATE BURNING A HOLE IN YOUR POCKET?:

Best of 2003 (Brothers Judd)

-Jonathan Edwards: A Life (George M. Marsden)

-A Question of Honor: The Kosciuszko Squadron: Forgotten Heroes of World War II (Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud)

-The Teammates: A Portrait of a Friendship (David Halberstam)

-The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit (A. J. Conyers)

-The Other Side of Russia: A Slice of Life in Siberia and the Russian Far East (Sharon Hudgins)

-The Greatest Game Ever Played: Harry Vardon, Francis Ouimet, and the Birth of Modern Golf (Mark Frost)

-Brain Storm (Richard Dooling)

-What We Can't Not Know: A Guide (J. Budziszewski)

-A New Kind of Science (Stephen Wolfram)

-In, But Not Of : A Guide to Christian Ambition (Hugh Hewitt)

-Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder (Wesley J. Smith)

-An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943 (Rick Atkinson)

-The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Fareed Zakaria)

-The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair That Changed America (Erik Larson)

-Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (Paul C. Vitz)

-Death on a Friday Afternoon: Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross (Richard John Neuhaus)

-Feminist Fantasies (Phyllis Schlafly)

MORE:
BOOK LIST (Foreign Affairs, December 2003)

Each month a different member of our distinguished panel of book reviewers recommends the best books discussed in Foreign Affairs in the past year. This month, Walter Russell Mead gives his picks for the best books on the United States.

Benjamin Franklin by Edmund S. Morgan

Being America: Liberty, Commerce, and Violence in an American World by Jedidiah Purdy

To Begin the World Anew: the Genuis and Ambiguities of the American Founders by Bernard Bailyn

The Passions of Andrew Jackson by Andrew Brustein

Wheels for the World: Henry Ford, His Company, and a Century of Progress, 1903-2003 by Douglas Brinkley

William McKinley by Kevin Phillips

A Grand Strategy for America by Robert J. Art

The page includes links to Foreign Affairs' reviews of each book.

-Books & Culture Corner: The Top Ten Books of 2003: The Worst Book of the Year, more good reading, digital books, and a little Christmas music. (John Wilson, 12/22/2003, Christianity Today)
-Mystery Paperbacks Make for a Perfect Stocking Stuffer -- Here Are Some Favorites. (Alafair Burke)

Samantha Kincaid, the formidable heroine of Alafair Burke's legal thriller, Judgment Calls, offers her expert suggestions for the mystery lover this holiday season.

---

THE ANTI-ZIONIST:

Pinning down Howard Dean (JONATHAN S. TOBIN, Dec. 25, 2003, Jerusalem Post)

[E]ven if we stick with Dean's official policy statements on Israel, some serious questions remain.

Dean claims that on the Israel issue, he will model his presidency on that of Bill Clinton, and thinks Bush has erred at times by allowing the parties to negotiate without US involvement. That would mean a Dean presidency might repeat many of the same mistakes that helped bring about the latest Palestinian terror war and left Israel stranded.

Would Dean, as Clinton did, invite Yasser Arafat to the White House more times than any other foreign leader? Others might ask why he thinks it's so important to use the power of the presidency to create a Palestinian state when he was so reluctant to use US power against Saddam Hussein.

Why did he name as one of his foreign-policy advisers Clyde Prestowitz, an author who advocates ending all US aid to Israel to pressure it to make concessions?

And, most importantly, how will a candidate whose base of support is on the left wing of the political spectrum - where hostility to Israel is now commonplace - deal with the anti-Israel sentiments expressed by many of his supporters?

The truth is that there are a lot of reasons, other than a few stray remarks, to question the direction a Dean presidency might take on the Middle East. And voters who care about Israel - Jews and non-Jews alike - have the responsibility to try and make him answer these questions.

Howard Dean seems to be playing a bizarre form of solo Russian Roulette in which all six chambers are loaded.

---

BE NOT AFRAID (via Real Clear Politics):

Bush Should Cool Democracy Sell (James P. Pinkerton, December 26, 2003, Newsday)

[T]o the extent that Jordan's king counts as a dictator, I wonder if such a democratizing move would help Bush foreign policy objectives. The Jordan Times, an English-language daily, offered a sobering account of a recent parliamentary debate. One deputy, Nidal Abbadi, described as an "Islamist," derided the king's government as so Westernized that it was ignorant of the country it speaks for. "These ministers not only cannot recount the names of three villages in Jordan, they are also unfamiliar with Amman, especially the eastern part" - the poor section.

Abbadi added that government ministers don't know the prices of basic commodities, don't carry Jordanian currency and might even lack proficiency in Arabic.

The press here is free to report on Abbadi's diatribe. But, of course, Jordan is not so free that anti-government words can be followed up by anti-government deeds.

In normal democratic politics, leaders found to be that out of touch with popular concerns - the Times offered no rebuttal to Abbadi's allegations - would be voted out of power. Yet the Islamic Action Front holds just 17 seats in the 110-member parliament. However, few observers here, speaking in private, doubt that the Islamists - plus maybe other pro-Palestinian radicals - would win a solid nationwide majority in a truly free election.
And what would the Islamists do if they were in power? In his speech in parliament, Abbadi demanded the mandatory veiling of women - observation tells me that at least 80 percent of women here already wear at least a hejab, or scarf over their hair - as well as the closure of all night clubs, unisex swimming pools and male-run hair salons for women.

In other words, Islamist rule in Jordan would put the country well on the path toward an Iran-style government.

'Our Guy' for Iraq Leader May End Up Biting Us: When the British anointed a ruler in the 1920s, they got more than they bargained for. Read your history, Washington. (David Fromkin, 12/26/03, LA Times)

Believing that Faisal would be open-minded in considering Britain's objectives, and the values of the Western world, the British proceeded to stage-manage the nomination of Faisal as Iraq's monarch, in a process that concluded with a referendum and then the scheduling of the coronation.

U.S. policymakers today, to the extent that they push leadership claims of those whom they see as open-minded and reasonable about issues important to Washington, might well consider the case of Faisal.

No sooner had his coronation been scheduled — and the British more or less irrevocably committed to the cause of his monarchy — than he announced that he had changed his mind. He would not accept a League of Nations mandate. He would not be a puppet king. He wanted to negotiate a treaty, not a trusteeship agreement. Indeed, in the course of his 10-year reign he succeeded in winning not only full independence but membership in the League of Nations as a free and equal country.

The British were aghast. "Crooked and insincere," was one high official's view of Faisal. "Faisal is playing a very low and treacherous game with us," Churchill told Lloyd George.

What the episode suggests is that if and when the United States throws its weight behind a candidate for leadership in Iraq, believing that person to be favorable to Washington's agenda, there is a good chance that the candidate, in order to survive Iraqi domestic politics, will turn against us. Even so, the candidate might be preferable to any other. Churchill may have regarded Faisal as treacherous, but during his reign, and even those of his son and grandson, Britain was able to hold a privileged position in Iraq. For Britain, the Faisal candidacy was an essential step on the road out of the Iraqi quagmire.

Arab democracy must come from Arab states (Trudy Rubin, 12/26/03, Philadelphia Inquirer)

For "Most Important Book of the Year," I nominate the Arab Human Development Report 2003 issued by the United Nations Development Program.

Written by a group of 26 Arab scholars, this volume takes a candid look at why Arab countries have fallen so far behind in key areas of human development. This question is crucial, at a time when the United States is trying to remake Iraq into a democratic model for the region.

The authors of this book argue that the impetus for real Mideast change must come from inside their own society. "Such reform from within, based on rigorous self-criticism, is a far more proper and sustainable alternative," they write, "in contrast to efforts to restructure the region from outside." But "rigorous self-criticism" is rare in a region where leaders and publics tend to blame their troubles on outsiders, especially "the West."

The authors of the Arab Human Development Report (AHDR) are trying to provoke just such an internal Arab debate.

"The report looks at the issues we were reluctant to discuss in the past," says Rima Khalaf Hunaidi, the director of UNDP's regional bureau for Arab States, and the moving force behind the volume. Its aim, she says, is "to change the attitudes of people and governments."

The basic thesis: The Mideast's problems are due to regional "deficits" in three critical areas: freedom, knowledge, and the status of women.

All three of these raise, each in their own way, an interesting question: would it necessarily be a bad thing for Iraq to undergo its own Islamic Revolution, a la Iran?

The prospect obviously terrifies Mr. Pinkerton and most libertarian and Leftist opponents of the war on terror. For them a Shi'ite Republic would be an unconditional defeat.

Mr. Fromkin, a foreign policy "realist", recognizes the futility of our trying to dictate the final form of the Iraq we leave behind and the potentially helpful effect of a government that may even be outwardly hostile to us. Unfortunately, there's not likely to be a royal restoration, of the kind he's writing about, so what about an Islamic state?

Meanwhile, Ms Rubin, whatever her views on Iraq, suggests that the most important insight of 2003 was that the movement towards democracy will have to be internal and will require "rigorous self-criticism". Where, as we look around the Islamic world, is the most fearsome self-criticism going on and where is the most vibrant internal democracy movement? By no coincidence: Iran.

There's still some tough slogging ahead, but Iran looks very much like a nation where the people recognize that the Revolution has failed to produce the promised utopia and are now prepared to accept, even willing to demand, that their leaders accept some variation on the end of history. This kind of capacity to evolve politically in the Western direction may be peculiar to the Shi'ites--they at least seem to have certain doctrinal advantages in this regard--but since Iraq is predominantly Shi'ite there seems an opportunity here even in what might at first seem an unfavorable development: let the Shi'ites of Iraq undertake their own Islamic experiment, secure in the knowledge that it won't survive even a generation (as Iran's has not), and that they'll develop in the direction we want, even if not as quickly as we'd hope.

---

EXPAND THE SCAM:

Bush's 'Ownership' Scam (Robert Kuttner, December 24, 2003, Boston Globe)

How does Bush propose to create this "ownership society?" Mainly through more tax credits. If people lack reliable health care, there are tax-favored savings accounts to buy health insurance. If corporations are abandoning good pensions, there are new tax incentives to set aside retirement savings. If jobs are precarious, there are tax credits to purchase retraining when your job moves to China. [...]

Interestingly, there is a very different version of an ownership society that actually works. It is called asset development. Tony Blair in Britain has already made a start on this approach, by giving every child a subsidized savings account at birth that grows and compounds and can be used in adulthood to subsidize everything from education to first-time homeownership and ultimately to supplement retirement.

In the United States, Al Gore proposed a variant of this. I've been working with Larry Brown, one of the pioneers of this approach at the Asset Development Institute at Brandeis University, on an even bolder version.

The difference is that genuine asset development gives people genuine opportunities using real public outlays, the way the GI Bill did. Bush's approach relies mainly on the funny money of tax credits, which are often useless to the very people who need them most.

Here's an instance of where Democrats' are inhibited from true social/political breakthroughs by their fealty to New Dealism. Mr. Kuttner has a valid point, but he can't get past his wasteful welfare state entitlement thinking to make it.

Such accounts should indeed start at birth--perhaps with an initial contribution from the government--and the government should certainly subsidize such accounts for the poor, but there's no reason the rest of us can't fund them ourselves, just as we do 401k's--with some mixture of personal and employee contributions, and this offers an opportunity to expand the pool, so that, for instance, grandparents or charities or whomever could contribute too.

The dichotomy he sets up--of "real public outlays" vs. "the funny money of tax credits"--is merely hysterical. The former approach would have government tax us and then hand us back the money--the latter shelters it from taxation in the first place and so is both more direct and more personal. The former is based on the idea that we are all dependent on government--the latter encourages us to look at such accounts as taking responsibility for ourselves. The differences go not just to the efficiency of the program, but to the mindset. Why not encourage people's sense of "ownership", the very ownership he scoffs at, instead of setting up a system where they are "owned" by the government.

If Democrats were truly interested in the constituents they are supposedly elected to serve--the underprivileged among us--instead of just in assuaging the special interests who keep them afloat, they'd take up President Bush on the ownership accounts idea, but insist that the program include these additional reforms too. Such a Democratic Party would be serving not just the people who need this kind of "asset development" the most, but the nation as a whole.

For all Mr. Kuttner's talk of a "bolder intiative", this kind of compromise would require real boldness in three ways: (1) the accounts would replace virtually the entire panoply of New Deal/Great Society programs--from home loans to medical care to retirement--and be an implicit admission that there's a better way to go than the direction the Democrats took us for 70 years; (2) it would be a genuinely bipartisan accomplishment--Third Way even--occurring on the hated George W. Bush's watch; and (3) because the initiative is such a good idea and because of #2, it could end up being a huge boon to the Republicans for a very long time. The kind of boldness that could accept all three of those things is a very rare thing in the species, requiring a selflessness that we're barely capable of, but if Mr. Kuttner and like-minded folk could be so bold they would be real American heroes.

---

WELL KEPT:

Washington's Resignation Address to the Continental Congress (Annapolis, Maryland, 23 December 1783)

Mr President

The great events on which my resignation depended having at length taken place; I have now the honor of offering my sincere Congratulations to Congress & of presenting myself before them to surrender into their hands the trust committed to me, and to claim the indulgence of retiring from the Service of my Country.

Happy in the confirmation of our Independence and Sovereignty, and pleased with the oppertunity afforded the United States of becoming a respectable Nation, I resign with satisfaction the Appointment I accepted with diffidence--A diffidence in my abilities to accomplish so arduous a task, which however was superseded by a confidence in the rectitude of our Cause, the support of the Supreme Power of the Union, and the patronage of Heaven.

The Successful termination of the War has verified the more sanguine expectations--and my gratitude for the interposition of Providence, and the assistance I have received from my Countrymen encreases with every review of the momentous Contest.

While I repeat my obligations to the Army in general, I should do injustice to my own feelings not to acknowledge in this place the peculiar Services and distinguished merits of the Gentlemen who have been attached to my person during the War. It was impossible the choice of confidential Officers to compose my family should have been more fortunate. Permit me Sir, to recommend in particular those, who have continued in Service to the present moment, as worthy of the favorable notice & patronage of Congress.

I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my Official life, by commanding the Interests of our dearest Country to the protection of Almighty God, and those Who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping.

Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theatre of Action--and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.

---

DO WELL BY DOING GOOD:

Iran quake may leave 10,000 dead (AP, 12/26/03)

A severe earthquake devastated the historic city of Bam in southeast Iran on Friday, and a preliminary estimate said the death toll could reach 10,000. [...]

The United Nations disaster management team in Tehran has asked the Iranian government if it needs help and was to meet later Friday to assess the situation, said Elizabeth Byrs, Geneva spokeswoman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

She said there had been no request from Tehran so far.

Roy Probert, spokesman for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said the umbrella group also has had no requests. Probert said the Iranian Red Crescent is well-prepared for earthquakes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his condolences over the earthquake.

In a telegram to Iranian President Mohamed Khatami, Putin said he was "deeply shocked by an earthquake in Iran that brought numerous victims and destruction" and offered his "sincere condolences to the leadership and people of Iran."

Russian Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Marina Ryklina said that two Il-76 transport aircraft with rescue workers and equipment were to leave for Iran later Friday.

We should provide any assistance we can--and that they're willing to accept--too.

---

IGNORING IS BLISS:

How is it possible to ignore the Iraqi war's most blindingly obvious collateral benefits? (Charles Krauthammer, Dec. 26, 2003, Jewish World Review)

Yeah, sure. After 18 years of American sanctions, Moammar Gaddafi randomly picks Dec. 19, 2003, as the day for his surrender. By amazing coincidence, Gaddafi's first message to Britain — principal U.S. war ally and conduit to White House war councils — occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And his final capitulation to U.S.-British terms occurs just five days after Saddam Hussein is fished out of a rathole. [...]

The Democrats seem congenitally incapable of understanding that force has not just the effect of disarming the immediate enemy but a deterrent effect on others similarly situated. Iraq was not attacked randomly. It was attacked as part of a clearly enunciated policy — now known as the Bush Doctrine — of targeting, by preemptive war if necessary, hostile regimes engaged in terror and/or refusing to come clean on WMDs.

Mullah Omar did not get the message and is now hiding in a cave somewhere. Saddam Hussein did not get the message and ended up in a hole. Gaddafi got the message.

Diplomacy is fine. But we are dealing not with Canada but with gangster regimes. In rogue states, the only diplomacy that ever works is diplomacy at the point of a bayonet. Why, even the hapless Hans Blix went out on a limb to speculate that "I would imagine that Gaddafi could have been scared by what he saw in Iraq."

Ashton Carter, co-director of the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project, agreed that "what we did in Iraq put countries like Libya on notice that we're really serious about countering proliferation." To be sure, Carter prefaced this obvious truth with the Blixian phrase "one certainly hopes that." But that is to be expected from an adviser to Howard Dean.

Gotta remember, Democrats still think Gorbachev won the Cold War.

---

JAZZ COMINGS, GOINGS, & RETURNS:

2003: The year in jazz (Ken Franckling, 12/25/2003, United Press International)

In a year of continuing record industry instability and jazz division shakeups, and the continuing search for more artists who might catch the public's crossover fancy, as multi-Grammy winning singer Norah Jones has done with Blue Note, most of the interesting moments and trends didn't involve recordings.

The jazz community staged a top-draw concert at Toronto's Massey Hall on May 15. It was 50 years to the night since a legendary quintet -- saxophonist Charlie Parker, pianist Bud Powell, trumpeter Dizzy Gillespie, bassist Charles Mingus and drummer Max Roach -- performed at Massey Hall in what became the most storied all-star concert in the young history of bebop. It also resulted in a self-financed essential recording called "The Quintet."

Roach, the sole survivor of that 1953 all-star grouping, returned despite poor health for a "Mr. Hi-Hat" cameo solo prior to a flawless performance by five modern day all-stars: pianist Herbie Hancock, trumpeter Roy Hargrove, saxophonist Kenny Garrett, drummer Roy Haynes and bassist Dave Holland. [...]

Multi-instrumentalist and composer Benny Carter, percussionist Mongo Santamaria, cornetist Ruby Braff, singer-pianists Hadda Brooks and Nina Simone, saxophonist Teddy Edwards, trombonist Jimmy Knepper, pianist Mal Waldron, clarinetist Peanuts Hucko, flutist Herbie Mann and singer Celia Cruz were among the many jazz artists who died during 2003.

The great surprise was the re-emergence of Henry Grimes, a bass player who vanished from the scene in the late 1960s -- after working with leaders including Benny Goodman, Charles Mingus, Cecil Taylor, Miles Davis, Albert Ayler, Coleman Hawkins and Sonny Rollins. He was reported to have died in 1984. But last fall, Marshall Marrotte, a jazz fan and social worker from Georgia, found Grimes living in a single-room occupancy hotel in downtown Los Angeles. He'd been living there for some 20 years, doing odd jobs and surviving on Social Security. He'd sold his bass years ago to make ends meet.

When word got out that he was indeed alive and wanted to get back into music, New York avant-garde bassist William Parker had one of his own basses repaired and shipped to Grimes, who resumed practicing and soon began performing in the Los Angeles area. As a support network developed, Grimes returned to the New York jazz scene May 26 with a special appearance at the Vision Festival. He's been performing with increased frequency.

Glenn Dryfoos wrote a tribute to Celia Cruz and about Benny Carter on his last birthday.

---

THE SALUTARY FASCIST INTERLUDE:

Putin: “Small-scaled business could help eliminate poverty in Russia” (The Russia Journal, December 23, 2003)

Stressing the urgent need to develop and support the SMEs, [small- and medium-sized enterprises] Putin noted that small- and medium-sized businesses have the potential to help eliminate poverty in the country. “The business community has not only an economic potential today, but a creative and expert potential as well. It is time to forward this potential into such spheres as education, health and ecology”.

Russia to have one-window policy for business registration (The Russia Journal, December 24, 2003)

President Vladimir Putin signed a bill on one-window concept for registering businesses into law on Dec. 23 in a move expected to ease the often time-, energy- and money-consuming bureaucratic gridlock faced by entrepreneurs while registering businesses in the country. [...]

With the new policy, potential entrepreneurs will now only have to register their businesses with the Tax and Revenues Ministry, which will complete the process within five working days, unlike before, when the process used to take months, Mishustin said.

If this is how Mr. Putin plans to use his new power, the dubiosity surrounding its acquisition is a small price to pay.

