WE WON--THEY'RE US:

Missions Incredible: South Korea sends more missionaries than any country but the U.S. And it won't be long before it's number one (Rob Moll, 02/24/2006, Christianity Today)

Samuel Kang was God's improbable choice to be a leader in the world's fastest-growing missionary movement. Kang was born in Japan when the Japanese empire was forcing alien Shinto beliefs down Korean throats.

At the end of World War II, the Kang family returned to Korea and grew deeply fervent in their Christian faith. The Kangs dedicated Samuel to God, and they told him, "You will become a pastor."

Kang rebelled. "I did not want to accept my parents' dedication of me to God without my consent," he says. For years, he resisted God's call. But by the time he was 20, Samuel's heart softened, and he felt compelled to give himself to God. "No one can escape from his sovereign call," Kang says.

It took another 20 years of discipling and discernment before Kang set foot on a mission field. At age 39, Kang and his wife, Sarah (who had discovered her own call to missions work), left South Korea for Nigeria. When they departed in 1980, there were only 93 Korean missionaries worldwide.

During the next 11 years, Samuel and Sarah Kang raised a family, planted Nigerian churches, and started a Bible college for Nigerian pastors. Kang's eyes sparkle as he recalls his days in Africa. "The Lord gave me this wonderful opportunity to serve him," he says. "If God gives me another life, may I give it to him as a missionary."

Kang doesn't look backward very often. Now 64 years old, with silvery hair and a gentle smile, he is leading an ambitious 25-year plan to help South Korea send out more missionaries than any other country.

Kang is chief executive director of the Korean World Mission Association and dean of the Graduate School of World Mission at Seoul's influential Chongshin University. He has helped move South Korean missions into a place never before imagined: South Korea today sends out more missionaries than any other country except the United States. In terms of missionaries per congregation, Korea sends one missionary for every 4.2 congregations, which places it 11th in the world. (The U.S. does not rank in the top 10.)

But more than that, mission scholars agree that Koreans are a potent vanguard for an emerging missionary movement that is about to eclipse centuries of Western-dominated Protestant missions. They call it the "majority-world" mission movement. They say this new term—"majority world"—is necessary to replace the aging terms "third world" and "developing world." The radical change in Protestant missions is forcing scholars and missionaries to create new ways of talking about the global scene.

The global majority (5.2 billion people) live in less developed nations. Of the world's 6.4 billion people, less than 18 percent live in developed nations. Scholars say the church's future in large measure rests in the hands of the global majority.

"The day of Western missionary dominance is over, not because Western missionaries have died off," says Scott Moreau, chair of intercultural studies at Wheaton College (Illinois), "but because the rest of the world has caught the vision and is engaged and energized."

DIMMESVILLE:

'Let the prisoners pick the fruits' (AP, 3/31/06)

"I say let the prisoners pick the fruits," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, one of more than a dozen Republicans who took turns condemning a Senate bill that offers an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants an opportunity for citizenship.

"Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter 'A,'" said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, referring to a guest worker provision in the Senate measure.

AND MURKIER:

Insurgents Justify Release of Jill Carroll in Web Tape (ABC News, March 30, 2006)

ABC News has found a video on an insurgent Web site showing U.S. reporter Jill Carroll before she was released by her captors in Iraq. The circumstances surrounding the video are unclear and it is equally unclear whether Carroll was under duress during the taping.

The tape appears to have been made earlier today, before Carroll's captors released her, but the time of the taping has not yet been confirmed by ABC News. [...]

Voice: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush?

Carroll: (Laughs)Yeah, he needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong. He knows that it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home and he doesn't care about his own people.

He doesn't care about the people here in Iraq, he needs to wake up and the people of America need to wake up and tell that what he's done here is wrong and so hopefully this time he can get the message that this war was wrong and the continuing occupation is wrong adn he could change his policies. He's dangerous for Iraq. He's dangerous for America. He needs to accept that and admit that to people.

Voice: Do you think the Mujahedeen will win against the American Army?

Carroll: Oh definitely. Things are very clear to see even now they're already winning. Everyday there are soldiers killed. Everyday humvees are blown up. Helicopters are shot down from the skies. Everyday, it's very clear that the Mujahedeen have the skills and the ability and the desire and the good reasons to fight that'll make them ensure that they will win.

Voice: What do you feel now that the Mujahedeen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad (unclear)?

Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I've been here, treated very well, like a guest. I've been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don't want, I can't even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the Mujahedeen and Americans, the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that's why I'm free and alive. The American army they aren't [...not clear...] I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that Mujahedeen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can't be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.

SHUT YOUR EYES AND TRY TO IMAGINE A WORLD WHERE GEORGE BUSH LEAVES OFFICE BEFORE SADDAM...:

Bush Wanted War (Richard Cohen, March 30, 2006, Washington Post)

There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.

Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war.

MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could
handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know --
there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.

GORE: Well, when I got to be a part of the current administration, it was right after -- I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and I know there are allegations that they're too weak to do it, but that's what they said about the forces that were opposing Milosevic in Serbia, and you know, the policy of enforcing sanctions against Serbia has just resulted in a spectacular victory for democracy just in the past week, and it seems to me that having taken so long to see the sanctions work there, building upon the policy of containment that was successful over a much longer period of time against the former Soviet Union in the communist block, seems a little early to declare that we should give up on the sanctions. I know the governor's not necessarily saying that but, you know, all of these flights that have come in, all of them have been in accordance with the sanctions regime, I'm told, except for three where they notified, and they're trying to break out of the box, there's no question about it. I don't think they should be allowed to.

| Comments (6)

---

THE ONLY WORTHWILE LITERARY LAUREATE SINCE LAXNESS:

Nobel Laureate Rips Ernest Hemingway And Henry James (NY Sun, March 30, 2006)

The 2001 Nobel laureate for literature, Sir V.S. Naipaul, 73, has launched an extraordinary assault upon his fellow writers, including some literary giants Americans hold dear, the BBC reported. [...]

[S]ir V.S. saves the title "the worst writer in the world" for the seemingly innocuous Henry James.

MORE:
Naipaul targets literary icons (Hasan Suroor, 08/03/01, The Hindu)

On the eve of the publication of his new novel Half a Life, he has torn into E.M. Forster, Somerset Maugham, Charles Dickens and James Joyce besides lashing out at the doyen of 20th century economists John Maynard Keynes.

Even R.K. Narayan gets a gentle ticking-off for believing that India is ``eternal'' while the fact, according to Mr. Naipaul, is that it is ``a ruin.'' His most acerbic remarks however are targetted at Forster who, he says, wrote ``rubbish'' and had no idea of India.

In an interview in the latest issue of Literary Review, Mr. Naipaul attacks the author of A Passage to India both for his literary ``pretence'' and his homosexuality. Forster's sole interest in India, he suggests, was to ``seduce'' garden boys.

``He was somebody who didn't know Indian people. He just knew the (royal) court and a few middle-class Indians and the garden boys whom he wished to seduce,'' he tells the interviewer, Mr. Farrukh Dhondy.

A Passage to India, he declares, was ``utter rubbish'' and Forster's views on India's three religions were a mere ``pretence''. ``It's false. It's a pretence. It's utter rubbish,'' he says rubbishing Forster's sentimental impressions of India. He was simply a homosexual who had ``his time in India, exploiting poor people...'' And his friend Keynes was no better, Mr. Naipaul alleges.

``Keynes didn't exploit poor people; he exploited people in the university; he sodomised them and they were too frightened to do anything about it,'' he says accusing Forster and Keynes of setting their work against a background of ``mystery and lies''. [...]

Mr. Naipaul also ridiculed Maugham saying he was now ``part of the dust, part of the imperial dust''. And Dickens ``died from self-parody''.

As for Joyce and Ulysses, he didn't make sense. ``I can't read it...he is not interested in the world''.