---

DESIGNING PERFECTION:

Changing one gene launches new fly species: Study also ties sex appeal to cold tolerance (John Easton, December 2003, University of Chicago Medical Center)

In what has been described as the "perfect experiment," evolutionary biologists at the University of Chicago replaced a single gene in fruit flies and discovered a mechanism by which two different "races" begin to become different species, with one group adapted to life in the tropics and the other suited to cooler climates. The tropical group was more tolerant of starvation but less tolerant of cold. The temperate group was less able to resist starvation but better adapted to cool weather.

The altered gene also changed the flies' pheromones, chemical signals that influence mating behavior. As a result, the researchers show in the Dec. 5 issue of Science, the two groups of flies are not only fit for different environments but may also be on their way to sexual isolation, a crucial divide in the emergence of a new species.

"This study directly connects genetics with evolution," said Chung-I Wu, Ph.D., professor and chairman of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago and director of the study. "For the first time, we were able to demonstrate the vast importance in an evolutionary context of a small genetic change that has already occurred in nature."

"We had the luxury," added co-author Tony Greenberg, Ph.D., a postdoctoral student in Wu's laboratory, "of watching the essential event in Darwinian evolution, the first step in the origin of a new species. We were quite impressed, that this simple alteration played such a dramatic role, both adapting flies to a new environment and changing their sex appeal. Once two groups become sexually isolated, there's no turning back."

This is hilarious on a couple levels: first, the description of an obvious example of intelligent design as a "perfect" evolution experiment; second, that rather than any kind of real speciation they end up with mere sexual isolation, the default definition Darwinists have had to fall back on because, for example, fruit flies stubbornly remain fruit flies, just as the different dogs we'bve bred remain dogs, though some can't breed together.

---

OUR FESTERING FRIENDS IN THE NORTH:

Vancouver facing worst outbreak of syphilis in the developed world (AFP, Dec 24, 2003)

Vancouver is facing the worst outbreak of syphilis per capita in the developed world, with city health officials fearful of a looming epidemic of the sexually transmitted disease once thought almost wiped out in North America.  

Some 254 new cases have been diagnosed locally this year authorities said early this week -- more than the total for North America in two decades, with more expected, said Dr. Michael Rekart of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.

"There's a lot of unsafe sex going on in Vancouver and the disease has simply taken hold," Rekart said. "Our outbreak is primarily among sex trade workers now, but we're worried about it jumping to the gay community and beyond and creating a bigger epidemic," he said.

Until 1997, syphilis was almost non-existent on the North American continent, with only one or two cases reported per year in British Columbia. Then suddenly it took off, with the strain affecting most Canadians traced to developing countries in Asia and Central America, said Rekart.

AND OUR WORRIED FRIENDS ACROSS THE POND:
'Liberal' cardinal fears Britons are obsessed with sex (Auslan Cramb, 22/12/2003, Daily Telegraph)

Cardinal Keith O'Brien said he was concerned that the country was in danger of descending into a "bacchanalian state" in which everyone was obsessed with their own sexual pleasure.

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, who has made a concerted effort to shake off the "liberal" tag since his elevation two months ago, is planning a campaign to "re-Christianise" Scotland.

His comments follow a recent claim by the Pope that Britain was becoming a "secular nation" in which the message of Christ was no longer listened to.

Cardinal O'Brien said: "It is not Christ's teaching that if you happen to be homosexual then you can have a partner. It is not Christ's teaching that if your marriage breaks up, you can go and live with somebody else.

"Gay unions and these sorts of things are becoming commonplace. Where is society going at all? Is there nobody going to take a stand?

"We've had Christianity here for more than one and a half thousand years and our standards have plummeted in recent years.

"I think people in general do realise there has been a dramatic fall in standards.

"What are we going to do? Are we just going to progressively decline into a bacchanalian state where everyone is just concerned with their own pleasures and to sleep with whoever they want? The future at times does look quite bleak on this."

---

TALK ABOUT ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR!

Parents risk £100 fine for holiday 'truants' (Liz Lightfoot, The Telegraph, 26/12/03)

An unprecedented clampdown on parents who take their children on holiday during term-time has been ordered by Charles Clarke, the Education Secretary.

He is being backed by head teachers' leaders, who are telling schools to review the policy of authorising breaks of up to two weeks, which are viewed by some parents as an entitlement.

David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: "Most head teachers are strongly opposed to authorising term-time absences and in the current climate I think they will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances."

Thousands of families take children off school every year to take advantage of cheaper off-peak holiday deals but in future they may face fines of up to £100 on their return.

Ivan Lewis, the junior education minister, will confirm next week that penalty notices being introduced under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act will apply to holidays not authorised by head teachers.

Imagine how fast society would crumble if everybody took their families on Christmas vacations.

---

ALLIES?:

US in row with France over terror operation (David Rennie, 26/12/2003, Daily Telegraph)

American and French officials yesterday traded mutual recriminations over the failure to snare any terrorists in the security operation that grounded six Air France flights in and out of Los Angeles.

Bush administration officials expressed frustration that al-Qa'eda operatives might have escaped capture after word leaked, early this week, of American concerns about flights from France to the United States over the Christmas period.

One official said Washington had been hoping to keep the US-French negotiations confidential, adding that the hope was that "we would be able to lure some of these people in".

However, a French interior ministry spokesman said little evidence of a terrorist plot had been found.

French authorities released seven men - one French, one American and several Algerians - whose names were found to be on US watch-lists.

The seven men were all due to board a flight on Wednesday and had been briefly questioned. French authorities found nothing to suggest the men had terrorist links. [...]

US sources hit back at French scepticism, saying American intelligence agencies had intercepted e-mails from the al-Qa'eda terrorist group suggesting another September 11-style attack was being plotted for the Christmas holiday.

The al-Qa'eda messages referred specifically to Air France and even gave a flight number, officials said. Other warnings have been issued about flights by the Mexican carrier, Aeromexico, it was reported.

US officials said they fear Air France has been infiltrated by Islamic extremists and have criticised French co-operation in providing details of passengers on US-bound flights.

---

PLANNING ON DEAN:

Bush Advisers, With Eye on Dean, Formulate '04 Plans (ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON, 12/26/03, NY Times)

As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him.

"Voters don't normally vote for an angry, pessimistic person to be president of the country," Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush adviser, said as he pressed the anti-Dean theme this week in an interview at Mr. Bush's re-election campaign headquarters. "They want somebody, even if times are not great, to be forward looking and optimistic." [...]

In discussing what they described as preliminary strategic decisions, Mr. Bush's advisers said they were prepared to adjust to any changes in what has already proved to be a most unusual presidential election campaign. Although they said that most of their planning was now based on the supposition that Dr. Dean would win the nomination, Mr. Bush's campaign officials said they did not consider that certain.

The president's political team, led by Karl Rove, his senior adviser, is working on policy initiatives that would help build support among specific blocs of voters. For the so-called investor class, the team is planning a push for private investment accounts in Social Security and expanded tax-free savings accounts. Mr. Bush is also developing an immigration proposal, expected to be announced early next year, that would make it easier for workers from Latin America to move to the United States legally. That step could help Mr. Bush appeal to Hispanics, a fast-growing segment of the electorate and one that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove have worked hard to win over. [...]

But Mr. Bush, some of his own strategists and advisers said, has a long way to go if he wants to avoid being portrayed as a divisive figure who motivates Democrats to vote against him. As a result, the White House is considering using the State of the Union address to propose a big new national goal that would not be partisan or ideological and would help rally the country behind Mr. Bush's leadership, an outside adviser to the administration said. The possibilities floated by the White House include a major initiative for the space program or an ambitious health care goal like increasing life expectancies.

"They want to have the president talk about an important national goal that is big and a unifying theme," the adviser said.

The main problem with the talk of being non-partisan is that it has the potential to become a justification for not pushing as hard as they should in the Senate races. 60 seats in the Senate are worth more than a couple extra points on the President's victory margin.

---

THE FIVE FAMILIES?:

Hunting Hussein Led U.S. to Insurgent Hub: Five Families Believed to Direct Attacks (Alan Sipress, December 26, 2003, The Washington Post)

As U.S. forces tracked Saddam Hussein to his subterranean hiding place, they unearthed a trove of intelligence about five families running the Iraqi insurgency, according to U.S. military commanders, who said the information is being used to uproot remaining resistance forces.

Senior U.S. officers said they were surprised to discover -- clue by clue over six months -- that the upper and middle ranks of the resistance were filled by members of five extended families from a few villages within a 12-mile radius of the volatile city of Tikrit along the Tigris River. Top operatives drawn from these families organized the resistance network, dispatching information to individual cells and supervising financial channels, the officers said. They also protected Hussein and passed information to and from the former president while he was on the run.

At the heart of this tightly woven network is Auja, Hussein's birthplace, which U.S. commanders say is the intelligence and communications hub of the insurgency. The village is where many of the former president's key confidants have their most lavish homes and their favorite wives.

When U.S. forces sealed off Auja in late October, they separated the leaders of the insurgency from their guerrilla forces, dealing the anti-occupation campaign a major blow, said Lt. Col. Steve Russell of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for the Tikrit area.

"It's amazing that all roads lead to this region," Russell said. "It's amazing who lives in that town. It's a who's who of families and a who's who of Saddam's former staff."

Of course, we figured out the five who ran the Cosa Nostra fifty years ago but they're still around.

---

AS IF THEY'RE EQUIVALENT:

Pope, in Christmas Message, Pleads for End to Terrorism and War (FRANK BRUNI, 12/26/03, NY Times)

It's a deal--they stop the terror and then we'll stop the war on terror.

---

GLACIATION NATION:

Jihoward: Howard Dean, suicide bomber (William Saletan, Dec. 22, 2003, Slate)

Either all this stuff from the Dean campaign about the establishment is an attack on the Clintonian center, or it's the usual meaningless blather that politicians toss to crowds to make themselves look nonpolitical. Either way, it's fake. I think it's blather, but the more Dean talks about it and applies it to various issues, the more it looks like an attack on the center. And if that's the mission Dean has in mind, Democrats would be well-advised to jump off his truck before he blows it up.

Dean often says Democrats can't win by running as "Bush lite." Thursday, he accused "Washington Democrats" of failing to oppose President Bush more diametrically on Iraq, tax cuts, and education. "The Democratic Party has to offer a clear alternative," he argued. Toward that end, Dean rejects nearly every proposition or policy put forward by Bush. "We are no safer today than we were the day the planes struck at the World Trade Center," Dean said Thursday, adding that the capture of Saddam Hussein "does not mean that this president—or the Washington Democrats—can declare victory in the war on terror."

Picture that debate next year: On one side, Bush, the Washington Democrats, support for some tax cuts, relief at Saddam's capture, and the belief that by toppling the Taliban, if not Saddam, we're safer today than we were on 9/11. On the other side, Howard Dean.

There's a revealing dynamic at work here--what we might call the moderate Left, maybe even the Clintonian Center (if we give them the benefit of the doubt) has come together, perhaps too late, to try and squelch the insurgent candidacy of Howard Dean, a candidate too far out of the American mainstream to win. Compare this to four years ago, when the neocons and others on the moderate Right backed the insurgency of John McCain, a candidate perceived to be more squarely in the American mainstream than George W. Bush, the religious/social conservative. The problem in both cases? Nominations go to those in the mainstream of their party, not of the nation.

The revealing part? Though it seems absolutely certain that John McCain would have done so more easily, the more conservative George W. Bush did still beat a sitting vice-president in a time of peace and prosperity, even after having to campaign to the Right to win the nomination. Meanwhile, Governor Dean is already having to try and reposition himself to the "Center", before a single primary vote has been cast, and there's no chance he can win the general.

What does it all mean? It would seem to indicate that the mainstream of the GOP is far closer to, if not convergent with, the broad American mainstream than is the Democrat. If true, this has obvious implications not just in the presidential race this coming November but for the future of the Democratic party and its ideology.

For fifty (or sixty or seventy, depending how you measure) years, Republican ideology diverged from that of most Americans, and during that time the GOP was consistently the minority party. Twice, when the Democrats got us bogged down in wars in Asia, moderate Republicans were able to win the presidency, but then governed in ways little-distinguished from Democrats. It was only with the coming of Ronald Reagan in 1980 that a winning Republican truly stepped out of the mainstream--that after the New Deal and Great Society had so polluted the mainstream as to make folks start looking for a way out. Since then, in fits and starts to be sure, Republicans have slowly but surely become the majority--in Congress, in the states, etc.. And here we come to the point that will explain why I've been belaboring that "mainstream" metaphor to the limits of your patience--Edmund Morris writes the following in his book Dutch;

For whatever reason, there was born here, far from the mattering world, an ambition as huge as it was inexorable.  Out of Tampico's ice there grew, crystal by crystal, the glacier that is Ronald Reagan: an ever-thrusting, ever-deepening mass of chill purpose.  Possessed of no inner warmth, with no apparent interest save in its own growth, it directed itself toward whatever declivities lay in its path.  Inevitably, as the glacier grew, it collected rocks before it, and used them to flatten obstructions; when the rocks were worn smooth they rode up onto the glacier's back, briefly enjoying high sunny views, then tumbled off to become part of the surrounding countryside.  The lie where they fell, some cracked, some crumbled: Dutch's lateral moraine.  And the glacier sped slowly on.

In that sense, I suppose, one could say that the story of Reagan's life is a
study in American topography.  Thirteen hundred miles southeast of Tampico this winter day, the glacier has at last stopped growing. The nation's climate is changing; so is that of the world.  New suns, new seasons, are due. Yet when all the ice is gone, when fresh green covers the last raw earth and some future skylark sings heedlessly over the Ronald Reagan National Monument, men will still ponder Dutch's improbable progress, and write on their cards, How big he was!  How far he came!  And how deep the valley he carved!

The possibility exists, though we won't know definitely for decades, that Ronald Reagan carved so deeply as to divert the American mainstream into a channel it will follow for quite some time. As Lincoln made this a Republican country and FDR a Democratic one--each for roughly seventy year periods--so might we one day understand these years to have been the early days of a Republican epoch. In this regard, we'd note that George W. Bush, though the son of a Republican president, is rightly considered Reagan's Son. Indeed, he seems nearly the ideal figure to complete what Reagan started, the mainstreaming of conservatism.

MORE:
-Diary of a Dean-o-phobe

---

CORN FRITTERS:

Lying Along the Potomac: 10 fibs by our president (David Corn, 12/24/03, LA Weekly)

[A]s he enters the home stretch of his first (or final) term, let’s review — in loose chronological order — 10 significant falsehoods that Bush wielded this year. [...]

2 Months after his January State of the Union address, Bush received flak
for having maintained in that speech that Saddam Hussein had been shopping
for uranium in Africa. And the White House conceded it should not have
permitted that line to stay in the speech. But Bush had told a more
important whopper in that address. He noted that the International Atomic
Energy Agency “confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced
nuclear weapons development program.” This was lying by omission, for he
left out the fact that the IAEA had also reported that it had dismantled
this nuclear program. [...]

5 On May 1, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush stood beneath a “Mission
Accomplished” banner and declared that “major combat operations in Iraq have
ended.” That was more wishful thinking than a lie. But he also said, “No
terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi
regime, because the regime is no more.” That was a disingenuous remark. [...]

8 In early August, before departing for a monthlong “working” vacation, Bush
said, “We’re doing everything we can to protect the homeland.” That was a
reassuring statement, but not an accurate one. [...]

10 In a November speech, Bush credited President Ronald Reagan for having
energized a worldwide movement for democracy that led to “new democracies in
Latin America” and to the South Africa government’s 1990 release of Nelson
Mandela. While Reagan had pushed for democracy in the Soviet bloc, he did
the opposite elsewhere. His administration cozied up to the fascistic junta
of Argentina and an El Salvador military that massacred peasants. It also
normalized relations with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Okay, so they're mostly of the nature of differences of opinion, omissions, and inaccuracies, rather than lies, but it's the last that is truly outrageous. Ronald Reagan and his administration, after all, directly liberated Grenada; helped the Contras liberate Nicaragua; aided El Salvador in its war against Marxist rebels; sided with Britain against the Argentine generals over the Falklands; and our support helped General Pinochet to democratize Chile. In fact, the only black mark against President Reagan in Latin America is that he left office without removing Fidel Castro. But even after you shear away all these direct truths, the broader point that President Bush made is obviously true: it was Ronald Reagan facing down the Soviets that triggered the fantastic growth in democracies across the globe, including Latin America. Meanwhile, the only reason we could afford a democratic South Africa was because with our victory in the Cold War it was no longer strategically important.

---

REALIGNMENT CHRONICLES:

GOP Makes 'Top Priority' Of Converting Black Voters: Party Hopes Bush Focus on Minorities Can Win 25% (Darryl Fears, December 25, 2003, Washington Post)

[A]s the 2004 presidential election unfolds, Republicans want to convert that focus on black appointees into black votes. Their goal, they say, is to win 25 percent of the black vote, which the party has not come close to doing in nearly 30 years.

"If we get African American votes, [the Democrats] are in deep trouble," Gingrich said in a recent interview. In presidential elections, roughly nine of every 10 black votes are cast for Democrats.

To win hearts and minds, the GOP is planning a campaign featuring television and radio ads touting President Bush's reaching out to the African American community and elements of the Republican message that appeal to a wide swath of black voters, such as support for school vouchers.

"We have to make our case in media that African Americans listen to," Gingrich said. "It will be a much more intense effort . . . to reach out in advertising and education and systematic outreach. We have to realize the reality of [Black Entertainment Television] and radio stations that we are not used to being on."

Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said increasing his party's share of the black vote is "a top, top priority."

The party is looking into establishing chapters at historically black colleges and universities, he said. Gillespie recalled Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R) telling him that the GOP should target black voters between 18 and 35 "because they are most likely to not identify as Democrats."

During a trip to Pittsburgh in July, Gillespie said, he met with Marc H. Morial, the new president of the National Urban League. While in Detroit last month, Gillespie said, he talked for two hours with editors at the Michigan Chronicle, one of the nation's few black daily newspapers. The party has arranged with American Urban Radio to broadcast a weekly message to the huge African American audience the network reaches.

Gillespie declined to specify how much the party will spend, saying he did not want the Democratic leadership to know. "But we're budgeting for it," he said.

Vice-President Rice and Chief Justice Brown have a nice ring to them.

---

AIMING FOR 50, WINNING THE 51ST:

Dean's 50-state strategy (Jules Witcover, Dec 24, 2003, Baltimore Sun)

The significance of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's decision to finance his campaign without federal money is emerging in a 50-state strategy designed to outgun the rest of the 2004 Democratic presidential field.

While the eight other Democratic candidates focus on next month's kickoff Iowa precinct caucuses and New Hampshire primary, Dr. Dean's self-financed campaign is already staffing and planning heavy spending in many states beyond the opening round of delegate-selecting contests.

The ambitious initiative is patterned after the successful 50-state strategy of another small-state governor and early Democratic long shot, Jimmy Carter of Georgia in 1976. Mr. Carter scored a breakthrough in Iowa and New Hampshire and was never caught afterward.

Can one be forgiven for assuming, based just on the headline, that Mr. Witcover was going to be writing about how Howard Dean is trying to lose all 50?

---

LIKE CONFUCIUS SAID: "ENJOY":

Arab states warm to Iraqi council: An Arab League delegation visited Iraq for the first time, signaling improving relations. (Dan Murphy, 12/26/03, CS Monitor)

For many months, it appeared the Arab League wouldn't work with the Governing Council, dismissed by many in the Arab world as US stooges. But a confluence of factors, ranging from US military successes against insurgents to a growing reputation for independence among the council has changed that tune. The shift appears to go beyond the Arab world.

On Tuesday, the European Union contributed $9.9 million to an internationally managed trust fund for Iraqi reconstruction. On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly told visiting members of the Governing Council that Moscow would write off 65 percent of the $8 billion that Baghdad owes its largest creditor.

Closer relations with key neighbors won't guarantee Iraqi stability or a faster American withdrawal, something that was brought home by a roadside bomb that killed three American soldiers north of Baghdad on Wednesday afternoon. But analysts say it will make the job easier.

"The Governing Council have managed to prove themselves to most of the Arab states - each step towards transferring authority to Iraqis has increased the confidence of our neighbors,'' says Saad Hawki Tawfik, an expert in international relations at Baghdad University. "For the US, there's been slow progress on security, on the one hand, and pressure for cooperation, on the other."

Some of the fruits of better relations are already being seen. Acting Governing Council head Abdel Aziz al-Hakim told reporters on Sunday after meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad that he'd won Syria's agreement to do more to prevent militants from crossing into Iraq from that country.

The US has repeatedly asserted that Islamist fighters have been entering Iraq over the Syrian border. But now, Syria "is cooperating with us to stop the terrorism [and] the terrorist groups," Mr. Hakim said.

To be sure, the rhetoric of the Arab states remains critical of the US occupation and they're avoiding as much as they can the appearance of working with the American occupiers. Initially, they refused to give the Governing Council a seat at the league's table.

But their deeds indicate a growing awareness that their best interests are served by engaging in a process that's going to go on, with or without them.

It's almost as if when the world's only superpower does the right thing unilaterally the rest of the world has to follow along, eh?

---

ASSAULTS & ACCOMODATIONS (via Paul Cella):

A Most Partial Historian: a review of Religion and Public Doctrine in Modern England Volume III: Accommodations. By Maurice Cowling (David B. Hart, December 2003, First Things)

With Volume II, subtitled Assaults, Cowling’s project comes into focus, even as the number of subjects expands: Newman, Keble, Pusey, Gladstone, Manning, Ruskin, and Mill; George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, T. H. Huxley, and Leslie Stephen; Gilbert Murray, James Frazer, H. G. Wells, Belloc, Chesterton, and Shaw; W. H. Mallock, Winwood Read, Havelock Ellis, D. H. Lawrence, and Bertrand Russell. (I could go on.) It is in this volume that the case is most strikingly made that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ struggle between Christian and anti-Christian thinkers for the moral and social future of England was not—as might be supposed—a struggle between religious and post-religious thought, but a war of creeds. The story begins with the Christian attack—by high-church Tractarians and reflective Protestants—upon the post-Christian mythologies of the eighteenth century, and its occasionally confused attempt to turn back the tide of unbelief. But the plot becomes most engrossing where Cowling turns to the tradition he calls “ethical earnestness”: that is, the “progressive” assault on Christianity from the time of Mill, Eliot, and Spencer to that of Russell and Lawrence. It is here that Cowling begins, in scrupulous detail, to identify the sources of the religious consciousness of post-Christian England. “Ethical earnestness,” as he recounts its development, consisted in a profound, often inchoate, but semi-mystical devotion to social improvement and rational morality as alternatives to the superstition, obscurantism, and tyranny of the old faith.

It was not, however, in any meaningful sense “post-religious,” as it demanded of its votaries absolute and fervent devotion to a principle—social cohesion, human development, “Life”—that was itself not susceptible of doubt. In a sense, it was a new cosmology allied to a new moral metaphysics, constantly in ferment, producing movements and sects and new beginnings, but never straying beyond the boundaries of the world in which it believed: a universe of Darwinian struggle that, precisely in its savage economy of “nature red in tooth and claw,” demanded of conscience that it assist evolution in its ascent towards higher ethical realizations of the human essence. In Cowling’s account, one comes to see not only the broad unity of the school of “ethical earnestness,” but the final incoherence of its ethos: the closed order of nature is at once merciless chaos and the source of our ethics; morality is both obedience to nature and rebellion against nature’s implacable decrees; progress demands at once universal brotherhood and (especially among socialists) a ruthless eugenic purification of the race. What unifies this farrago into something like a moral vision is its most obviously religious element: complete devotion to the future as an absolute imperative, requiring in consequence a renunciation of all faith in and charity towards the past—or, for that matter, the present.

This is both the most substantial and most diverting section of Religion and Public Doctrine, thronged as it is with sharply drawn portraits and bedizened with flashes of mordant wit. Cowling is extremely good at showing how, say, George Eliot’s anti-Christian misunderstanding of Ruskin could so easily ally itself to her Feuerbachian ethical humanism, emanating its pale Dorotheas and paler creeds. But more enjoyable, and at the same time chilling, are the accounts of figures like Read (with his Malthusian, Darwinian, Comtean ideology and quaint utopianism of electricity, synthetic nutrition, and obedience to nature) or Ellis (with his worship of Art and Life, and his Nietzschean, Freudian, Frazerian dogmatism). Cowling’s account of the turn of “ethical earnestness,” in thinkers like Wells, Shaw, or Lawrence, towards a grimmer social and sexual vision—less hospitable to liberal optimism, more marked by the influences of Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche, Ibsen, and Freud—reminds one that a certain cold, pervasive fanaticism in this tradition might have carried “ethical earnestness” towards a politics considerably less fond and feckless than the wan, sincere, liberal secularism of post-Christian Britain. (Indeed, one finds oneself wondering whether the failure of English progressivism to produce some suitably demonic thinker who could have caused the tradition to precipitate into conscious nihilism can be attributed to anything other than the habitual British aversion to bombast and the cautionary example of Nazi Germany.)

In any event, Volume II concludes with an examination of those Christian apologists who applied themselves to the task of thwarting the march of secularization to ultimate victory: Mallock, Coventry Patmore, Chesterton, Belloc, Christopher Dawson, etc. Sadly, however, Cowling finds little here to encourage or detain him; however sympathetic he may be to one or all of these figures, none of them to his mind provides a very substantial riposte to the forces of modernity. Chesterton, for instance, quickly exhausts Cowling’s patience with his jollity, paradox, and alternating appeals to common sense and to fairyland irrationality. Of the much-revered The Everlasting Man, Cowling concludes that its attempts at a philosophy failed through its author’s incapacity, and that all its virtues taken together “did not stop the structure of the book cracking under the strain of its own weightlessness.”

Thus, if Volume II chronicles the war waged for the future between Christian and post-Christian intellectuals, Volume III, subtitled Accommodations, is a somber survey of the aftermath, and tells of one side’s resigned retreat from the field of battle and of the other’s consequent relaxation from a posture of arrogant triumphalism to one of mere contemptuous complacency. It is an immense volume, which takes a huge variety of figures into its capacious embrace—Carlyle, Kingsley, Burke, Disraeli, Darwin, Matthew Arnold, Dickens, Tennyson, Browning, Pater, Wilde, Macaulay, Acton, Inge, Shaftesbury, Tawney, Gore, Figgis, C. S. Lewis, Alasdair MacIntyre, Aldous Huxley, Elgar, Parry, Keynes, Hayek, Eagleton, Koestler, and George Steiner (to name a few)—but its form is fairly elementary: it addresses, in order, the accommodationism of English Christian latitudinarians, attempting to adjust themselves to the supremacy of secularist public doctrine; the reaction of more traditional Christian thinkers against the innumerable little apostasies and capitulations latitudinarianism entails; and the final victory of the public orthodoxy that now nourishes the imperturbable sanctimony, hectoring moralism, tender authoritarianism, and infinite dreariness of post-Christian Britain.

The final paragraph of another review makes Mr. Cowling sound even more appealing, -REVIEW: of Maurice Cowling. Religion and Public Doctrine in Modern England Volume 3: Accomodations (D. L. Le Mahieu, American Historical Review):

 Underlying the malice and professed cynicism lurks a curious naïveté. Cowling believes that Anglicanism remains the default position of intellectual life in England. Christianity, it seems, buttresses even the most secularized discourses. Socialists enunciate a vision of the future that remains profoundly religious. Revisionist Liberals such as John Maynard Keynes may be brilliant economic technicians, but in their allegiance to the power of ideas they express a "compelling and pervasive" religiosity (p. 492). Cowling claims to accept the intellectual hegemony of the "post-Christian consensus," but the tone and prodigious scope of his three-volume project suggest otherwise. By showing how things went wrong, he implicitly seeks to make them right and to arouse what he calls "the Christianity which is latent in English life" (p. xi). In this nostalgia Cowling is not really a Conservative in the mould of Edmund Burke but a reactionary. Like a beached eighteenth-century Tory washed ashore at the millennium, he judges the past two hundred years of English intellectual history from a fixed standard that refuses to be relativized. An immense spiritual labor, this book is an act of faith from an angry man born out of his time.

One wonders what sensible Briton would choose to be of this time.

MORE:
-ESSAY: The Case Against Going to War (Maurice Cowling, Finest Hour)

In the light of Powellism and Thatcherism it is easy to see that the equality of sacrifice and state-mobilisation of resources necessary for conducting the war lent patriotic respectability to punitive taxation and state economic con-trol. It is even easier to see that the war was debilitating politically and intellectually, and that it took the British a very long time to recover from it.

A thinking Conservative may draw two sets of conclu-sions. First, that moral indignation in virtuous causes was a dangerous luxury for a precarious Empire and that patience and prudence could hardly have been less successful than moral indignation. Though the balance is a fine one, Russian (and American) domination of Europe after a long war, the destruction of Germany and the emasculation of the British Empire, were probably worse for Britain than German domination of Europe might have been if that had been ef-fected without war or the emasculation of the Empire. Is it inconceivable, moreover, that patience with Nazi Germany might have been rewarded in the long run by military takeover, economic breakdown or a Gorbachev coming to power there?

The second conclusion a thinking Conservative may come to is that British politics since 1939 divide themselves into two phases — up to the mid-1960s, when collectivism and socialism came to be in the ascendant, and since the mid-1960s, when they have come to be in recession — and that Mrs. Thatcher’s achievement was a necessary and pain-ful reversal of almost every domestic assumption that the Churchill-Attlee coalition stood for.

In matters like this, dogmatism is demeaning. It is equally demeaning, in the decade of Thatcherite realism, to present defeat as victory long after it has become clear that it was defeat.

-ESSAY: Joseph Needham & the history of Chinese science (Maurice Cowling, February 1993, New Criterion)
-ESSAY: Raymond Williams in retrospect (Maurice Cowling, February 1990, New Criterion)
-Politeia
-THINK TANKS: Politeia (The Guardian)
-EXCERPT: Chapter Nine: Mill and Liberty -- Introduction (Chin Liew Ten, Professor of Philosophy, National University of Singapore)

The great interest shown in Mill's moral and political philosophy in recent years has produced some illuminating results. In moral philosophy he has been rescued from some of the crude mistakes attributed to him. In political philosophy the results have been less clear, but there is an increasing belief that the essay On Liberty is a more complex piece of work than is generally supposed. Until very recently, however, both critics and admirers of the essay have never doubted that it is a defence of individual liberty. They disagreed, about its value, but not about its liberal intentions. But even this unanimity has now been broken with the publication of Maurice Cowling's Mill and Liberalism, a fierce repudiation of Mill, who is accused of "more than a touch of something resembling moral totalitarianism", and of intellectual "jealousy, and a carefully disguised intolerance". In his comprehensive attack, Cowling does not spare the essay On Liberty, which is, according to him, only superficially a sustained plea for individual liberty. The individuality Mill defends is a selective one: it is the individuality of the elevated, and Mill's doctrine is really designed to detract from human freedom, and not to maximize it. The evidence Cowling accumulates to support his interpretation of Mill stretches over a very long period of Mill's life, from the early essays of 1831 on The Spirit of the Age to his Inaugural Address to the University of St. Andrews, delivered in 1867, and the posthumously published Three Essays on Religion.

-ESSAY: THE RESISTIBLE RISE OF THE TORY RACIST RIGHT (Searchlight, September 1981)
-DISCUSSION: Has Christianity been vanquished in Britain? (Radio National, 17/10/01)
-ARCHIVES: "maurice cowling" (Find Articles)
-ARCHIVES: Maurice Cowling (NY Review of Books)
-REVIEW: of Maurice Cowling. Religion and Public Doctrine in Modern England Volume 3: Accomodations (D. L. Le Mahieu, American Historical Review)
-REVIEW: of Religion and Public Doctrine in Modern England, volume III: Accommodations (Church Times)
-REVIEW: of Mill and Liberalism by Maurice Cowling (Gertrude Himmelfarb, NY Review of Books)
-REVIEW: of The Impact of Hitler: British Politics and British Policy, 1933-1940. Maurice Cowling (Fritz Stern, Foreign Affairs)

---

ANOTHER PATH, AT LAST:

Peru's latest tool in the war on drugs: land ownership: Some coca growers pull up illicit crops in favor of palm-oil trees and pineapples. (Lucien O. Chauvin, 12/26/03, CS Monitor)

The Peruvian government and US Embassy officials hope that ownership in the land and the equity that comes with it will help solidify recent gains in the decades-long war on drugs.

"We are trying to formalize the economy in these areas to increase investment and production, which is the only answer to combat drug trafficking," says a US Embassy official in Lima.

Hernando de Soto, author of The Other Path, the 1986 bible on the importance of formalizing the economy, says the process is a major step toward changing the entire illicit economy on which drug trafficking is based.

"Property changes the rules of the game. It gives farmers something tangible they can use as collateral. It is a bargaining chip they never had before," he says.

With land titles, farmers can enroll individually or as communities in a number of government programs, like housing services or agricultural assistance.

USAID has earmarked $1.3 million to title 4,300 plots of land, most averaging about 30 acres. The Peruvian government's Special Land Titling Program (PETT) is carrying out the program, which involves 15 eight-person brigades. The value of the plots being titled in Shambillo is approximately $5 million.

Omar Valderrama, a PETT director, says the program shows people that the state is interested in improving the livelihoods of farmers and not simply eliminating the illegal drug industry.

" We have found a successful formula to combat the drug economy that will allow us to transform this region and begin to create new levels of prosperity," he says.

Though he's expressed his regrets about running, one can't help thinking that Peruvians and the rest of us might have been saved much agony had Maria Vargas Llosa succeeded in his 1990 presidential campaign, which was very much in keeping with the ideas of Mr. de Soto.

---

THE ARNOLDIZATION OF CALIFORNIA:

Arnold off to 'good start,' but toughest test ahead (Martin Kasindorf, 12/23/03, USA TODAY)

Conservative radio talk-show hosts are grumbling about betrayal on spending issues. But Schwarzenegger is beginning to hammer out two-party solutions to the problems of the nation's most populous state. Though he bypassed the Legislature last week in bailing out local governments, he was careful to get the approval of State Controller Steve Westly, an elected Democrat.

As California TV stations reopened bureaus in the state capital to cover the first newsworthy governor since Jerry Brown's 1975-83 tenure, Schwarzenegger drew bravura notices for what he and political analysts termed a major budget victory Dec. 12.

That day, the state Senate approved a compromise version of the governor's "California recovery plan." If voters OK the plan's twin proposals March 2, California would borrow $15 billion by selling bonds to cover the shortfalls of the past three years. A budget-balancing amendment to the state Constitution would forbid spending in excess of revenue starting in 2006. That proposal contains loopholes that could allow more spending than Schwarzenegger was willing to accept at first.

"I give him credit," Davis says. In getting this far toward braking future overspending, "he got done something I couldn't do. It's not perfect, but it's something." [...]

[Maria] Shriver, 47, who has returned to work part time as an NBC journalist, stepped in. She and her husband were attending a conference in Palm Springs with the California congressional delegation when she encountered Leon Panetta, who was former president Clinton's chief of staff. Panetta encouraged Shriver, a Democrat and part of the Kennedy family, to coax Schwarzenegger to reopen talks with Democrats.

Former secretary of State George Shultz, a Republican, gave the governor the same advice. Legislators from both parties persuaded election officials to extend the deadline to get measures on the March ballot.

Shriver told friends that it was vital to demonstrate early in her husband's administration that the regular government processes could work. In a speech to a Sacramento women's group Dec. 9, California's first lady urged legislators to meet her husband halfway. "If some of these legislators were children, we'd give them a timeout," she said. "We would teach them that with every person, you can find common ground; that you should play nicely with them, work to a common goal and work it out."

The result was the Dec. 12 compromise. The bonds, if approved by the voters, would be paid off over nine to 13 years. The modified spending limit, without a rigid cap, pleased Democrats. It roared through the Assembly, 80-0. The Senate passed it 27-12, but only two of the 15 Republicans voted for it. [...]

Next year's deficit may be even tougher to fix unless Schwarzenegger goes along with raising taxes, which he's been unwilling to do. Any tax increase needs approval by two-thirds of the Legislature. That would require Republican votes that may be hard to get even if Schwarzenegger asks for them.

The alternative to raising taxes is to cut spending from $86 billion to $72 billion, mostly by slashing health and welfare programs. Protesters have already picketed in Sacramento about the $1.9 billion in current-year cuts that Schwarzenegger proposed in higher education and aid for the developmentally disabled. [...]

Many politicians in both parties cringe at the potential outcry over $14 billion in cuts for 2004-05. "The hard part comes next year," Davis says.

"Maybe he'll agree to a temporary tax increase and can talk the Republicans into it. With heavy cuts alone, the news media will have a field day. Let's wait and see how he looks in March, April, after the budget comes out," Davis says.

And Democrats, of course, aren't pleased that Schwarzenegger acted on his own last week by declaring a public-safety emergency and ordering cash sent to local authorities to handle the problem until June.

Democratic lawmakers were miffed that Schwarzenegger hadn't consulted them. But at a news conference Thursday, he basked in the gratitude of local officials.

Brown, the former governor who is now Oakland's mayor, said Schwarzenegger's use of obscure executive powers "to the max" is "the only way you get anything done around here."

Any conservative would obviously prefer a Governor McClintock with unlimited power to pass his agenda, but given the reality of a Democratic legislature, Arnold was more likely to succeed in governing and is off to as good a start as could be hoped for. Now it's up to conservatives to help change the legislature.

---

"PRETTY INSPIRING":

Seeking a new emphasis, Dean touts his Christianity: Southern campaign plans to increase religious references (Sarah Schweitzer, 12/25/2003, Boston Globe)

Presidential contender Howard B. Dean, who has said little about religion while campaigning except to emphasize the separation of church and state, described himself in an interview with the Globe as a committed believer in Jesus Christ and said he expects to increasingly include references to Jesus and God in his speeches as he stumps in the South.

Dean, 55, who practices Congregationalism but does not often attend church and whose wife and children are Jewish, explained the move as a desire to share his beliefs with audiences willing to listen. His comments came as a rival, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, chastised other Democrats for forgetting ''that faith was central to our founding and remains central to our national purpose.''

The move is striking for a man who has steadfastly kept his personal life out of the campaign, rarely offering biographical information, much less his religious beliefs. But in the Globe interview, Dean said that Jesus was an important influence in his life and that he would probably share with some voters the model Jesus has served for him.

''Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind,'' Dean said. ''He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything . . . He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it.''

Far be it from us to judge someone else's personal faith, but, suffice it to say, describing Christ as a kind of social worker seems merely odd, while referring to the Son of God as your role model is more than a bit hubristic. If this is how he plans to go about connecting with the religious, he doesn't seem likely to fare too well.

---

DOING OUR DIRTY WORK:

Assassination Attempt on Musharraf Kills 7 in Paskistan (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 12/25/03)

A suicide bomb exploded moments after President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's motorcade passed Thursday, the second assassination attempt against him in less than two weeks, officials said. Musharraf was unhurt but at least seven people were killed.

The bombing in Rawalpindi, outside the capital, occurred near where a huge bomb exploded on Dec. 14 shortly after a convoy with Musharraf drove by. He was unhurt in that attempt as well, and officials said high-tech jamming devices in the president's motorcade had delayed the device and saved his life.

Thursday's blast happened when a suicide bomber rammed a pickup truck into a police vehicle. Eyewitnesses reported seeing body parts, shattered cars and broken glass along the route.

The brutal truth is that these attempts, even if successful, serve American purposes. Either the General will be motivated to crack down on Islamicists himself or, if he were to be killed and his government topple, we'd have the perfect pretext to go after the Islamicists ourselves, especially in the region bordering Afghanistan, and to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

MORE:
Appeasement is Musharraf's worst enemy (Ahmed Rashid, 26/12/2003, Daily Telegraph)

In recent weeks the extremists have been infuriated by Islamabad's rapprochement with India. After intense American pressure, a major summit next week between Gen Musharraf and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Indian prime minister, was expected to lead to serious negotiations on resolving the Kashmir dispute.

The extremists, and the fundamentalist nuclear scientists who dominate Pakistan's nuclear programme, are also furious at Gen Musharraf for accepting demands by the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency to investigate the sale of Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea.

Fundamentalism is also growing in the army. After a tip-off by the CIA, at least five army officers were arrested in October for helping al-Qa'eda members in Pakistan's border regions with Afghanistan.