IT'S A LIVING, JUST NOT ONE MY SON IS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE...:

Help Wanted as Immigration Faces Overhaul: Congress Considers New Rules, and Businesses Worry About Finding Workers (S. Mitra Kalita and Krissah Williams, March 27, 2006, Washington Post)

Year after year, Professional Grounds Inc. runs a help-wanted ad to find landscapers and groundskeepers. Starting wage: $7.74 per hour.

In a good year, three people call. Most years, no one does.

So the Springfield company relies on imported labor -- seasonal guest workers allowed to immigrate under the federal guest-worker program -- to keep itself running. For 10 months this year, 23 men from Mexico and Central America will spend their days mulching and mowing, seeding and sodding for Professional Grounds.

HE SURE LOOKS LIKE HE WAS JUST HAVING FUN:

WE'RE ALL PAYING THE PRICE FOR HIM BEING BEAT UP ALOT IN SCHOOL:

Tuning In to Anger on Immigration: Rep. Tancredo's Profile Grows With Push to Secure U.S. Borders (Shailagh Murray and T.R. Reid, March 31, 2006, Washington Post)

The first time Rep. Tom Tancredo got really angry about immigration, the year was 1975, and he was a junior high school social studies teacher in Denver. [....]

A year later, Tancredo launched a political career animated by his obsession to stem the tide of immigration from Mexico and Central America that he feared would change the character and security of the country. [...]

Tancredo is particularly riled at the business community, which he says has become "addicted to cheap labor." Employers are a driving force behind the guest-worker program and other Senate provisions that amount to "nearly universal amnesty" for the 12 million people currently living in the United States illegally, Tancredo says.

IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHY NO ONE BOTHERED FIXING THEM BEFORE KATRINA:

Levee Repair Costs Triple: New Orleans May Lack Full Protection (Peter Whoriskey and Spencer S. Hsu, March 31, 2006, Washington Post )

The Bush administration said yesterday that the cost of rebuilding New Orleans's levees to federal standards has nearly tripled to $10 billion and that there may not be enough money to fully protect the entire region.

Donald E. Powell, the administration's rebuilding coordinator, said some areas may be left without the protection of levees strong enough to meet requirements of the national flood insurance program. Those areas probably would face enormous obstacles in attracting home buyers and investors willing to build there.

HOW YA GONNA KEEP 'EM IN THE WELFARE LINE, ONCE THEY READ INSTAPUNDIT?:

Blacks Turn to Internet Highway, and Digital Divide Starts to Close (MICHEL MARRIOTT, 3/31/06, NY Times)

African-Americans are steadily gaining access to and ease with the Internet, signaling a remarkable closing of the "digital divide" that many experts had worried would be a crippling disadvantage in achieving success.

Civil rights leaders, educators and national policy makers warned for years that the Internet was bypassing blacks and some Hispanics as whites and Asian-Americans were rapidly increasing their use of it.

But the falling price of laptops, more computers in public schools and libraries and the newest generation of cellphones and hand-held devices that connect to the Internet have all contributed to closing the divide, Internet experts say.

Another powerful influence in attracting blacks and other minorities to the Internet has been the explosive evolution of the Internet itself, once mostly a tool used by researchers, which has become a cultural crossroad of work, play and social interaction.

Studies and mounting anecdotal evidence now suggest that blacks, even some of those at the lower end of the economic scale, are making significant gains.

REALITY IS A BITCH:

Tough task awaits Hamas finance chief (Roger Hearing, 3/31/06, BBC)

Dr Omar Abdel Razeq has the least enviable job in the new Palestinian government.

As minister of finance, this tall, bearded, 46-year-old US-educated economist is faced with squaring a nightmare circle of ever-growing debts and ever-diminishing income. [...]

His idea is that by dealing effectively with the corruption and incompetence that characterised the old Fatah administration and was so dramatically rejected by Palestinian voters last January, Hamas will eventually be able to win round the doubters in the international community.

"What they care about in the West is the way we handle public funds," he says.