Despite all these threats, Gen Musharraf has always tried to appease the Islamic parties and his half-hearted crackdowns on extremist groups have only been carried out because of inordinate pressure from the Americans.

Until recently the army has allowed extremist groups to continue crossing into Indian Kashmir to battle Indian troops, while the intelligence agencies are turning a blind eye to the resurgent Taliban.

Gen Musharraf has refused to talk to the mainstream non-religious parties, who would be his natural allies in any genuine battle against the Islamic extremists. These parties are demanding that the army give up power and return to the barracks, which Gen Musharraf has refused to do.

The result is that he is seriously isolated, trusted by none of the political forces in the country - secular or religious - and increasingly disliked by a public frustrated by his fluctuating policies and the lack of economic development and investment.

---

TOO LATE:

Dean, Under Attack, Revives Feisty Style (JODI WILGOREN, 12/25/03, NY Times)

Swatting away attacks from all corners in the 10 days since the capture of Saddam Hussein, Howard Dean has returned to the combative posture that propelled his insurgent candidacy to the front of the field this fall. Denunciations of "Washington Democrats" once again dominate his speeches, even as he complains that negativity has taken over the primary campaign.

It is a clear contrast from just two weeks ago when Dr. Dean, buoyed by the backing of several major unions, former Vice President Al Gore and a swelling crowd of elected officials, was beginning to change his style. Smiling more than finger-thrusting, he fancied himself a frontrunner above the fray, experimenting — briefly — with a more moderate tone, as he kept one eye on the general electorate.

But the relentless battering has stymied his effort to look long range, forcing him to hunker down in the final month before the first votes.

"Ultimately, if I'm going to be the nominee, I have to broaden the message," Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said recently in an interview as his van shuttled between town-hall-style meetings on the snowy streets of New Hampshire. "I know that, and I was starting to do it. But you can't do it if every day you know Joe Lieberman is calling you incompetent and John Kerry is whining about something else. There's not much sense in broadening the message if I'm not the nominee."

No one in the modern history of the presidency has ever changed the image of himself that people took away from the primaries. In fact, the brilliance of the Gore strategy in 2000 was that having been pushed Left by the Bradley challenge he just stayed there, instead of trying to get back to the Right, where his boss had run. If Dean is to mount a serious challenge it will be by turning out the base as well as Gore did, not by placating moderates.

---

In The Bleak Midwinter (Christina Georgina Rossetti)

In the bleak midwinter, frosty wind made moan,
Earth stood hard as iron, water like a stone;
Snow had fallen, snow on snow, snow on snow,
In the bleak midwinter, long ago.

Our God, heaven cannot hold Him, nor earth sustain;
Heaven and earth shall flee away when He comes to reign.
In the bleak midwinter a stable place sufficed
The Lord God Almighty, Jesus Christ.

Enough for Him, Whom cherubim, worship night and day,
Breastful of milk, and a mangerful of hay;
Enough for Him, Whom angels fall before,
The ox and ass and camel which adore.

Angels and archangels may have gathered there,
Cherubim and seraphim thronged the air;
But His mother only, in her maiden bliss,
Worshipped the beloved with a kiss.

What can I give Him, poor as I am?
If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb;
If I were a Wise Man, I would do my part;
Yet what I can give Him: give my heart.

---

SO, WE KNOW WHAT THAT MAKES PALESTINE:

De-Zionification: U.S. Jews rethink the state of Israel. (Mark D. Fefer, 12/24/03, Seattle Weekly)

I GUESS I GOT MY TERMS confused. I imagined "progressive" referred to the sort of activists behind, say, the new alternative Geneva peace plan, people looking to move beyond the shrill polarities of the Israel-Palestine debate to some fair-minded middle ground. But most of the "progressives" in Wrestling With Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, edited by playwright Tony Kushner and Village Voice theater critic Alisa Solomon, are instead far-lefties, intent on rebutting the perceived one- sidedness of Jewish establishment opinion with an equally one-sided, and familiar, anti-Zionist slant: Israel is roughly equivalent to the Third Reich, and the only thing standing in the way of Palestinians fully realizing their deepest aspirations is Israeli cruelty and intransigence (never Arab crimes, failures, and corruption). In that respect, Zion wrestles its way to a predictable rout.

Yet this anthology of some 50 essays (plus poetry and a roundtable) is still a gripping, ambitious, valuable rout, arousing contempt, admiration, anger, wonder, and all the responses strong writing provokes. I'm not equipped to engage every point of interpretation or fact (though if, as Naomi Klein contends, "children all over the occupied territories are being named Rachel"—after bulldozed activist Rachel Corrie from Evergreen State College—I will eat my skullcap); but I was pleased to find them widening my perspectives, however dubiously.

When Adrienne Rich writes that American Jews "have paid an intellectual and spiritual price for the narrowing of sight demanded by conformity and reliance on Israel as surrogate identity" and that "part of this price has been estrangement of many Jews from any Jewish affiliation," I'm not sure the situation isn't exactly the reverse; but it's an important idea to consider. Similarly, you can't help but pause to reflect when longtime Village Voice essayist Richard Goldstein compares Israel to the phallus—"I hate it, I want it; I have it, I don't. I attack it, yet I'm afraid to live without it."

Mr. Goldstein has some "issues", eh?

---

ORANGE AND RISING:

Alarming Terror Talk on Web Surfaces (Fox News, December 24, 2003)

Counterterrorism expert Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute, said her organization has recently found and translated statements on Al Qaeda Web site Al-Lewa - Arabic for "The Banner" - that are promising new attacks on U.S. soil in the coming weeks.

Katz said a posting two weeks ago quoted an Al Qaeda spokesman identified as Abu Issam al-Yamani as saying, "The next Al Qaeda attacks will be most violent and will target the U.S." and urged Muslims "to leave the country if they don't wish to die as a result of a Jihadist operation."

A second message was posted on the same Web site last Thursday, from a group calling itself the Islamic Bayan Movement.

"Our Muslim brothers in America, this is our final warning. We ask you, as fast as you can, to leave the following cities immediately: Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles," the message said.

Katz said she noticed Al Qaeda's stepped-up cyber propaganda began Nov. 15 after the terror bombings in Istanbul, Turkey when a known Al Qaeda group warned in a communiqué that the "death cars will not stop."

Katz said the electronic vitriol has continued almost daily, and just last night a message was published in which Al Qaeda's mouthpiece, the Global Islamic Media Society, took delight that Americans are now "living in a state of anxiety and constant fear."

It's strange that they haven't used car bombings on U.S. soil yet.

MORE:
France halts six U.S.-bound flights (UPI, 12/24/03)

French officials, responding to an urgent appeal by the United States, cancelled six U.S.-bound flights Wednesday because of fears of terrorism.

One of the flights, a Paris-to-Los Angeles route, had been scheduled to leave Wednesday, the BBC reported.

The U.S. request, conveyed by the U.S. embassy in Paris, followed "specific information" that al-Qaida was planning to use one of the French flights to attack U.S. targets.

---

ANY IDIOT COULD DO IT

Diary Of A Dean-o-phobe (Jonathan Chait, TNR.com, 12/23/03).

Now, today the Democrats have a somewhat different set of political vulnerabilities. The old one about raising taxes on the middle class remains. But the September 11 attacks, and Bush's political fortune in having held office when they occurred, have reopened the national security divide. And the Clinton sex scandals, combined with Bush's skill in passing himself off as a regular, God-fearing country boy, have opened a large cultural gap between the parties. In order to win the White House, Democrats have to show they're tough on terror and not allow themselves be typecast as arrogant or morally permissive, which is how Republicans painted Gore. This requires them to put some emotional distance between their nominee and the hard-core socially liberal, antiwar base. The concessions it requires are less substantive than symbolic.

Diary of a Dean-o-phobe is must reading for conservatives. Not only is it well-written and devastating analysis of Howard Dean by the king of the haters, Jonathan Chait, which will come in handy in the future, but how often do we get to see our adversaries form a circular firing squad? Because Chait is a talented analyst and because he is caught firmly between his fear of Dean and his hatred of Bush, he is giving birth today to the future of the Democratic party.

What Chait brings home is that a complete house cleaning of the Democratic party is way overdue. It should have had one after 1972, but Watergate intervened and Democrats mistook disgust with Nixon as love of themselves. After the 1988 debacle, the party did get serious about nominating a more nearly centrist presidential candidate who was able to win with a plurality of the vote. Again this qualified success allowed the party to forestall the necessary reorganization the presidential level, despite its terrible record in Congress and the states during the '90s. When Al Gore felt that left-centrism wasn't quite working for him, his natural instinct to curry immediate applause led him left at the nominating convention. Now, with all the appropriate caveats, the party is facing the possibility of a blowout in presidential and congressional races. (Barring disaster, the Democrats have no chance of retaking the House this decade.) As luck would have it, Jonathan Chait is blazing today the road the party as a whole will have to travel in a year.

If this is right, then things are looking good for the Republicans. Chait's answer seems to be that Dean is a predictable and avoidable dissaster, not because his policies are wrong but because the way he presents them and his own failings make him unelectable. That's fine as far as it goes, but it is no rallying call for remaking the Democratic party. Even worse (or better, from my point of view), his explanation of W's success is that any idiot, being President on 9/11, would be all but unbeatable. No need there for Democratic soulsearching.

The Democratic party is a car speeding towards a cliff while the wheels are falling off. The driver counts himself lucky, because the wheels falling off will probably stop the car before it reaches the cliff. One guy in the back, ignored by everyone else, is suggesting they might want to consider stepping on the brake, just in case, but, still, he's pretty sure that's not really a cliff.

(Not that Chait's dismissal of W isn't annoying in the same way it's annoying when a favorite artist, who's artistry is so practiced as to look natural, is undervalued because of that very fluency. Here is a president who has at least three times staked his presidency on succeeding where success was not assured, and who has won each time.)

MORE (from OJ):
Washington Goes to War (with Howard Dean) (Eric Alterman, January 12, 2004, The Nation)

[T]he question of the Democratic nomination has come down to this: Will this election be about turning out your base, or winning over swing voters? Gore did the latter but not the former. He won the election, but, thanks to Ralph Nader's megalomania (with an assist from the SCLM--So-Called Liberal Media--and Gore's own crappy campaign), not by enough to prevent the Supreme Court from handing it to Bush. Today, the nation remains no less divided than four years ago, with about 20 percent of the vote up for grabs. The punditocracy has chosen its side. Perhaps it's time the rest of us choose ours.

Hard to imagine that you could fit more delusions into one paragraph, but far the most dangerous one for Democrats is that this remains an evenly divided nation and an election up for grabs. In fact, "the question of the Democratic nomination has come down to this", as David suggests above: do they go with Dean and just destroy the Party, then start over again? or if they pick someone safer like Gephardt do they get crushed and destroy the party anyway--because the Deaniacs take a walk. There is no choice where they keep the race competitive, but is there a way to preserve the Democratic Party as a viable option? Probably the only one who could do so is Herself.

---

AS OPPOSED TO THE REST OF US TIN MEN:

John Howland -- Public-Spirited Vermonter (John P. Gregg, 12/24/03, Valley News)

They lit the Christmas candles at St. Francis of Assisi Church yesterday morning, and a festive wreath hung on the wall behind the altar.

For a funeral Mass.

More than 100 people were in the church, celebrating the life of John Hudson Howland, a native Vermonter who encouraged families to play in the snow on Mount Ascutney, put the down-and-out to work in the machine shops of Windsor and spoke his mind in Montpelier.

Howland, who died Friday evening at age 88 in his West Windsor home, is survived by his wife of 62 years, five children, two siblings, a dozen grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and a multitude of memories of how he helped Windsor County.

“We celebrate this full life, full not only in the number of years, but in his achievements,” the Rev. Paul Belhumeur said in his homily.

The son of a municipal court judge in a family with roots that run 200 years deep in Windsor County, Howland worked his way through boarding school and Harvard College, fought in the Pacific as a Navy officer in World War II, and was active in a number of fields, ranging from real estate development to insurance to manufacturing.

He also represented Windsor County in the state Senate from 1975 to 1985 and served on a number of state and civic boards, including service as chairman of the District 9 Environmental Commission.

And as a civic-minded businessman -- one who famously spoke out against the nuclear power industry -- he demonstrated how an establishment Republican could also be a man with heart and soul.

The local paper, which manages to be both an excellent regional daily and a notorious left-wing rag, has been running long obituaries of more interesting citizens on the front page for awhile now. It's a lovely tribute to the deceased and a nice opportunity for readers to see how outstanding individuals help keep the community knit together. The one cited here actually appears above the fold today, Christmas Eve day. That gratuitous shot at Republicans is a perfect example of how liberal bias inevitably creeps off of the editorial page and contaminates the rest of a paper.

---

I HEART NY:

Why I'm voting for Bush (Edward I. Koch, 12/24/03, Jewish World Review)

Last week I served as moderator of a forum on the contributions to America's intellectual life made by Eric Breindel who died in 1998 at the age of 42. At the time of his death, Eric was editorial page editor of the New York Post.

In its report on the forum, The New York Sun stated: "Mr. Koch told the crowd Wednesday night that he would vote for President Bush, entirely on the basis of his concern for embattled Israel."

I don't believe that is what I said. To the best of my recollection, my impromptu remarks mirrored what I have been saying for over a year.

I intend to vote for President George W. Bush in the next election, because in my view he is best able to wage the war against international terrorism. There is no greater threat to the United States than that posed by Al-Qaeda and similar groups. President Bush has confronted that threat head on. [...]

I do not believe the major contenders for the presidential nomination in the Democratic primaries have the stomach to confront the terrorist scourge comparable to President Bush. This is especially true of the current Democratic frontrunner, Howard Dean, whose stated reason for entering the race is his opposition to the war. Most of the other candidates who were in Congress and voted for the war resolution are now tacking to the wind to satisfy the left-wing constituency, hoping if they win to move to the center before the general election. The exception is Joe Lieberman, whom most observers believe has no chance of winning the nomination.

On the issue of my "concern for embattled Israel," I believe all of the major Democratic candidates, with the exception of Howard Dean, have records of support for that country as our steadfast ally in the Middle East.

Mr. Dean's comments about Israel do indeed suggest that he is not just not a supporter but is in some measure hostile to it. If that becomes a topic of political conversation, even Mr. Bush's evangelicalism may not be enough to stop Jews from voting for him.

---

THE STRANGE SUICIDE OF SCIENCE (via Mike Earl):

Aliens Cause Global Warming (Michael Crichton, January 17, 2003, Caltech Michelin Lecture)

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

[L]et's look at how it came to pass.

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two-week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

[where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates;
and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.]

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are
merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and
therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief
that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

Mr. Crichton, not surprisingly, does not trace back far enough the divergence of science into separate camps of hard science and faith. Were he to do so he might look to the words of Ernst Mayr:

[D]arwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.

Obviously Darwinism too is a religion, but one that is so universally adhered to in scientific circles that its deleterious effect spread far beyond the realm of evolution--whose study it has stunted--to all of the sciences, where faith in practically any "scientific" alternative to religion has come to be accepted for that reason alone, that it is not "religious".

---

RESPONSIBILITY AS EXTREMISM (via Mike Daley):

The beatitude excuse.: Judge Not, All Ye Faithful (Dave Shiflett, December 23, 2003, National Review)

Religious folk looking for a way to get out of jury duty may have been handed one by an unlikely ally in civic sloth: trial lawyers. According to a new guidebook for the plaintiff's bar, trial lawyers are advised to be wary of potential jurors with "extreme attitudes about personal responsibility." These jurors, the guidebook counsels, often reveal themselves by chatting up "traditional family values" - values that reflect "strong religious beliefs." If you want to get off the hook, chant a beatitude or two. That may well do the trick.

The scoop comes from journalist Jeff Johnson, who reports that legendary attorney David Wenner penned the warning for Litigating Tort Cases - known by some as the Shakedown Artist's Bible.

"It is helpful to divide the jurors into two groups: the personal responsibility group and compassion-altruistic group," Wenner writes in the guidebook. "Jurors who are extreme on the personal responsibility bias, or who have a high need for personal responsibility, will strongly
favor the defendant. In contrast, jurors who are extreme on the compassionate-altruistic bias, or who have a high need for compassion, will strongly favor the plaintiff."

One doesn't often find deep philosophical insight among trial lawyers, but here their insight is profound, even if accidental.

---

DO-ABLE:

Once Skeptical, Briton Sees Iraqi Success (JOHN F. BURNS, 12/24/03, NY Times)

When Maj. Gen. Graeme Lamb, a 50-year-old Briton, arrived in June to lead the mainly European force controlling southeastern Iraq, he was skeptical, he said. He felt that "this is going to be a lot more difficult than we realized."

But as General Lamb prepared to hand his command to another British general, he said at a news conference here on Tuesday that Saddam Hussein's capture and other changes, including progress in restoring oil installations, power stations and running water, as well as the Iraqis' fast-rising prosperity, had fostered a new confidence that the American-led occupation force can eventually hand a politically stable Iraq back to its people.

"Is this do-able?" he said. "You'd better believe it."

The British officer described himself as neither optimist nor pessimist but "a hard-boiled realist," then offered an upbeat assessment that matched that of American generals: "I think we're in great shape."

He took a jab at the press. Western reporters, he implied, had come to an early conclusion that the allied undertaking in Iraq would not succeed, and had failed to adjust. He compared this with criticism that greeted allied forces in the first stages of the spring invasion, when resistance stalled the drive to Baghdad.

The plan provided for 125 days to take Baghdad, and it was accomplished in 23 days, he noted. But, he told reporters, "you had us dead and buried in seven days."

Mr. Burns continues to take every opportunity to chastise his own profession.

---

TOO MUCH:

Has France shot itself in the foot? (Amir Taheri, December 24, 2003, Townhall)

France's passionate campaign to keep Saddam in power won no plaudits from the Arabs.

Many Arab leaders regard France as a maverick power that could get them involved in an unnecessary, and ultimately self-defeating, conflict with the United States.

"I cannot imagine what Chirac was thinking," says a senior Saudi official on condition of anonymity. "How could he expect us to join him in preventing the Americans from solving our biggest problem which was the presence of Saddam Hussein in power in Baghdad?"

Another senior Arab diplomat, from Egypt, echoes the sentiment.

"The French did not understand that the Arabs desired the end of Saddam, although they had to pretend that this was not the case," he says.

In Africa, the recent Libyan accord with Britain and the US deals a severe blow to French prestige. Libya is the most active member of the African Union and its exclusion of France, also from talks on compensation for victims of Libyan terrorism, sets an example for other African nations.

Dear Santa:

Please do not leave me the Velvet Margaret Thatcher painting tomorrow. Having already received the self-destruction of the Democratic Partyy and France, I already feel greedy.

Thanks,
OJ

---

JC II:

Jesus Rules in the Sequel: Santa, the Eastern Temple Worms and the Dragons of Destruction may make for a good story, but in the end they pale by comparison (Paul Park, 12/22/03, LA Times)

My son, Lucius, is bored with bedtime stories. He's sick of the sequels, Rumplestiltskin II, etc. So he sketches an alternative: Jesus and his best friend, Santa Claus, travel to Asia to fight their enemy — the Eastern Temple Worms.

He's already figured out the plot, and there's a lot that's good, especially a scene about halfway through in which Jesus lays down his own life for a tactical advantage. Santa, regaining consciousness after being knocked out, kneels in the snow in his red pants, weeping over the body of his friend. Then he struggles on alone, overweight, out of breath, lugging his huge sack of toys, to confront the worms.

I'm surprised by my son's grasp of Jesus' role in the drama — something he has not gotten from me. It has been a long time since I have tempted fate by bringing him inside a church.

It is obvious, however, that the character of Santa Claus is larger in his mind, a cult figure to be propitiated at all costs. Santa's got all the accessories: the reindeer, the sleigh, the leather belt, the belly. But as the old elf slogs through burning buildings and over butchered carcasses, you have to be a little worried: Will his celebrated merriness be enough to see him through?

---

THEY'RE ALL IN PLAY:

State Republican party flush with candidates, cash heading into campaign year (Steve Leblanc, 12/23/2003, AP)

State Republican leaders say their party is swimming in candidates and cash as it heads into a new campaign year.

The GOP has already recruited about 95 candidates to run for the Senate and House next year the highest number in a decade and has about $400,000 cash on hand to help fund the campaigns, GOP officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

To boost that total, top Republican leaders are dipping into their own wallets to support candidates, many of whom hope to use Gov. Mitt Romney's political coattails to ride into office.

Romney, his wife, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and her husband have already begun sending out $250 checks to the candidates, according to Dominick Ianno, executive director of the state Republican Party.

Romney said his goal is simple: Chipping away at the Democrat's overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate.

Romney said he would like to capture at least a third of the seats in either chamber enough to sustain his vetoes but conceded that's unlikely, given that it would require doubling the number of Republican lawmakers in either chamber.

While the Democrats have to write off huge swaths of the country, the GOP is on the attack everywhere.

---

GOOD NEWS:

Christmas eve (David Warren, 12/24/03, Ottawa Citizen)

Throughout the world, on this Christmas eve, there is good news. The American and allied victory in Iraq is suddenly shown to push freedom forward, and throw tyrants back, on many other fronts.

Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's unspeakable dictator, has himself acknowledged that the fate of Saddam Hussein in Iraq influenced his decision to abandon Libya' s programmes for weapons of mass destruction, and throw his country open to international arms inspectors. According to my information, he is also impressing the Bush and Blair administrations by turning tables on the intelligence front, and shopping some of his links and assets in the terror networks. Indeed, I believe the Orange Alert now signalled in the United States owes something to information transferred through British contacts from the Libyan intelligence services.

As well as to many other government sources in the Arab and Muslim world, not always friendly to the West. [...]

The whole power matrix of the Middle East seems thus to be getting it, from Rabat to Islamabad: rulers understanding that the U.S., Britain, and their allies are no longer the "paper tigers" described in Jihadist propaganda. The message of President Bush from his first state of the union speech after 9/11, "you're either with us or against us", is being driven home by diplomatic means that could only succeed after the Afghan and Iraqi demonstrations of military power. In one country after another, tyrants are deciding that they do not wish to share in the fate of Saddam, and will even begin to open their societies to avoid or postpone that fate. And even in France and Germany, attempts to undercut the U.S. effort are being publicly abandoned.

Definitely a glass half-full assessment, but one that drives home why the Islamicists would be feeling some urgency to pull off a strike ASAP.

MORE:
Al Qaida debates its targets (Martin Walker, 12/23/2003, UPI)

A fierce debate is raging within the ranks of al-Qaida whether to attack the Saudi Arabian regime directly, or to concentrate their attacks on Americans. One result of the argument is that a new organization, the Al-Haramayn (Two Holy Places) Brigades, has spun off from al-Qaida to attack Saudi targets.

The debate, which is conducted semi-openly by al-Qaida theorists and Islamic intellectuals on the website "The Voice of Jihad," has now drawn in a senior al-Qaida member Abd Al-Aziz bin Issa bin Abd Al-Mohsen, also known as Abu Hajer, who is on Saudi Arabia's most-wanted list. He argues that Saudi Arabia should be handled with kid gloves, as the major source of al-Qaida funding.

HERE'S THE HALF-EMPTY VIEW:
Bush has thrown open Pandora's box in a paradise for international terrorists: 2003 has been a crucial year for the Middle East, with war in Iraq and the continuing intifada in Israel. The Guardian's acclaimed commentator on the region assesses what happened, what it
means, and where it might lead next year (David Hirst, December 23, 2003, The Guardian)

This new Iraqi order would be sovereign and democratic, but the first thing it would do would be to ask American troops to stay on to preserve that sovereignty and democracy.

With this subterfuge, Mr Bush might just, as he apparently plans, manage to declare "mission accomplished" on the eve of the presidential election. But it would be remarkable if such an essentially US-installed government, presiding over a hastily reconstructed army and police, was able for long to master the maelstrom of colliding passions and political interests which the removal of the tyranny has unleashed.

An Iraq at loggerheads with itself, and a paradise for international terrorists, would spare none of the principal actors in this geopolitical drama. Not the US, confronted as it then would be with the classical colonial dilemma of whether to pull back or plunge yet further in. Not the Arab world, whose regimes in their people's eyes only differ from Saddam's in the degree of their degeneracy, nor Israel.

The danger is what Arab commentators habitually call "Lebanonisation" - first of Iraq and then, by an inevitable contagion, the rest of the eastern Arab world. Hizbullah, that most successful of anti-Israeli insurgencies, grew out of a single failed and fratricidal state. What might an entire failed region throw up?

---

REAGANESQUE:

Immigration Reform on Bush Agenda (Mike Allen, December 24, 2003, The Washington Post)

White House aides would not provide details of the proposal, but the Republican officials said it draws on a bill introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would create a Web-based job registry, to be run by the Labor Department. Employers would post job opportunities that would be available first to U.S. workers and then to prospective immigrants, who would be allowed to come under a new visa for temporary workers.

The other half of the program would be what Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge referred to earlier this month as "some kind of legal status" for undocumented workers in this country. The sources said White House officials were more skeptical about this idea than about the temporary-worker program, but they concluded that they needed a response to the large population of undocumented workers for the plan to be credible and for Bush to get credit from Hispanic voters.

The blueprint is the most ambitious of its kind since a bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 that offered legal status to millions of illegal immigrants who had moved to the United States before 1982 and imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

The White House plan is being designed by Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, in consultation with the domestic policy staff. Sources said the White House's biggest concern is that the new mechanism not penalize people who had followed the law and reward those who had not. McCain's plan, which was introduced in the House by Reps. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), tries to mitigate that problem by creating a new type of visa for previously undocumented workers who would be allowed to live in the United States legally for three years. Then the workers could apply for the temporary worker visa, which would be the path to a green card, or legal permanent residency. That would amount to a three-year advantage for those who entered legally.

Now there'll be no shutting the Buchananeers up.

---

GOTTA BE IN IT TO WIN IT:

Conservatives and Neoconservatives (Adam Wolfson, Winter 2003, Public Interest)

The basic contours of neoconservatism most readily emerge against the backdrop of its two main conservative rivals: libertarianism and traditionalism. (I will have little to say of religious conservatives and Straussians, since they are frequently allied with neocons and have moreover helped shape the neocon impulse.) These three conservative approaches - traditionalism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism - have distinct historical and philosophic roots. Generally speaking, traditionalists look to Edmund Burke, libertarians to Friedrich Hayek, and neocons to Alexis de Tocqueville. However, each finds its origins in something more elemental. Anyone of us can’t help but have a gut feeling about modern American life - its possibilities and limits, whether it is humane and decent or alienating and corrupting. Those of us who regret much of modern American life and find solace in old, inherited ways will cling to traditionalism. Others, who celebrate the new freedoms and new technologies, will turn to libertarianism. As for those who see in modernity admirable principles but also worrisome tendencies, their persuasion will be neoconservatism.

In the post-World War II period, a number of exceptional thinkers sought to adapt a traditionalist, Burkean conservatism to American public life. They became known as the “new conservatives.” The most prominent of them was Russell Kirk, who authored in 1953 the best-seller The Conservative Mind. An overly simple but for our purposes accurate enough way of characterizing Kirk’s achievement would be to say that he initiated a turn among American conservatives away from a bourgeois Lockean philosophy and toward a mildly aristocratic Burkean one. A typical American “conservative” in the pre-World War II period was in fact a nineteenth-century liberal - a believer in laissez-faire, scientific improvements, and progress more generally. The Burke revival that Kirk helped spark in the 1950s lent to American conservatism a very different voice. No longer would it settle for being the party of “big business” or an apologist for bourgeois society. The traditionalists joined Burke in his lament that “the age of chivalry is gone,” and concurred in his denunciations of the “new conquering empire of light and reason.” [...]

Kirk’s project was less about public policy than philosophic definition and cultural recovery. With Burke as his touchstone, Kirk aimed at explaining to an American audience what it meant to be conservative and to think conservatively. In The Conservative Mind, he surveyed a kaleidoscope of conservative thinkers, from John Adams to Tocqueville, and from Disraeli to Henry Adams. It had been a long time since Americans had been taught to take these thinkers seriously, and Kirk’s prolific writings changed the face of American conservatism. In its early years, the National Review was heavily influenced by traditionalist modes of thought, and for a while Kirk wrote a column for the magazine. The magazine’s opening statement of purpose, authored by William F. Buckley in 1955, was a neo-Burkean call-to-arms in which it was declared that the National Review “stands athwart history, yelling Stop.”

The desire to stop, reflect, reconsider, and perhaps go back remains alive within conservative circles. It can be seen in the conservative defense of the traditional family, and in its cultivation of the older virtues and a religious sensibility. Most practically it is evident in the traditionalist view that the federal government has usurped the prerogatives of localities. Such conservatives look back wistfully to an America of small towns and close-knit communities, and they have become increasingly critical of what they view as President Bush’s “big government conservatism.” [...]

My brief overview of traditionalism and libertarianism hardly does justice to the complexity and richness of each, or to the profound impact they have had on American public life. Yet even so the puzzle of their political alliance over the years should be readily apparent. Of course, they are both opposed to much government regulation and spending, but beyond this they might seem to share little in common. Their fundamental outlooks are quite at odds, and indeed it was the great project of conservatives in the 1950s and 1960s to find a way of reconciling the two - National Review writer Frank Meyer had called his solution “fusionism.” However, at a deeper level traditionalism and libertarianism do find common cause, and it is here where their differences from neoconservatism first emerge. For both the traditionalist and the libertarian, and in contrast to the neoconservative, politics is of secondary significance. The traditionalist believes that culture or history is the primary factor in human affairs; for the libertarian it is economics. And thus not surprisingly, they can oftentimes seem to have little affinity for modern democratic life. It is in neoconservatism’s appreciation for politics generally and the politics of democracy in particular that its unique characteristics can be seen.

Nostalgia for a pre-industrial, pre-Enlightenment past, as found in traditionalism, is largely absent from neoconservatism. It is not that neoconservatives are proponents of the unregulated market or are without appreciation for our moral and spiritual inheritance as are libertarians. Instead, the neoconservative faults Kirk’s neo-Burkean project for its sheer futility. Appeals to tradition as an authoritative guide in American life or as a brake on change and innovation are more than likely to fall on deaf ears. True enough, we have our traditions in America, but these tend to be liberal-democratic ones, such as our reverence for individual rights or our veneration of health and well-being. One need not have lived through our recent cultural upheavals to glean this truth about American democracy. From his visit to America in the 1830s, Tocqueville observed that Americans “treat tradition as valuable for information only.”

Not from such American materials is a Burkean politics made of. Recognizing this fact about American life - that almost everything is up for grabs and in continual flux - neoconservatives believe, to paraphrase Tocqueville, that we should aim at educating and directing democracy, rather than seeking to overcome it, or just as inadvisably, as some more literary conservatives in fact do, scorning it. It was a political axiom of Burke’s that “when ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated. From that moment we have no compass to govern us.” This goes too far for the neoconservative. Without siding with the Enlightenment’s faith in reason as our only true compass, the neocon recognizes that in democratic times ancient opinions cannot rely on their own authority but must defend themselves in open debate, and that old rules must find some other basis than what is known as prescription if they are to flourish. The loss is, of course, considerable, but rather than retreating in defeat or condemning democracy outright, neoconservatives seek democratic substitutes for these older modes of living. Neoconservatives understand that tradition and custom, in themselves, can have little hold on a democratic people, and thus they look to other means to restrain democracy from its worst instincts.

At least here if nowhere else neocons and paleos are in partial agreement: Both share in opposition to traditionalists a sense that much of the past is irretrievable. The question is, where does one go from here? The lamentation for a lost tradition leads paleoconservatives in search of new gods, new heroes, and new myths. Full of disdain for what they consider the democratic idols of equality and commodious living, they seek not to rescue democracy from itself but to expedite its collapse, to make way for a postmodern, postdemocratic age. In contrast, neocons seek to refurbish America’s founding principles and its democratic way of life. They are aware of democracy’s shortcomings - its frequently low aspirations and dehumanizing tendencies - but they also recognize the fundamental justice of democratic equality. Neoconservatives seek to secure a genuine human freedom and dignity in the age in which we live now, the democratic age, rather than in some futurist utopia. [...]

Neoconservatives object not only to the libertarian critique of Big Government but also to its cramped understanding of liberty. Libertarians rise to the defense of every conceivable freedom but that of self-government; they typically tend to be pro-abortion, pro-drug legalization, pro-human cloning, and so on. Their goal, also ardently advanced by the postmodern Left, is the expansion of individual choice. But the “right to choose” has generally been secured in contemporary America only by enacting a judicial prohibition, one that forbids individuals from acting together to determine what laws they shall live under.

Now, neoconservatives are hardly a moralistic lot. On some of these contentious cultural issues, they are as likely to be on the “pro” as on the “anti” side. Moreover, their analysis tends toward the urbane - perhaps too urbane given what is morally at stake. Religious conservatives not infrequently become impatient with what they see as the softness of many neoconservatives on these vital issues. However, dispassion should not be mistaken for approval or naïveté about what is on the line. Neoconservatism, after all, came into its own in reaction against the Left’s nihilistic revolt against conventional morality and religion. Moreover, neoconservatives are in agreement in their condemnation of the high-handed manner in which the libertarian agenda is enacted. Democratic discussion is circumvented, and “we the people,” as the phrase would have it, are disenfranchised. To the neoconservative, the true road to serfdom lies in the efforts of libertarian and left-wing elites to mandate an anti-democratic social policy all in the name of liberty. But it is a narrow, privatized liberty that is secured. An active and lively interest in public affairs is discouraged as a result. Everything is permitted - except a say in the shaping of the public ethos. Libertarian ideology would turn citizens into foreigners who live happily, if indifferently, in their country

Maybe it's just the case that these concepts are too amorphous for us ever to reach general agreement about what neocons, paleocons, theocons, etc., even are, but there's a theme here in the contrasting of neoconservatism to traditional conservatism that it seems most of us could agree on: neoconservatism is rather urbane, in fact, rather urban--it is the kind of conservatism that one can feel most comfortable espousing in front of one's rich liberal peers in a cosmopolitan setting. Thus the "dispassion", the acceptance or even advocacy of progressivism, or at least an unwillingness to go backwards, etc.. It is precisely here though, if we accept the notion that neoconservatives are truly conservative, that we see it is a tragic flawed politics. Grant Mr. Wolfson his argument that neoconservatism "came into its own in reaction against the Left’s nihilistic revolt against conventional morality and religion" and then consider his statement that neoconservatism and libertarianism "share in opposition to traditionalists a sense that much of the past is irretrievable" and you find a paltry sort of "reaction". It seems to say: sure, the Left's assault on morality has caused sufficient damage to give rise to neoconservatism, but that's water under the bridge, let's be realistic and move on from here. No doubt that's the sort of attitude that goes down well at cocktail parties in Manhattan and Washington, but it makes it difficult to take such folk seriously.

Take three issues that seemed relatively settled in the '70s, the social acceptance and legalization of sexual "liberation", drug use, and abortion. The acquiescent, go-along-to-get-along, neoconservatism on offer here would have accepted these as fait accompli's (accomplii?). Traditionalists (it's obvious here that religious conservatives are traditionalists, not neocons) instead fought against them and the tide has been turned on all three issues. Similarly, the neocons are basically uninterested in the issue of gay marriage, but it seems quite possible that the traditionalists will prevail on this issue too. At some point, it seems fair to say that a movement that sits out the central fights on the morality of the age can not be considered conservative at all.

---

MONTHS, NOT YEARS:

Report: Palestinian state in 2004, no matter what (Jerusalem Newswire, December 22, 2003)

The Middle East News Line (MENL) reported Sunday Israel has acceded to a Bush administration demand that an interim Palestinian state be established in the entire Gaza Strip and most of Judea and Samaria during 2004.

This state will come into being whether or not Palestinian terrorism continues and whether or not the Palestinian Authority cracks down on the terror groups, according to the MENL.

It is believed that the establishment of Palestine will have a powerfully positive effect on President George W. Bush's aspirations for re-election later in the year.

The US proposal for Israel to recognize an interim Palestinian state in the coming year was reportedly predicated on the Washington-sponsored Road Map plan, which calls for a de facto Palestinian state to be established in 2003, and its final borders to be determined by 2005.

But whereas the Road Map stipulated that there first be an end to terrorism and the disarming and dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure in the PA areas - something the PA simply refused to do - this new proposal apparently will award the Palestinians a state without demanding any Palestinian action.

The MENL report states that, "Sharon has accepted a US proposal for an interim Palestinian state in 2004 regardless of Palestinian Authority agreement to end the more than three-year-old war and dismantle Palestinian insurgency groups."

It's been disturbing this week to read folks who should have figured this out by now--Daniel Pipes, Zev Chafets, etc.--try to convince themselves that Sharon isn't serious.

---

HE'S A BAD MUTHA'S-BOY:

Oy, Yo Mama (Armond White, December 19, 2003, Africana.com)

Blaxploitation movies are both saluted and bitten in The Hebrew Hammer, a satire that applies the conventions of '70s black stud detective movies like Shaft, Hammer, Slaughter, Truck Turner to contemporary Jewish American culture. It begins with a flashback to the title character's childhood in which little Mordecai is teased by his non-Jewish schoolmates because the spinning-top dreidel he got as a Hanukkah present doesn't match up with their own, plentiful Christmas gifts. As an adult, Mordecai Jefferson Carver (played by Adam Goldberg) becomes a hipster, righteous defender of bullied Jewish kids while also making a career as a private eye. (He's called "a certified circumcised dick" to a tune that resembles Isaac Hayes' "Theme from Shaft.")

Jonathan Hesselman wrote and directed The Hebrew Hammer with a fan's knowledge of the Blaxploitation genre and with a frank and sometimes-funny tone of commiseration. Many of the film's jokes convey Hesselman's awareness of the need for aggression and revenge – the need for heroes – that made Blaxploitation movies such a draw for urban youth. What makes the film noteworthy is that Hesselman's comic perspective on ethnic identity spreads the need for role models and saviors across American's ethnic rainbow.

The analogy made here between black movie fantasy and white Jewish movie fantasy is sometimes awkward.

It seems unlikely that there's anything in the movie funnier than someone writing that last line with a straight face.

---

60-40 FILES:

GOP SENATE HOPES (Dick Morris, December 23, 2003, NY Post)

LOST among the focus on the Democratic presidential race is the likelihood of a huge Republican gain in the U.S. Senate in the 2004 elections. Even without a landslide victory for Bush (quite possible if Howard Dean wins the Democratic nod), the way races are shaping up, the Republicans have a lot to gloat about. [...]

The most likely result would be a Republican gain of three or four, knocking the Democrats down to only 44 or 45 seats, barely enough to sustain a filibuster. If Bush wipes out Dean in a landslide, the Democrats could fall even lower, although it seems unlikely that they would drop below the magic number of 40 needed to oppose closure on Democratic filibusters.

Mr. Morris, for once, is over cautious.

---

EARLY FAVORITE:

GOP's Frist hones Senate operating skills: After a rocky start, the Senate's majority leader refines his understated style to score a major win on Medicare (Gail Russell Chaddock, 12/24/03, CS Monitor)

"He got Medicare reform passed, and that's the high point of the whole Congress right now," says Eric Uslaner, a political scientist at the University of Maryland. [...]

While House GOP leaders have powerful rules to limit debate and enforce party discipline, the Senate works on consensus. Frist learned that lesson well. "He seemed every inch the amateur for the first few months as leader. But he's catching on and demonstrating expertise in that post," says Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist. "That quiet air of confidence that doctors project seems increasingly to fit well within the atmosphere of the Senate."

Frist has promised to quit the Senate by 2006. Insiders note that exit date leaves time to campaign for the White House in 2008. "A third of the Senate will probably think about running. He has the most credibility of all the senators," says Mr. Sabato.

The betting line at this point would have to be:

(1) Jeb Bush

(2) Condi Rice

(3) Bill Frist

(4) John Ashcroft

---

CHINA'S HUNGRY:

In China, pews are packed: Beijing is wary as Christianity counts up to 90 million adherents. (Robert Marquand, 12/24/03, CS Monitor)

Christianity - in both the official and unofficial churches - is again gaining momentum in China, and is a source of some consternation for the party leadership. "Being Christian" is fashionable, with young people sporting crosses as a mild form of dissent, and others feeling the faith has a certain international cachet. But something more is at work. In many interviews, congregants say the deity they worship communicates, and has power in their lives, especially now when China is going through immense, jarring economic changes that upset older social contracts.