Dr Razeq may be right in the end.

However, many in the West Bank and Gaza fear the economy has reached such a dire position that it cannot endure the loss of most international financial help while it waits for the west to make up its mind about Hamas.

HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE'S SPEAKING FRENCH?:

French job law 'constitutional' (BBC, 3/31/06)

France's top constitutional body has ruled that a youth employment law which has sparked weeks of protest is legal.

The Constitutional Council move clears the way for the bill to be signed into law by President Jacques Chirac.

His prime minister has championed the law - aimed at tackling high levels of youth unemployment.

Mr Chirac will be making one of the trickiest decision of his long political career, says the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris.

Mr Chirac is loath to lose Dominique de Villepin as Prime Minister - he remains his political son and chosen heir for the presidency, our correspondent says.

Intense speculation swirled around Chirac's intentions but parliamentary sources said they expected the president to announce he would sign the measure into law before explaining his decision on television at 1800 GMT (12 p.m. EST).

Aides told the Le Parisien newspaper the 73-year-old leader had opted to sign the law rather than lose conservative Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who is widely reported to have threatened to quit if Chirac backed down over the measure. [...]

Unions and students have vowed to continue their protests if the government presses on with the CPE, which aims to encourage firms to hire workers by allowing them to fire employees aged under 26 without stating a reason during a 2-year trial period.

"The president knows the trade unions' attitude. He knows the frustrations of many youths," opposition Socialist party leader Francois Hollande told RTL radio.

Making clear he thought Chirac would sign the law, he said: "Do you think the many students and workers who have been fighting against this text for months ... will understand the president's decision? Do you think that will be a factor of appeasement, a solution for the country?"

THE WAYWARD LAMB RETURNS TO THE FOLD:

PM, Bush mend fences (SUSAN DELACOURT, 3/31/06, Toronto Star)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is headed to Washington this spring to seal a growing friendship with President George W. Bush and to build on today's expected kick-start to resuming talks on the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute.

"The Prime Minister made an emphatic case for softwood lumber and I appreciate his steely resolve," Bush said yesterday, after sitting down privately with Harper at the "three amigos" summit with Mexican President Vicente Fox in the resort city of Cancun. [...]

During their talks yesterday afternoon, Bush invited Harper to Washington and Harper accepted, so now it's left to officials only to work out when it will happen.

It's not stated outright, but the two men are trying to correct what is widely viewed as the more toxic atmosphere that prevailed at the end of Paul Martin's tenure, and the anti-U.S. posture of much of the Liberal rhetoric in the recent election.

The U.S. decision to ignore a panel ruling in Canada's favour on softwood in the North American Free Trade Agreement had stirred much tough talk from Martin and his ministers, who said there could be no new negotiations until the U.S. demonstrated an embrace of the principles underlying trade between the two nations.

Harper noted that if talks can't be started, Canada would not hesitate to keep fighting through the more confrontational route of litigation.

Still, the bonhomie between Harper and Bush was evident yesterday in the many glowing ways the president talked about the new prime minister and the country. He spoke of Canada's commitment in Afghanistan and about the $500 billion in trade between the two countries.

"There's a lot of people in my country who respect Canada and have great relationships with Canadians and we intend to keep it that way," Bush said.

Harper was mutually admiring, saying there is great resolve in his government to work with the U.S. on issues such as building security and trade, and seeing where they can find common cause on the environment.

"Canada and the United States share very important common values — values like freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law," Harper said. "We may disagree how we get there, but that's the objective that we share."

MORE:
While the Canadian Left gets its own Third Way option,
Text of Ignatieff speech: The following is the full text of the speech titled "Canada and the World" delivered by Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff at the University of Ottawa on March 30, 2006 (Globe and Mail)

Ever since I entered Parliament in January, people have been asking me: Why have you gone into politics? As in: “ Are you nuts?”

No, I’m not nuts.

This is my country, after all.