"People in China have a spiritual hunger, very much so," says an official church pastor in Xiamen, "and there is a need for that to be filled. I think this is the main reason why we continue to have larger services." [...]

Along the easy-going southeast coast, Protestant worshipers pay little attention to China's Shanghai-based official church hierarchy. They hold Bible study groups, have choir rehearsals, and gather in volunteer groups. "We have to join the [official] church, but then we do and say what we want," says a local pastor. "We preach the living God."

And so are the days of the dictatorship numbered.

---

FIELD DAY:

Beyond Belief: Howard Dean's religion problem. (Franklin Foer, 12.22.03, New Republic)

[B]ecause Clinton hailed from the relatively conservative Baptist Church (as opposed to the liberal Congregationalists), he understood how to paper over differences with voters who disliked his positions on social issues, especially abortion. "With Clinton, evangelical voters no longer felt like they were locked in a battle against a secular Democratic Party," says the University of Virginia's Hunter. By the end of the campaign, Clinton and Gore seemed sincere enough that the Associated Baptist Press trumpeted them as "the first all-Baptist ticket for the nation's two highest offices." George H.W. Bush's share of the evangelical vote fell from 77 percent in 1988 to 56 percent in 1992. As a result, Clinton nearly swept the border states and made important inroads in the South.

Indeed, a case can be made that the Democrats' recent presidential success with Southern candidates is only secondarily connected to their geographic roots. Candidates who grow up in the South come from a world steeped in Jesus. Even if they don't buy the theology themselves, they intuitively understand the role that faith plays in people's lives; they have absorbed enough of the lingo to plausibly pass for religious or at least avoid offending the faithful.

Dean, on the other hand, utterly lacks this gift. In a CNN interview last week, Judy Woodruff asked him about his bike-path conversion. She seemed bemused over the story. "Was it just over a bike path that you left the Episcopal Church?" Dean told her, "Yes, as a matter of fact, it was." He explained how the diocese had resisted handing over the land for the trail. "One thing I feel about religion, you have to be very careful not to be a hypocrite if you're a religious person. It is really tough to preach one thing and do something else. And I don't think you can do that." As the discussion continued, Woodruff asked, "And you don't believe, governor, the Republicans are going to have a field day with comments like these?" Dean replied with unwitting clarity: "The Republicans always have a field day with things like this." Yes, they do.

The real story here--which the press seems unable to wrap its collective mnind around, just because he's "winning"--is that Howard Dean has thus far shown himself to be one of the most inept major party candidates we've ever seen. There's a huge difference between being personally irreligious and actually alienating religious voters--a candidate who persistently does the latter is incompetent as a matter of politics.

---

THE REALIGNMENT PROCEEDS APACE:

Lieberman Furious as Dean Calls Clintonoid Group 'Republican' (NewsMax, Dec. 23, 2003)

Democratic Leadership Council, a Clintonoid group described by the media establishment as centrist, is "Republican," according to Democrat front-runner Howard Dean. And rival Sen. Joe Lieberman is furious.

"Does he realize when he's saying that he's pushing Bill Clinton, a hundred members of Congress, countless governors and mayors around America, state officials, who are members of the DLC and the new Democratic movement out of the Democratic Party?" Lieberman told reporters today in Manchester, N.H.

Mr. Dean is right on this one: to be a DLCer is to be a Republican in all but name and registration. May as well just go ahead and change those, eh?

---

GIVIN' UP THE GOON SQUAD:

Gadhafi: North Korea and Iran Should Follow My Lead (Chosun Ilbo, 12/23/03)

In an interview with CNN on Monday, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who recently announced that he would end his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, advised North Korea, Iran, and Syria to give up their WMD programs as well. Gadhafi said that by following in his footsteps, those nations can escape from their current difficulties.

---

SCARY AIR:

Latest Scare Shows Need For Better Gun Program, Pilots Say (Adrian Schofield, December 23, 2003, Aviation Daily)

U.S. pilot groups believe the latest security alert highlights the fact that not enough pilots have been trained to carry firearms in the cockpit, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) needs to accelerate the training process.

The Airline Pilots Security Alliance said only 500-1,000 pilots have been trained in the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program, which is "rife with roadblocks" that discourage pilots from signing up. TSA "needs to fix the [FFDO] program before the next orange alert," APSA said, including lifting the training rate, improving screening process, and eliminating the requirement for guns to be carried in lock boxes.

Except, of course, that the latest scare was something quite different, a scare which demonstrates the point that guns in cockpits would be a greater threat to safety than terrorists are. The argument over guns has little to do with safety and much to do with Second Amendment ideology.

---

MORE LIES:

News Release: Personal Income and Outlays (BEA News, 12/23/03)

Personal income increased $44.0 billion, or 0.5 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased $39.2 billion, or 0.5 percent, in November, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $31.1 billion, or 0.4 percent.

Sooner or later, George "Herbert Hoover" Bush's lies about the "worst economy since the Great Depression" will catch up to him and Howard "Honest Abe" Dean will coast to victory....

---

O HARP, WHERE ART THOU? (via The Mother Judd):

For a Timeless Song Style, a Chance at the Big Time (RANDY KENNEDY, 12/23/03, NY Times)

The Mount Pleasant Home Primitive Baptist Church on the outskirts of Birmingham is a long way from Hollywood, literally and figuratively.

So it was a little strange one Sunday to hear a group of people in the tiny bare-walled church swapping stories about Anthony Minghella, the Oscar-winning director of "The English Patient," who was pronounced by one elderly Alabamian that day to be "a pretty decent guy." [...]

When this Civil War drama [Cold Mountain] opens nationwide on Christmas, the hope among these singers is that it will accomplish something more meaningful than a glamorous trip to Hollywood. They hope it will introduce their kind of music — a powerful and beautiful but relatively obscure form of a cappella choral singing known as Sacred Harp — to a broader audience.

The music, also known as shape-note or fasola singing, has been waiting a long time for that attention. The style of singing, whose rudiments stretch back at least to Elizabethan England, flourished in Colonial New England and in its present form took deep root in the rural South, where it is still sung today in four-part harmony. But many of its practitioners — whose parents and grandparents and great-grandparents sang it in little churches and town squares throughout the South — fear it could die out. So they are waiting eagerly to see whether the use of Sacred Harp music on the movie's soundtrack, released on Dec. 16, could do for their music what the soundtrack for "O Brother, Where Art Thou?," the Coen brothers comedy, did for rural blues and bluegrass. (The "O Brother" album unexpectedly sold more than five million copies and won the album-of-the-year Grammy in 2002.)

The film, despite the talented Mr. Minghella, promises to be just brutal, but the tunes look awesome.

---

THE UNDESERVED ALLIES:

Shafting the Poles (Ralph Peters, December 23, 2003, New York Post)

Poland did have one request - a humble one, in the great scheme of things. Warsaw asked for $47 million to modernize six used, American-built C-130 transport aircraft and to purchase American-built HMMWV all-terrain vehicles so elite Polish units could better integrate operations with American forces. Much of the money would go right back to U.S. factories and workers.

Our response? We stiffed them.

For once, the Pentagon and the State Department agree: No can do. Impossible. Our pocket are empty. Got to FedEx every penny to our favorite dictators.

It's a mistake to over-idealize any nation. But if there's a land of heroes anywhere between the English Channel and the coast of California, it's Poland. Our Polish allies have taken a brave, costly, principled stand for freedom and democracy in Iraq. They desperately want to be seen by Washington as reliable friends in this treacherous world.

The least we could do is to treat them with respect.

There seems no end to the shame we're willing to inflict on ourselves where Poland is concerned.

---

"I WILL DO WHATEVER THE AMERICANS WANT":

Dean left speechless on Libya arms move (Bill Sammon, December 23, 2003, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

"Look, the agreement with the Libyans is good news and an important step forward in the effort to combat weapons of mass destruction," conceded Dean spokesman Jay Carson.

"But the agreement is the result of years of diplomacy and sanctions, conducted in concert with the international community, which Governor Dean believes is the most effective means of pursuing that goal," he added.

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi made it clear that his decision to disarm was prompted by Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid," Mr. Gadhafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, according to a Berlusconi spokesman who was quoted in yesterday's Telegraph of London.

Unlike the contest between Mr. Dean and General Clark over which is lying, this seems an easy call: after all, what advantage could Colonel Gadhafi hope to gain by admitting to the world he's terrified of George W. Bush?

---

DON'T BLOW IT, HOWARD

Dean Rebuked for Statement Implying Brother Served in Military (Jodi Wilgoren, New York Times, 12/22/03)

Howard Dean came under criticism from an Iowa newspaper last weekend for an answer to a questionnaire in which he implied that his brother was serving in the military when he disappeared in Laos 29 years ago. His brother had been traveling in Southeast Asia as a tourist.

Asked by The Quad-City Times, which is based in Davenport, Iowa, to complete the sentence "My closest living relative in the armed services is," Dr. Dean wrote in August, "My brother is a POW/MIA in Laos, but is almost certainly dead." . . .

"The way I read the question was that they wanted to know if I knew anything about the armed services from a personal level," he said. "I don't think it was inaccurate or misleading if anybody knew what the history was, and I assumed that most people knew what the history was. Anybody who wanted to write about this could have looked through the 23-year history to see that I've always acknowledged my brother's a civilian, was a civilian."

I think all politicians should adopt the position that a statement is not a lie if independent research would have proved it false.

---

STUCK:

As Went Alf Landon, So Did McGovern- But How About Dean? (Ron Rosenbaum, Dec. 23, 2003, Jewish World Review)

Give George McGovern credit: He stuck to his anti-war message, he tried to make people care about Watergate, he stuck to his principles. The final crushing blow: Henry Kissinger's deceptive proclamation that, as a result of his secret diplomacy, "peace is at hand." Bye-bye, peace issue. It wasn't until after the election that it turned out peace was not really at hand at all. In fact, many more Americans and Vietnamese would die before the end. One can disagree with him on principle (and some of my thinking has changed). But was McGovern wrong to run a principled campaign on this issue? If you think so, you don't believe in the American democratic process.

Anyway, I was there for McGovern's final desperate cross-country dash, whose final leg— from Long Beach to a post-midnight landing in Sioux Falls— was a memorable debauch fueled by (among other things) wild delusory hope and the intimations of the landslide about to hit.

And then, less than two years later, I was there in Washington for the Nixon impeachment hearings, when the full truth about what was going on behind the scenes in that campaign from beginning (the phony letter that led to the demise of Ed Muskie's campaign) to end (the bagmen and the blackmail) finally emerged.

And I was there in the East Room of the White House as a weeping Richard Nixon left by the back door, disgraced.

That was the real end of the McGovern campaign. In some ways, you could say that ultimately he won. His opponent certainly lost. But even if McGovern was the Big Loser who eclipsed Alf Landon, he won my respect because he didn't lose his soul. He demonstrated that it was possible to run a campaign that focused the electorate's attention on the real issue of the day— Vietnam. I may disagree with Dean's supporters, but they have the right to have a candidate who expresses their views faithfully. Howard Dean won't break his supporters' hearts by losing the election; he'll break their hearts if he abandons his principles. Comparing Howard Dean to George McGovern shouldn't be an insult; it's something to live up to.

One can hardly condemn someone for clinging to the delusions of their youth, but need not take them seriously. What Mr. Rosenbaum is unable to face up to is that the real end of the McGovern campaign has not come yet for millions of people in Southeast Asia and that the principle he ran on was: Screw 'em.

Whatever else opposition to the Vietnam War entailed, its most obvious implication was that we should desert our South Vietnamese allies and leave them to be conquered by the Communist North. Removing Richard Nixon from office did indeed enable the McGovernites to do just that and the dictatorship and oppression and boat people that followed are all the bitter fruit of his "principles".

Now, it can be argued that he honestly didn't envision these results, that his principles were wrong, rather than genuinely evil. His obviously idiotic prediction about Cambodia's sunny future under the Khmer Rouge lend weight to this ignorance theory:

The growing hysteria of the administration's posture on Cambodia seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what the fall of the existing government in Phnom Penh would actually mean.... We should be able to see that the kind of government which would succeed Lon Nol's forces would most likely be a government ... run by some of the best-educated, most able intellectuals in Cambodia.

But even if the truth of the matter is just that Mr. McGovern, Mr. Rosenbaum, and their ilk were shockingly naive about the nature of Communism, it seems cold comfort to the American nation they tore apart or to the Vietnamese and Cambodians they sentenced to death and misery that Mr. McGovern "didn't lose his soul." South Vietnam was too high a price to pay for the Senator's soul.

The Dean comparison then seems all too apt, because we can easily imagine him and his supporters cutting and running in the Middle East, preserving their own souls no matter the consequences for others.

---

SEEKING CONVERTS AMONG THEIR PEERS:

PETA to cannibals: Don't let them eat steak (Wesley J. Smith, December 21, 2003, San Francisco Chronicle)

When Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals infamously asserted in 1986, "There is no rational basis for asserting that a human being has special rights: A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," few believed that she meant it literally. Surely, people thought, Newkirk and PETA understand that humans have far greater moral worth than animals.

Actually, they don't. In fact, it now appears that PETA's moral views have become so distorted and misanthropic that the organization sees little difference between eating a steak and cannibalizing a human being.

Here's the story: Armin Meiwes, the "German cannibal," shocked the world when he admitted to slaughtering, butchering and eating a man he met over the Internet. PETA's reaction to this sickening event?` It sent Meiwes a vegetarian cookbook and a hamper full of veggie burgers in the hope of converting him to vegetarianism.

"What this man did to a German computer expert is done to other creatures every day," a PETA spokesman explained. "The cruel scenario of slaughtering, cutting up, portioning, freezing and eating of body parts," the actions taken by Meiwes against his human victim, "is the grim reality for more than 450 million sentient individuals (animals) that are killed in (Germany) every year."

In other words, according to PETA, when you enjoy a lamb chop or eat a hamburger, you are acting no differently than the cannibal who butchered a man and ate his flesh.

The conversion to vegetarianism did wonders for another German.

---

CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, THE GOP MAY GIVE IT TO YOU:

HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (GREG SCANDLEN, December 17, 2003, Galen Institute)

This essay raises a question for conservative critics of Medicare reform: are they ignorant of what's in the bill or do they not truly believe their own rhetoric about choice and market forces?

---

A LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS:

Lighting our way to the palace of the king (Rabbi Yonason Goldson, Dec. 23, 2003, Jewish World Review)

Today, 2,168 years later, we too live in an age of spiritual darkness, when the loudest and most persistent voices in our surrounding culture cry out to expunge every mention of the divine, to condemn every moral judgment, to sanctify every perversion in the name of "tolerance." We live in an era of unprecedented material comfort and convenience, tranquilizing our bodies and our minds so that we can easily stifle the yearning of our souls.

But when the days are shortest and the nights are coldest, just then can a little light shine forth and dispel much darkness. Like a lighthouse guiding a ship home, the lights of the Chanukah menorah can draw us back from the abyss of spiritual oblivion. And as we add candle upon candle and light upon light, the growing radiance of the menorah reminds us of the divine flame that has guided us through the darkness of exile and saved us from the darkness of assimilation for generation after generation.

If we, like the Hellenist Jews, allow the material values of contemporary culture to shape our thinking and guide our actions, then we have truly forgotten who we are. Like the prince whose soul longed for nothing but a little hut to protect him from the sun and the rain, we will be destined to live out our days in futility.

But if we cling to all that which is noble within us, if the values of Jewish culture drive us to perform acts of kindness and charity, to devote a few moments each day to heartfelt and meditative prayer, to treat neighbors and strangers alike with respect, to set an example of morality and character for our children — then we will have rekindled the spark of divinity inside us, and we will have earned the privilege to have our Father, the King, bring us home.

Which is what makes the secularist movement in Israel so tragic--why preserve an Israel which does not vindicate the values of Jewish culture?

---

THE THRILLA IN ELMIRA:

href=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ellis21dec21,0,6112425.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions>The Senate Super Bowl of '06: Rudy vs. Hillary (John Ellis, December 21, 2003, LA Times)

The word around New York is that our former mayor, Rudy Giuliani, has decided to challenge Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton when she seeks reelection in 2006 - a matchup we almost saw in 2002 before he withdrew for personal reasons. Giuliani won't confirm or deny it (as recently as Friday he told radio host Don Imus he hadn't made up his mind), but two well-placed GOP insiders say it's "basically a done deal."

This would be the Super Bowl of Senate races and a dramatic "wild card" lead-in to the 2008 presidential election. Only one of the principals could advance to the next level.

For Giuliani, challenging Clinton is a necessary step if he hopes to be a national GOP player. He could, if he chose, run for governor in 2006, but that wouldn't do him much good on the national stage. He would still be a pro-gay, pro-choice "Rockefeller Republican."

But Senator Giuliani would be a different matter. He would have slain the dragon, and slaying the dragon would bestow upon him exalted status. Major points of difference with the GOP's core constituencies - like the sanctity of life (abortion) and the evolution of mankind (stem cell research) - would become much less disqualifying.

Red State Republicans - those from the GOP stronghold states - could learn to love Rudy in a New York minute if he beat Hillary.

That's just silly. It would be great if he beat her but he's going nowhere in national Party politics unless he moves well to the Right on social issues.

| Comments (18)

---

INSUFFICIENT (via Mike Daley):

Europe's problem is that it's barren (Mark Steyn, 23/12/2003, Daily Telegraph)

To those of us watching from afar the ructions over the European constitution - a 1970s solution to a 1940s problem - it seems amazing that no Continental politician is willing to get to grips with the real crisis facing Europe in the 21st century: the lack of Europeans. If America believes in the separation of church and state, in radically secularist Europe the state is the church, as Jacques Chirac's edict on headscarves, crucifixes and skull caps made plain. Alas, it's an insufficient faith.

By contrast, if Christianity is merely a "myth", it's a perfectly constructed one, beginning with the decision to establish Christ's divinity in the miracle of His birth. The obligation to have children may be a lot of repressive Catholic mumbo-jumbo, but it's also highly rational. What's irrational is modern EUtopia's indifference to new life.

I recently had a conversation with an EU official who, apropos a controversial proposal to tout the Continent's religious heritage in the new constitution, kept using the phrase "Europe's post-Christian future". The evidence suggests that, once you reach the post-Christian stage, you don't have much of a future.

What's most interesting is that their decision to voluntarily die out seems to contradict one of their dearest rationalist myths: Darwinism.

---

PRESS BUTTON "A" FOR GOD:

HARD-WIRED FOR GOD: Only something extraordinary could entice the Carmelite nuns of Montreal to break their vow of silence and venture out of the cloister. They have joined forces with science to look for a concrete sign from God -- inside the human brain (ANNE McILROY, Dec. 6, 2003, Globe & Mail)

When Dr. Beauregard and Mr. Paquette, his doctoral student, first approached Sister Diane about using three of the most powerful brain-imaging tools available to learn more about unio mystica, she was intrigued. She had heard about other experiments investigating the biological basis of religious experience.

The researchers were hoping the nuns would have a mystical experience right in the lab. Sister Diane told them that this would be impossible -- God can't be summoned at will. "You can't search for it. The harder you search, the longer you will wait," she says.

So the scientists came back with an alternative: Would the nuns be able to remember what it felt like? Dr. Beauregard is certain that when they recall such an intense experience, their brains will operate the same way as when the nuns actually felt God's physical presence.

He says there is plenty of evidence that this is likely. When we think about doing something physical, such as hitting a forehand in tennis, the same parts of the brain are active as when we are actually make the shot.

Similarly, he has conducted experiments with actors and found that dramatizing a sad experience causes intense activity in the parts of the brain that process emotion.

This approach pleased the nuns, and so far six have agreed to participate in the experiments, which will take two years to complete. [...]

Sister Diane says she is certain that Dr. Beauregard will discover a biological basis for the Carmelites' spiritual experience, one she says is shared by all human beings. God equipped people with the brains they need for a spiritual life, she insists. "Our body has a spiritual component. To be a human being is to be a spiritual being. I'm convinced this will show in the results."

Sister Teresa seems less sure. "It will be up to God," she says.

Dr. Beauregard's certainty would appear to presume that the experience is totally internal, a perfectly sound position rationally but hardly objective scientifically.

---

PURITAN NATION:

More Teenagers Say No to Sex, but Experts Aren't Sure Why (LINDA VILLAROSA, December 23, 2003, NY Times)

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in its annual tally of birth statistics, announced that the teenage birthrate had declined 30 percent over 10 years to a historic low of 43 births per 1,000. African-American teenagers showed the sharpest declines, down more than 40 percent since 1991. For young black teenagers, from 15 to 17, the rate was half, to 40 births per 1,000 in 2002 from 83.6 per 1,000 in 1991 .

These declines, combined with a decrease in abortions among teenagers, points to a promising trend: fewer teenagers are becoming pregnant. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in women 15 to 19, the pregnancy rate dropped from 11.5 per 1,000 in 1991 to 8.5 in 1999, the latest year with available statistics.

"When you see the abortion rate decline in tandem with birthrate, this essentially means that teenagers are being more successful in avoiding pregnancy, both that end in abortion and end in birth," said David Landry, senior research associate at the institute. It estimates that in women 15 to 19, the abortion rate declined, from 40 per 1,000 in 1990 to 24 in 1999.

Experts in the field agree that educational efforts have been crucial to reducing the numbers.

"Since 1991, when teen birthrates peaked, there's been a tremendous amount of attention focused on preventing teen pregnancy, and it has paid off," said Stephanie Ventura, the chief of the reproductive statistics branch of the National Center for Health Statistics in Hyattsville, Md., who is a co-author of the new report. "Initiatives at the state and local levels, including school-based programs, church-run, private and community have been ongoing and have really caught teenagers' attention."

It's staggering sometimes just how much different we are than our fellow Western nations.

---

IS NAZISM WINNING TOO? (via Harry Eagar):

Why al-Qa’eda is winning: the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq serve as object lessons in how not to conduct an anti-terrorist campaign (Correlli Barnett, 12/13. 03, The Spectator)

[W]e have to clear our minds of moralising political cant and media clichés. Thus it is misleading to talk of a ‘war on terrorism’, let alone a ‘war on global terrorism’. ‘Terrorism’ is a phenomenon, just as is war in the conventional sense. But you cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy. It is therefore as meaningless to speak of ‘a war on terrorism’ as it would be to speak of a ‘war on war’. Today, then, America is combating not ‘terrorism’ but a specific terrorist network, al-Qa’eda.

Here's an interesting exercise, word swap:

[W]e have to clear our minds of moralising political cant and media clichés. Thus it is misleading to talk of a ‘war on [fasc]ism’, let alone a ‘war on global [fasc]ism’. ‘[Fasc]ism’ is a phenomenon, just as is war in the conventional sense. But you cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy. It is therefore as meaningless to speak of ‘a war on [fasc]ism’ as it would be to speak of a ‘war on war’. Today, then, America is combating not ‘[fasc]ism’ but a specific [fascist] network, the [Nazis, Italians, and Japanse].

or

[W]e have to clear our minds of moralising political cant and media clichés. Thus it is misleading to talk of a ‘war on [commun]ism’, let alone a ‘war on global [commun]ism’. ‘[Commun]ism’ is a phenomenon, just as is war in the conventional sense. But you cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy. It is therefore as meaningless to speak of ‘a war on [commun]ism’ as it would be to speak of a ‘war on war’. Today, then, America is combating not ‘[commun]ism’ but a specific [communist] network, the [Soviet Union and its allies].

in doing so we recognize that the original paragraph needs a word swap too, because the phenomenon in question isn't terrorism, but Islamicism:

[W]e have to clear our minds of moralising political cant and media clichés. Thus it is misleading to talk of a ‘war on terrorism’, let alone a ‘war on global terrorism’. ‘Terrorism’ is a phenomenon, just as is war in the conventional sense. But you cannot in logic wage war against a phenomenon, only against a specific enemy. It is therefore as meaningless to speak of ‘a war on terrorism’ as it would be to speak of a ‘war on war’. Today, then, America is combating not ‘terrorism’ but [Islamicism].

It's not apparent why you wouldn't fight Islamicism in exactly the same why you fought its fellow isms--National Socialsm and Communism--by destroying the countries where belief in the phenomenon exists--as in the case of Nazism and Italian and Japanese fascism--or by making the cost of clinging to the belief intolerable--as with Communism. Of course, such belief systems are so inherently flawed that there's no need to fight them--left alone they'll collapse on their own. But as human beings we like wars and in the wake of 9-11 we particularly want to wage this one.

---

DID SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT TOLERANCE AND DIALOGUE?

Church 'terminated' in same-sex battle: B.C. congregation defied bishop, would not marry gays (Michael Higgens, National Post, 23/12/03)

An Anglican church defying its bishop by refusing to support same-sex unions has been "terminated" only days before Christmas.

The decision by Bishop Michael Ingham to close Holy Cross in Abbotsford, B.C., is the latest action in a dispute that is threatening to split the Anglican church worldwide.

Despite the closure, the priest at Holy Cross, the Rev. James Wagner, vowed yesterday to celebrate mass on Christmas Day with parishioners.

"As far as the diocese is concerned we do not exist. We are a non-entity," Mr. Wagner said yesterday. "But I will not abandon these people. I will continue to pastor and pray for them in the midst of this crisis."

He said the decision by Bishop Ingham to close the church was a surprise because "it's so close to Christmas."...

Some conservatives are trying to juggle morality with pluralism by proposing the state establish and regulate civil unions and leave marriage to religion. Behind this fair-minded idea is the assumption that faith can be counted upon to preserve and guard tradition. That may prove naive in an era when many mainstream churches preach that the Kyoto accord was divinely crafted while the Ten Commandments are just helpful suggestions. The liberal impulse always starts with openness and compassion, and always ends with jackboots crushing dissent.

But perhaps it is just as well the bishop put them out of their misery quickly. If he hadn’t, some supreme court somewhere would have undoubtedly done so.

---

BRING ON THE FUNK:

Onward (un)Christian Soldiers: The time has come to fight back. (Matt Taibbi, NY Press)

Which brings us to Billy and Franklin Graham. These fifth-rate shysters, both close personal friends of the president, have spent decades engaged on a relentless quest to turn the United States into the world’s revenge on smart people. Not only are they succeeding–have succeeded–but no one is doing anything about it. When the Sleestack herd themselves into football stadiums to organize and engage in elaborate shows of public self-debasement, the rest of us sit around in our houses, chuckle to ourselves and say, "Man, that’s scary"–and then go right back to fucking up the Times Thursday crossword.

What we ought to be doing is asserting our Darwinian prerogative: saturate their habitats with lizard repellent, then laugh all the way to the bank as they scatter in all directions, hissing and gasping and bumping brainlessly into walls and each other in a doomed search for safe ground.

In any fight, you must meet force with force. Evangelism is naturally expansive. Atheism is defensive. That is why they are growing, and we’re sitting around like idiots watching as pious troglodytes occupy the White House and send us hurtling hundreds of years back in time, to the age of the Crusades.

If you believe in Natural Selection, aren't you forced (just by looking at Europe) to conclude that Nature has selected against atheism and (just by looking at America) in favor of evangelicalism?

MORE:
Hope Amid the Ruins: Anglican bishop in Sudan sees massive church growth. (Interview by Stan Guthrie, 12/18/2003, Christianity Today)

Sudan's Muslim north has been attempting to impose Islamic law on the country's Christian and animist south. Some 2 million people have died and more than 4 million have been displaced in the civil war, which began in 1983. However, both sides are negotiating a peace settlement that could be signed this month. Daniel Bul, 53, bishop of the Episcopal Church of Sudan for the Diocese of Renk, spoke with CT's associate news editor, Stan Guthrie.

What can you report about church growth in Sudan?

Well the church is growing, especially the Anglicans now. [The church had] over 500,000 [adherents] when the British left Sudan in 1955. The independence of Sudan came in 1956. The number of Sudanese priests was at that time about 5 or 6.

But the priests in the Sudan now for Anglicans are 3,500. And the number of Christians is 5 million Anglicans. And there is big growth going on in other churches like the Catholics, like the Presbyterians and Pentecostals. Other smaller churches are growing. The growth of the church is really tremendous. And we hope … in the southern Sudan … everybody is going to be a Christian.

---

58-42 NATION:

Poll shows Dean's growing strength against Democrats; and his vulnerability against Bush (WILL LESTER, December 22, 2003, Associated Press)

The ABC News-Washington Post poll found Dean, a former governor of Vermont, backed by 31 percent of Democrats and those who lean Democratic. All other candidates were in the single digits. [...]

When all respondents were asked who they would trust more with national security, 67 percent said Bush and 21 percent said Dean. When asked who they would trust more to handle domestic issues like Social Security, health care and education, they picked Bush by 50 percent to 39 percent.

In a head-to-head matchup, Bush led Dean by 55 percent to 37 percent.

A surprising number of people seem satisfied with another Vietnam and the worst economy since the Great Depression.

---

LET THEM BE THE LAB RATS (via Charles Murtaugh):

Biotech Ends and Means (Arnold Kling, 12/18/2003, Tech Central Station)

The Bioethics Council's report has been widely praised, at the symposium and elsewhere, for raising the critical issues and moving the debate forward. I do not see it that way. By concentrating on ends and ignoring means, the Council has ducked what I see as the most fundamental ethical issue of all, which is whether concerns over biotechnology scenarios warrant a worldwide totalitarian dictatorship. If, as I would argue, such a dictatorship would be more dystopian than any of the scenarios that technology might create, then the report is really a cop-out.

Some of the toughest issues in bioethics involve means as well as ends. Will we curb freedom at the level of research, the level of development and marketing, at the level of consumption, or at all three?

Under decentralized decision-making, we are going to continue in the direction of conscious genetic selection, new techniques for physical and mental enhancement, artificial mood creation, and greater health and longevity. We have been doing these things for thousands of years by cruder means, and we are not going to stop now in the absence of a complete social redesign. Such a social redesign strikes me as more frightening than the dangers that it proposes to avoid.

My guess is that people who live through the middle of this century will feel sharp pangs of sadness from the discontinuity that will develop between life as it is lived today and life as it is lived in future decades. This troubles me. However, as concerned as I am about where biotech is taking us, I would rather take my chances on muddling through those issues than endure the heavy-handed centralized control that I believe would be needed to slow the biotech revolution.

If I am wrong, and there are ways to alter the shape of the biotech future without destroying the freedom in our society, then the ideas for those alternative mechanisms should be brought to the fore. Instead, discussing ends without means is almost meaningless.

Mr. Kling never explains why we need a worldwide solution. After all, it's of little concern to us if others wish to degrade their cultures by making them not merely post-Christian but post-human--our concern is properly the quality of our culture. In fact, why should we despoil our own society if we can allow others to pursue the research, wait for the results, and then pick and choose among them those that don't trouble our consciences too much?

---

BLINK, BLINK, BLINK...

For Oil Contracts, Russia Will Waive Most of Iraq's $8 Billion Debt (ERIN E. ARVEDLUND, December 23, 2003, NY Times)

Russia has offered to forgive more than half of Iraq's $8 billion debt to Russia, officials of Iraq's interim government said here on Monday, after the Iraqis signaled that Russia would have the chance to revive oil contracts signed during the Saddam Hussein era.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the current president of the American-backed Iraqi Governing Council, said President Vladimir V. Putin proposed in talks with the Iraqis to wipe out 65 percent of Iraq's Soviet-era debts to Russia in return for favorable treatment of Russian oil and other companies.

"We received a generous promise to write off the debt, or at least a part of it," Mr. Hakim said after meeting with Mr. Putin in the Kremlin. In return, "we will be open to all Russian companies," he added.

"Russia said it is willing to consider the write-off of the rest of the debt if it received beneficial treatment in terms of oil contracts," added Jalal Talabani, a member of the Iraqi delegation.

---

SACRE BLEU, IT'S DARK IN HERE:

We were kept in the dark over deal with Libya, says France (Henry Samuel, 23/12/2003, Daily Telegraph)

"We were not kept informed," M de Villepin said. His disclosure underlined the continuing mistrust in relations between the English-speaking powers and France, which made much of its opposition to war in Iraq.

M de Villepin sought to gloss over the differences, describing the relationship as one of "extremely active and fertile co-operation".

His words contradicted those of Michele Alliot-Marie, defence minister, who claimed on Sunday that France was "perfectly informed of the negotiations" several months ago.

Bizarrely, Mme Alliot-Marie denied there was any discrepancy between the two accounts, suggesting the foreign ministry was not as involved as her department. [...]

Even the normally pro-government Le Figaro described the Libyan deal as a "semi-failure" for France, which has been against tough action against rogue states.

Annick Lepetit, the Socialist party spokesman, said it signified "the isolation of France and French diplomacy in an area where it is traditionally influential".

Semi?

---

MARY, QUITE CONTRARY:

-REVIEW: of GREEK GODS, HUMAN LIVES: What We Can Learn From Myths by Mary Lefkowitz (Oliver Taplin, NY Times Book Review)

Web rumor has it that ''Troy,'' Wolfgang Petersen's big-budget Hollywood version of the ''Iliad,'' will be godless. The screenwriter David Benioff has apparently decided to jettison Zeus and the whole Olympian apparatus. And he has a point, surely. How can you transplant that part awesome, part trivial extended family of self-centered hedonists into a realistic movie? Some may recall the gods in ''Clash of the Titans'': Laurence Olivier and a cluster of stars looked like World War I generals at a toga party as they petulantly shoved armies and fleets around a map of the world. Or suppose you turn the gods into eerie special effects: they would seem like extraterrestrial psychic forces from ''Star Trek.'' In our day the Greek gods make humans look like either pawns or robots.

Benioff is quoted as saying, ''The classicists are not going to like it.'' That is to turn classicists into a much more unanimous bunch than they are in reality. But there is at least one distinguished professor who will not like a godless ''Iliad'' at all -- Mary Lefkowitz of Wellesley College. Her thought-provoking new book, Greek Gods, Human Lives, is precisely an attempt to write the gods back into Greek myths. She maintains that modern accounts concentrate on the human dimension of these extraordinarily resilient tales, with a distorting playing down of the divine. Joseph Campbell -- whose highly influential hero (''The Hero With a Thousand Faces'') is presumably still waiting for the lights to change on the corner of 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue -- is perhaps her central target.

Considering how badly she brutalized her last target--Afrocentrism--perhaps it's for the best that Mr. Campbell has passed on.

MORE:
-EXCERPT: First Chapter of GREEK GODS, HUMAN LIVES: What We Can Learn From Myths by Mary Lefkowitz

---

RIGHT & GOOD (via Matt Scofield):

Tiananmen in London (Frederick Turner, 12/19/2003, Tech Central Station)

[L]et us take a look at history, especially the history of our most fundamental intuitions about the nature of law. Laws seem, as many philosophers have opined, to be based on one of two foundations: what is good, and what is right. Very roughly, the distinction can be found in the difference between our own two traditions, of Roman law, and English common law; further back, between the ancient Hebrew ritual law, and the code of Hammurabi. Legal experts will, I hope, forgive the many exceptions to these generalizations for their usefulness as an analytic tool of thought.

The distinction, even more generally, is between what is commanded of us by the gods or God (or, in later ages, by Humanity, by Nature, by Reason, or by Popular Will) on one hand; and what is required of us in the honest fulfillment of a contract, on the other. The former, which finds its Western origins in ancient Israel (and can be found also in the Confucian legal system of ancient China), sees law as a way to enforce the good -- the good as a transcendent endowment of human society that we can partly intuit, especially if we are talented, trained, learned, and morally upright. The latter, which can be identified roughly with the Hammurabic, Solonic, and English Common Law traditions, sees laws as the way to make sure the humble contracts that human beings make with each other have the support they need over and above the natural sanctions built into our families, our markets, and our practical agreed systems of mutual trust. The first emphasizes the good, the second, the right. [...]

Let it be said at once that this essay is not an attack on the law of good, nor simply a paean to the law of right. The laws of good apply still more strongly to the individual conscience as the secular enforcement of them diminishes. They apply also to the free institutions of civil society (protected from each other, as they must be, by the law of right). The absolute claims of the law of good that make it so dangerous when armed with secular power are precisely what generate the decent conduct without which a good society is impossible. If the enthusiasts of the religious right were to abjure any claim to govern by legal coercion the conscience of the citizen, I would be in agreement with almost the whole of their cultural program for our country.

But goodness is, in my view and that of almost all ethicists, essentially bound up with freedom. We cannot praise a coerced virtue, nor blame an enforced crime. The very core of morality, enjoined by God himself in almost all religions, is the spontaneous assent to divine grace. Paradoxically, to enforce the law of good is to destroy it. Paradoxically, the freedom to do evil -- as long as it does not violate the right -- is required for the freedom to do good. The law of right is at its center the law of freedom, and is thus, paradoxically again, the only thing for which one can rightly resort to coercion and war. All of this is not to say that the law of good must bottle itself up within the individual and the closed community, and render itself impotent. Instead it means that the law of good must win the world the hard way, by the noncoercive means of persuasion, gifts, and the marketplace -- must win the population one by one by one. And it can only do so under the wing of the law of right.

Certainly, the laws of right do not make a perfect world. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, the miraculous pricing mechanism praised by Mises and Hayek, that directs resources to where they are most needed, does indeed work, in the large statistical aggregate, when it is protected by the law of right. But it cannot deal with local tragedies, and it cannot by itself create the social and cultural capital that renders people capable of exercising political freedom in a responsible and objective way. And it cannot per se engender the marvelous overplus of heroism, sanctity, generosity and scientific and artistic integrity that society needs to advance. But neither can the law of good do so when enforced by coercion, for these things are free gifts and cannot of their nature be coerced.

This is all well and good in so far as the analysis is carried, but that's not quite far enough. For the order of the regimes matters--those states that transitioned from the law of the good to the law of the right were able to do so precisely because their citizens' consciences were so saturated in notions of what was and was not good. Additionally, the enforcement of the good, while no longer strictly enforced by the state, was deeply interwoven in the law of the right and the society (non-governmental institutions) was well-equipped and willing to use social pressures to fill the gaps. As the law of the right was coerced by the state, the law of the good was effectively coerced by society. A balance was attempted.

But it is the way of human affairs that such balancing acts are dicey things and the idea that the state should have no role in dictating the good easily deteriorates into the idea that society should have no role either and thence into the idea that there is no good and thence into the idea that such vestiges of the law of the good as remain in the law of the right must be torn out by the roots and so on and so forth until we reach the point where the state coerces those who seek to follow the law of the good to accept the anti-good or be punished themselves. The state, which began by making common cause with the good becomes its de facto enemy--arguably, its quite conscious enemy, because it can not tolerate any alternate source of authority and power.

Once this situation prevails the state must lose its legitimacy, or some considerable portion thereof, in the eyes those who seek the good. For example, whatever you may think of the laws themselves, it must be conceded that there is a considerable difference between the state saying that it will not seek to enforce sexual behavioral norms and the state saying that no other institution or individual may discriminate on the basis of departure from those norms. The former might arguably be said to be consistent with getting the state out of the business of coercing the good--the latter, inarguably, puts the state into the business of coercing a radically new version of the good and thereby brings us full circle. To this, the adherents of the good need not acquiesce.

MORE:
-The Best Introduction to the Mountains (Gene Wolfe, December 2001, INTERZONE magazine)

There is one very real sense in which the Dark Ages were the brightest of times, and it is this: that they were times of defined and definite duties and freedoms. The king might rule badly, but everyone agreed as to what good rule was. Not only every earl and baron but every carl and churl knew what an ideal king would say and do. The peasant might behave badly; but the peasant did not expect praise for it, even his own praise. These assertions can be quibbled over endlessly, of course; there are always exceptional persons and exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless they represent a broad truth about Christianized barbarian society as a whole, and arguments that focus on exceptions provide a picture that is fundamentally false, even when the instances on which they are based are real and honestly presented. At a time when few others knew this, and very few others understood its implications, J. R. R. Tolkien both knew and understood, and was able to express that understanding in art, and in time in great art.

That, I believe, was what drew me to him so strongly when I first encountered The Lord of the Rings. [...]

It is said with some truth that there is no progress without loss; and it is always said, by those who wish to destroy good things, that progress requires it. No great insight or experience of the world is necessary to see that such people really care nothing for progress. They wish to destroy for their profit, and they, being clever, try to persuade us that progress and change are synonymous.