As a child, I played in the barns of my uncle’s dairy farm in Richmond, Quebec; I swam off the rocks at my aunt’s place in Georgian Bay; when I was a young teacher out in British Columbia, I remember sailing up Howe Sound and watching the sun burn the mist off the ocean; as a father, I rocketed down the Kicking Horse River in a raft with my children; as a husband, I stood with my wife among the graves of the Hungarian pioneers — her people — who settled the country near Esterhazy, Saskatchewan.

This is my Canada. These are the memories that made me who I am. This is the river that runs through me, as it runs through you. This is the place that defined my political allegiances. This is the place I call home.

My father came off a boat in Montreal harbor in 1928, a refugee from Russia. He became an ambassador for his country. Canada made him who he was, and he repaid his debt with a life of public service.

Now it’s my turn.

My family taught me to think of Canadians as a serious people.

Steadfast, tough, courageous.

During World War II, my mother worked in London with the French Resistance. One of her closest friends was a young Canadian who parachuted into France in 1943 to fight fascism. His name was Frank Pickersgill. He was captured by the Nazis and died under torture in Buchenwald. He died so that other men and women could live in freedom.

At our best, we are that kind of people.

Today, we are concerned about our soldiers in Afghanistan. So we should be. But service in Afghanistan is in the best traditions of our people. From Vimy Ridge to Juneau Beach, from Rwanda to Bosnia, we have earned our place in the world of nations by service and sacrifice.

I’ve been to Afghanistan, once when the Taliban were in power and once since then. I’ve got
faith in the Afghans who are pushing their country out of the ditch. It’s good that Canadians are putting their shoulders to the wheel to help them.

Critics say I’ve been out of the country a long time. They seem to miss the years spent teaching at UBC, at the Banff Center for the Fine Arts, the documentary series I made for the CBC, the television shows I hosted for TV Ontario, the Massey Lectures I gave on CBC radio, the books and articles I’ve devoted to Canadian problems. I don’t feel I’ve been away at all.

But yes, I’ve also been a war reporter, human rights teacher, journalist and I’ve seen a lot of the world.

Sometimes you only see your country clearly from far away.

I saw it clearly in eastern Croatia in 1992. I had just crossed a UN check point and had been taken prisoner by a half a dozen armed men high on alcohol and ethnic nationalism. A young UN peacekeeper arrived, as I was being bundled away. He cocked his M-16 and said: ‘We’ll do this my way.’ And they did.

That young soldier was from Moncton, New Brunswick.

I saw my country clearly watching a policewoman escort frightened families to and fro across a mined no-man’s land in another part of Yugoslavia. When I asked her why she was doing dangerous work in a foreign country she said, with a smile: ‘It beats writing traffic tickets in Saskatoon.’

I saw my country clearly in the young Canadians who took my classes at Harvard. I saw how eager they were to test themselves against the best the world has to offer.

So this is my Canada and these are my Canadians. We are serious people.

I’ve tried to be a serious person. Being serious means sticking to your convictions. I went to Iraq in 1992 and saw what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia. I decided then and there that I’d stand with them whatever happened. I’ve stuck with them ever since. Whatever mistakes the Americans have made, one day Iraqis will create a decent society. When that day comes, Canadians should be there to help because their struggle is ours too.

I’ve always believed that Canada should fight for a world in which force is never used except in a just cause.

I’m proud that Lloyd Axworthy named me to the International Commission on Sovereignty and Intervention. It reported to Kofi Annan on the rules that ought to define when it is right to use force in international affairs. Our report said that countries like Canada have a "responsibility to protect" people when they are faced with genocidal massacre or ethnic cleansing.

Canada can only discharge this responsibility when the cause has the support of the people of Canada; when it has the support of the UN or a coalition of free peoples; and when the cause furthers international and Canadian security.

I’m in politics to speak up for a Canada that takes risks, that stands up for what’s right. A Canada that leads.

We are a serious people.

For a long time, however, we haven’t taken ourselves seriously enough.

We need to ask more of ourselves.