They are not; and it is not just my own belief but a well-established scientific fact that most change is for the worse: any change increases entropy (unavailable energy). Therefore, any change that produces no net positive good is invariably harmful. Progress, then, does not consist of destroying good things in the mere hope that the things that will replace them will be better (they will not be) but in retaining good things while adding more. Here is a practical illustration. This paper is good and the forest is good as well. If the manufacture of this paper results in the destruction of the forest, the result will be a net loss. That is mere change; we have changed the forest into paper, a change that may benefit some clever men who own a paper mill but hurts the mass of Earth's people. If, on the other hand, we manufacture the paper without destroying the forest (harvesting mature trees and planting new ones) we all benefit. We engineers will tell you that there has been an increase in entropy just the same; but it is an increase that would take place anyway, and so does us no added harm. It is also a much smaller increase than would result from the destruction of the forest.

I have approached this scientifically because Tolkien's own approach was historical, and it is a mark of truth that the same truth can be approached by many roads. Philology led him to the study of the largely illiterate societies of Northern Europe between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the true Middle Ages (roughly AD 400 to 1000). There he found a quality -- let us call it Folk Law -- that has almost disappeared from his world and ours. It is the neighbour-love and settled customary goodness of the Shire. [...]

Earlier I asked what Tolkien did and how he came to do it; we have reached the point at which the first question can be answered. He uncovered a forgotten wisdom among the barbarian tribes who had proved (against all expectation) strong enough to overpower the glorious civilizations of Greece and Rome; and he had not only uncovered but understood it. He understood that their strength -- the irresistible strength that had smashed the legions -- had been the product of that wisdom, which has now been ebbing away bit by bit for a thousand years.

Having learned that, he created in Middle-earth a means of displaying it in the clearest and most favourable possible light. Its reintroduction would be small -- just three books among the overwhelming flood of books published every year -- but as large as he could make it; and he was very conscious (no man has been more conscious of it than he) that an entire forest might spring from a handful of seed. What he did, then, was to plant in my consciousness and yours the truth that society need not be as we see it around us.

-Debates about primacy of conscience show the need for truth and freedom (Andrew Hamilton, 30/10/2003, Online Opinion)

Conscience is usually identified with the process by which we make decisions about right and wrong. When we follow our conscience, we weigh the arguments and do what we recognise to be right. Conscience engages the hunger for truth and goodness that are the core of humanity.

When we speak of the primacy of conscience we imply it must take precedence over some other things. In spelling out where conscience has precedence, Archbishop Pell and his critics agree, for example, that conscience has primacy over the claim of the state to dictate the religious faith and practice of its citizens. Archbishop Pell explicitly acknowledges this in endorsing the Declaration of Vatican II on Religious Freedom, which insists that the search for religious truth is central to human beings, and that assent to it must be freely given.

They agree also that conscience has primacy over our convenience or our comfort. The stories of martyrs are remembered in order to show that human dignity never shines more brightly than when people brave threats to their life and security in following their conscience.

This common insistence on the importance of conscience is significant, because in Australian national life today religious freedom and the lonely conscientious voice need all the support they can find. When so many people find government policies and their execution morally repugnant, we need a moral framework that expects and honours conscientious dissent and the religious freedom of minorities.

If conscience has primacy over religious coercion and over comfort, the aphorism “conscience has no primacy; truth has primacy” needs to be qualified; for the commitment to religious freedom could be interpreted that a true faith must yield to conscience inspired by false beliefs.

It is not helpful to see truth and conscience as rivals for precedence. When placed within the play of conscience truth does have primacy. When we ask what we should do, we affirm the value of truth. When forming our conscience, we enquire about the truth. After we recognise the truth, we choose to follow it but remain open to changing our way of acting if what we believed to be true turns out to be false. So truth does have primacy within conscience over self-interest and arbitrary choice. Our decisions are well made when they follow our recognition of truth.

This helps address Archbishop Pell’s major concern: the relation between the conscience of Catholics and the church to which they give allegiance. The archbishop claims that in committing themselves to the Catholic Church it is unreasonable to accept that God’s guidance is given through church teaching and simultaneously to appeal to the primacy of conscience to dismiss that teaching.

He cites those who dismiss the teaching of the Catholic Church about doctrines like the divinity of Christ, about moral issues like contraception, and about pastoral regulations that forbid offering the Eucharist to non-Catholics or to the divorced. He also instances those who, on the basis of conscience, justify remaining in the church while working to overturn such authoritative church teaching as the prohibition of homosexual practice or euthanasia. This kind of appeal to conscience leads him to argue that the principle of the primacy of conscience should be publicly rejected. He claims that because Catholics recognise that truth is to be found within the teaching of the church, they should give precedence to that truth in forming their conscience.

The Archbishop’s argument depicts a church that has been corrupted by a culture hostile to faith. I respect his judgment, but do not recognise in it the Australian church with which I am familiar. Although there is a crisis of authority within the Catholic Church, as in society, I believe that it touches a relatively small area of faith and life, and has more to do with the style of formal teaching than with its content.

-Conservatism and Classical Liberalism: A Rapproachment (Sam Roggeveen, Winter 1999, Policy)

If [F.A.] Hayek (1992) had been right about conservatism I would not be one either. But there are good reasons to be conservative, and in this essay I will attempt to examine what it is classical liberals dislike about conservatism, ask whether or not such criticisms are justified, and see if a reconciliation is possible. I believe on many points it is, and that the work of the British philosopher [Michael] Oakeshott is a useful means to achieve it. First though, speaking as a conservative, and in a spirit of reconciliation, I offer a concession to classical liberalism.

My concession is this: the professed conservative disposition of aversion to change is in reality not confined to conservatives at all. Conservatives will often warn that change ought not to be embarked upon ‘for its own sake’, but when is this ever the case? It would surely constitute a certain form of mental illness to prefer change for its own sake rather than for the perceived benefits that this change is likely to bring (One interesting exception to this which Oakeshott himself identifies is the fashion industry. Here change is indeed indulged in for its own sake, to the extent that annual or even seasonal change has itself become a tradition. This raises the question of whether tradition and innovation are opposites, or whether innovation can become a tradition). This scepticism is something common to all people of right mind. The real difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives have not been infected with the spirit of improvement. They are much more content with what they have rather than constantly striving for something better.

The other difference is that liberals feel the need for reasons to retain a thing. A conservative is happy to keep this same thing unquestioningly, all the time with a vague feeling that the wisdom of the ages is in any case superior to his own, and that there is therefore little profit in questioning such matters. For liberals, the status quo needs to be defended just as change does - on rational grounds. Appeal to tradition (‘Because we have always done it this way.’) is to the liberal as impoverished and miserable a response as one could find, but is the source of great nourishment for the conservative.

Classical liberals also consider conservatives anti-individualist, or at least not individualist enough. As I hinted at above, the work of Michael Oakeshott could be said to provide a middle ground here, in that although he makes a strong case for individuality, he distinguishes this from individualism, the latter being a rather crude ideological construct which is to classical liberals what ‘traditionalism’ is to conservatives. For Oakeshott the emergence of the individual as a free moral agent is the defining event of modern history, but contrary to much French Enlightenment thought, which argued that the shackles of tradition needed to be thrown off for man to be truly free, he is at pains to point out that the individual can only flourish within an established framework of tradition.

Oakeshott can also help us to meet some of Hayek’s objections to conservatism, as at some points Hayek is too far off the mark on conservatism for reconciliation to be possible. In particular his depiction of conservatism as nationalist is wildly at odds with most conservative sentiment on the subject. A cursory reading of Burke’s views on European affairs (such as his Letters on a Regicide Peace, for instance, in which he describes a common European society) would have been enough to put Hayek right here. However the main point of departure for a conservative, particularly one familiar with Oakeshott, comes very much earlier in Hayek’s essay. In the opening paragraphs Hayek puts what he takes to be a ‘decisive objection’ to conservatism, namely that although it is useful in putting the brakes on change, it can itself offer no alternative to change. ‘It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments,’ he says, ‘but since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance.’ For a liberal, on the other hand, the pace of change is not as important as the direction of movement.

For an Oakeshottian the substance of this objection would meet with immediate and vigorous agreement, except of course that rather than seeing it as an objection they would count this seeming poverty of ideas as a strength of the conservative disposition. For Oakeshott there ought to be no single ‘direction of movement’, rather (and this should appeal to classical liberals), the state should be so constituted as to allow individuals to pursue their own purposes, with the role of the state being to simply allow this to occur as smoothly and peacefully as possible without imposing a higher purpose of its own. Oakeshott’s great enemy throughout his intellectual life was the Rationalist planner, the one who sought to impose an abstract blueprint on society without thought of historical or local circumstance. On the face of it Hayek would seem to be an obvious ally in this cause, but in a famous passage in his essay Rationalism in Politics, Oakeshott says of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom that ‘although a plan to resist all planning may be better than its opposite...it belongs to the same style of politics’.

Later Hayek restates his case against conservatism in slightly different terms, arguing that by its distrust of theory, conservatism deprives itself of weapons in the battle of ideas. A number of things strike the Oakeshottian about this line of argument. One concerns the use of the word ‘ideas’, by which Hayek presumably means ideologies. Oakeshott’s concern in much of his writing is that the world of ideas is in fact abused by the bogus assumption that better theory can lead to better practice. For Oakeshott the two are entirely separate realms, and the world of ideas is corrupted into ideology when one attempts to apply it to the ‘real world’. Another notable aspect of Hayek’s case is the imagery of ‘battle’, which tends to jar with one more used to Oakeshott’s metaphor of ‘conversation’. The rather beautiful image of civilisation defined as a conversation between all those (be they alive or dead) schooled in the ‘language’ of a particular discourse is one of the most appealing facets of Oakeshott’s thought. Whereas a ‘battle of ideas’ implies steadfast commitment, violent confrontation and eventual victory or defeat, Oakeshott’s conversation metaphor begets images of accommodation, compromise and inconclusiveness.

---

BIG ENOUGH MAESTROS:

Paul Wolfowitz: The godfather of the Iraq war (Mark Thompson, December 21, 2003, TIME)

As tag teams go, Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, could not be more unlikely. Rumsfeld is a Cook County, Ill., politician, while Wolfowitz would be more at home at the University of Chicago, where he earned his doctorate. That makes them the most interesting one-two combination this side of Bush-Cheney. If Rumsfeld is the face, mouth and strong right arm of the war in Iraq, Wolfowitz—the intellectual godfather of the war—is its heart and soul. Whereas Rumsfeld talks about Iraq like a technician, Wolfowitz sounds more like a prophet. Says a close associate of the deputy's: "Paul asks himself every day how he can limit suffering by toppling another dictator or by helping people to govern themselves."

Rumsfeld offered Wolfowitz his current post with an invitation to serve as his intellectual alter ego, a senior aide says. Their offices are a short walk apart along the Pentagon's E-Ring. Wolfowitz frequently slips down a back hallway, peers through a peephole into his boss's suite and, if Rumsfeld is alone, walks right in. "He's got great power of concentration," says Wolfowitz, "so you can open the door—it doesn't disturb him—until he pauses, and I ask, 'Can you take a minute?'" They talk half a dozen times a day, on matters small and large. Rumsfeld likes to chaff his deputy. "If there's a grammatical error in something I've written," Wolfowitz says, "he loves to correct it and say, 'And he has a Ph.D.!'"

Most Pentagons feature a top guy who's a big thinker and a No. 2 who's the day-to-day manager. Rummy and Wolfie (as the President calls them) have it reversed: Wolfowitz is more ideological than Rumsfeld, which has suited both men for different reasons. Wolfowitz often ventured way ahead of the rest of the Administration on foreign policy matters over the past two years, and Rumsfeld frequently let him go. That allowed Wolfowitz to push the whole Bush team to the right, which also let Rumsfeld align himself with that crowd when it served his purpose to do so. "Rumsfeld's a big-enough maestro to understand that Wolfowitz was the leading edge and that someone had to do it," a Pentagon associate says.

For whatever reason it's still not done too often, but when you analyze the extraordinary success of the Administration, the starting point should be the unequalled business/bureaucracy savvy that the folks at its top ranks--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Andy Card, Tommy Thompson, John Ashcroft, Christie Todd Whitman, etc.--brought to the job.

---

CHANGES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE TRADITION:

Democracy and the Enemies Of Freedom (Bernard Lewis, December 22, 2003, The Wall Street Journal)

The kind of dictatorship that exists in the Middle East today has to no small extent been the result of modernization, more specifically of European influence and example. This included the only European political model that really worked in the Middle East -- that of the one-party state, either in the Nazi or the communist version, which did not differ greatly from one another. In these systems, the party is not, as in the West, an organization for attracting votes and winning elections. It is part of the apparatus of government, particularly concerned with indoctrination and enforcement. The Baath Party has a double ancestry, both fascist and communist, and still represents both trends very well.

But beyond these there are older traditions, well represented in both the political literature and political experience of the Islamic Middle East: traditions of government under law, by consent, even by contract.

Changes in the spirit of these traditions would offer an opportunity to other versions of Islam besides the fanatical and intolerant creed of the terrorists. Though at present widely held and richly endowed, this version is far from representative of mainstream Islam through the centuries. The traditions of command and obedience are indeed deep-rooted, but there are other elements in Islamic tradition that could contribute to a more open and freer form of government: the rejection by the traditional jurists of despotic and arbitrary rule in favor of contract in the formation and consensus in the conduct of government; and their insistence that the mightiest of rulers, no less than the humblest of his servants, is bound by the law.

Another element is the acceptance, indeed, the requirement of tolerance, embodied in such dicta as the Quranic verse "there is no compulsion in religion," and the early tradition "diversity in my community is God's mercy." This is carried a step further in the Sufi ideal of dialogue between faiths in a common search for the fulfillment of shared aspirations. [...]

The study of Islamic history and of the vast and rich Islamic political literature encourages the belief that it may well be possible to develop democratic institutions -- not necessarily in our Western definition of that much misused term, but in one deriving from their own history and culture, and ensuring, in their way, limited government under law, consultation and openness, in a civilized and humane society. There is enough in the traditional culture of Islam on the one hand and the modern experience of the Muslim peoples on the other to provide the basis for an advance towards freedom in the true sense of that word.

The hard part of building democracy is creating traditions, but if we can change the spirit in which they consider their own, there's hope.

---

AND THEY THINK THEY SHOULD CONTROL JERUSALEM?:

Egypt's foreign minister attacked in Jerusalem (Harvey Morris, December 22 2003, Financial Times)

Ahmed Maher, the Egyptian foreign minister, was taken to an Israeli hospital on Monday night after being attacked by Palestinians during a visit to Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque. Eyewitnesses said he had been praying at Islam's third holiest site after holding talks with Ariel Sharon, prime minister.

He's lucky he wasn't attacked by Israelis.

---

WHERE'S THE JOY?:

Dictators R Us (Noam Chomsky, December 21, 2003, AlterNet)

All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.

At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that every single death Saddam Hussein is accused of was a function of US policy and our support for him. Okay, we came to our moral senses and now we've stopped him from killing anyone else. Wasn't that our responsibility, if the Chomskyian view is correct? Did he, therefore, support regime change? He says himself that we should be "overjoyed", so why isn't he?

---

A HANGING OFFENSE (via Kevin Patrick):

Gen. Wesley Clark (Hardball: Battle for the White House, Dec. 8, 2003)

MATTHEWS: First question, up top.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: General Clark, you’ve criticized Bush for his unilateral actions in dealing with Iraq.

CLARK: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: However, if you were in Bush’s shoes right now, what would you be doing differently to rebuild those international bridges you believe have been compromised?

CLARK: Well, if I were president right now, I would be doing things that George Bush can’t do right now, because he’s already compromised those international bridges. I would go to Europe and I would build a new Atlantic charter. I would say to the Europeans, you know, we’ve had our differences over the years, but we need you. The real foundation for peace and stability in the world is the transatlantic alliance. And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we’ll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have.

Not to put too fine a point on it but, that's treasonous.

---

SIT REP:

Two GIs Killed in Iraq; Ex-General Nabbed (AP, December 22, 2003)

[M]onday, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski paid an unannounced visit to the headquarters of Polish-led peacekeepers in Iraq, the PAP news agency reported.

Kwasniewski, accompanied by Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski and presidential defense aide Marek Siwiec, landed at the Camp Babylon Base on Monday afternoon, the Polish news agency said.

On Sunday night, U.S. troops detained ex-army Gen. Mumtaz al-Taji at a house in Baqouba, about 30 miles north of Baghdad.

"Tonight, we were on a mission to capture a former Iraqi intelligence service general who we believe is recruiting former military members of the Iraqi army to conduct attacks against U.S. forces," Maj. Paul Owen of the 588th Engineer Battalion told Associated Press Television News.

"He runs a very active cell in our sector, and hopefully, what we have done tonight is to stall some of his efforts," Owen said. [...]

Bremer said information gleaned from Saddam's capture has led to the arrests of insurgents like the ex-general.

"We have been arresting quite a number of his cronies and colleagues, including one last night," Bremer said. "We are getting some very useful opportunities in the last week or 10 days now to try to wrap up the leaders of the troops that are attacking our soldiers."

---

RACE TO THE BOTTOM:

On Familiar Ground, Kerry Labors to Win Over Voters (R. W. APPLE Jr., December 22, 2003, NY Times)

There is something plaintive, something almost wistful about Mr. Kerry these days, as if he finds it inconceivable that he is having so much trouble convincing his fellow New Englanders that he and not Dr. Dean has the experience needed for the presidency. Like Hubert H. Humphrey in 1968, Mr. Kerry seems astonished that though he paid his dues, the nomination may go to a man who has not done so, at least in his eyes. He hopes that he will prevail in the end, against expectations, as Mr. Humphrey did.

A Democrat elected lieutenant governor of Massachusetts in 1982, then to the Senate two years later, Mr. Kerry has been in the public eye for more than 20 years, and for that entire time his face has constantly been on Boston television stations, which are heavily watched here in populous southern New Hampshire.

Yet he is doing far worse in this state, where the primary is set for Jan. 27, than in Iowa, where caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 19, or so the polls say. One recent New Hampshire survey has him 25 percentage points behind Dr. Dean, another has him 29 points back and a third has him 30 points down.

The potentially good news for the Kerry camp has been a suggestion that Dr. Dean is starting to turn off some voters.

How hurt are you when the best news you have is that folks are starting to dislike your rival as much as they dislike you?

---

TWO STATES, NOT THREE:

Will Iraq survive the Iraqi resistance? (SPENGLER, 12/22/03, Asia Times)

If well-planned and executed strikes against coalition forces continue at November's pace, Washington's moment of triumph will fade into a crisis of policy.

"Crisis of policy" is the appropriate term, rather than "strategic crisis". This is not Vietnam, where the Vietnamese communists enjoyed the protection of a nuclear superpower. Iraq has no such friends. The concept of Iraq as such - a nation protected by a superpower - may be the eventual victim of the success of the Iraqi resistance. That would imply a revolution in American policy towards the Middle East. [...]

Angelo Codevilla began the article cited above with the following observation: "Iraq was not a good idea in the first place. American and British Wilsonians decided to recreate something like the Babylon empire: Sunni Mesopotamian Arabs from the Baghdad area would rule over vastly more numerous southern Shi'ite Arabs, and Arabophobe Kurds. Why the ruled should accept such an arrangement was never made clear." To frustrate the Iraqi resistance, eliminate Iraq itself, Codevilla implies.

That is the logical response of American policy to the unexpected success of Iraqi resistance. Plans have been floating about for years to create a separate Shi'ite state in the south, hand the west of Iraq over to the Hashemites of Jordan, maintain a semi-autonomous Kurdish zone and leave a rump state around Baghdad to become a killing zone for counterinsurgency.

Setting aside for the moment the question of whether those strikes have been effective, why should the Shi'a--who are more numerous even in Baghdad--cede the central region to their Sunni oppressors rather than get rid of them?

---

DAMAGE?:

Reagan's Legacy, Where 'Angels' Dares to Tread (Philip Kennicott, December 21, 2003, Washington Post)

Now come witnesses for the devil's advocate, to say uncomfortable things in the case of Ronald Reagan and the contest for how he will settle into the cultural memory. Even as those who hold up the 40th president as a political colossus the equivalent of Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt forge ahead with canonization -- there are efforts to name some piece of infrastructure for him in all of the nation's more than 3,000 counties, and to get his picture on the dime -- art is resistant. As two recent dramatizations of the Reagan years suggest, memories embedded in art remain raw even as the guns of partisan rancor turn to other targets.

Tony Kushner's