For the first time in history ,we now have a real claim to being able to solve problems that have dogged human life for millennia: hunger, disease and environmental destruction. We have the science. We have the money. What we lack is focus and determination.

Forty years ago, a Canadian Prime Minister set the standard for international citizenship at 0.7 percent of GDP in overseas aid to developing nations. Forty years later, we still have not met Mike Pearson’s targets.

The time for excuses is over. We need to fulfill our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals before 2015. We need to meet this target, but we need to do more. We need to focus development aid to those who can really use it. Let’s stop spending money supporting regimes that abuse their people. Let’s find development partners who govern in the interests of their people. Let’s remember that Canadians are the people of "peace, order and good government." The single thing the developing world needs most is good government. We should be the country that leads the world in governance, in helping governments in the developing world to govern more justly.

We need to bring the same leadership to the environment.

The old excuses—the science isn’t clear, action will undermine our economy, our problems are really our neighbors’ fault— are just excuses.

Let’s stop blaming others. Let’s get our own house in order.

We take pride in our support of Kyoto, but Canada’s performance on greenhouse gases is dismal, ranking 27th of the 29 OECD countries in per-capita emissions.

We possess vast amounts of the world’s water supply, but we are poor stewards of this vital asset.

So let’s get serious. Let’s move the environment from the margins of public policy to the centre. Let’s clean up our lakes and rivers. In my riding of Etobicoke Lakeshore, we take pride in the national treasure of Lake Ontario, but the water isn’t clean enough for kids to swim in. This isn’t good enough. We need a federal initiative to clean up the entire Great Lakes watershed from Lake Superior to the Grand Banks. Fairness to the generations of Canadians that follow us mandates a new approach. Let’s make the case for why environmental action is smart business.

Let’s follow Stephan Dion’s leadership and do what we have to, right away, to meet our Kyoto commitments.

Let’s be the very best in the world at making cleaner cars, cleaner trucks and world class public transportation system.

Let’s work with the provinces to invest in public transit and rail before our great cities are completely gridlocked.

The Canadian Arctic is a crucial piece of the global refrigeration system. This system is breaking down. The science is clear. Global warming is happening. Working with other nations in the Arctic Council, we must take leadership in stabilizing the global climate system.

In understanding Canada’s place in the world, we need to think of ourselves not just as defenders of our own sovereignty, but as stewards of the global commons.

From “the responsibility to protect” to “human security”, Canada has been a leader in putting good ideas into circulation and then getting them accepted into practice. Without us, there wouldn’t be an International Criminal Court, and without us, no Land Mines Ban.

But to lead with ideas, we have to know where we are. We leveraged our influence in the 20th Century by tying our fortunes to the United States.

But if the 20th Century belonged to the United States, it’s possible that the 21st will belong to China and India. Canada will have to adapt: reducing our economic dependence on the United States, increasing our trade with the new giants of the international system, working to create stability in a world where old forces are weakening, and new forces are rising.

The 21st Century will be convulsed by vast global flows of labour and capital. As a result, all societies are becoming multicultural. All societies are opening to the world. All societies are struggling with the challenge of maintaining stable and democratic political orders among peoples from different faiths, ethnicities and national origins.

Canada is uniquely placed to show the world how to do this better.

Since 1867 we have been demonstrating that three founding traditions — aboriginal, French and English — can share the land together and create a democratic system in which citizens are both free and equal, in which minorities receive the same respect as the majority.

It is not easy trying to maintain common bonds of citizenship in a nation split into five regions, two language groups, ten provinces and three territories.

This is a formidable task, but we have never succumbed to the demons of division.

We have survived two referenda on separation. We will win a third were it to be forced upon us. Sovereignists want to oblige Quebeckers to choose between parts of their very souls and to choose Canada or Quebec. Quebeckers have always refused this choice.

Quebeckers will remain Canadians because our country respects their right to be Quebeckers and Canadians, in whatever order they choose. Canada has never imposed a unitary patriotic creed on its citizens. We’ve built Canada on respect for the freedom that we enjoy — within the limits of the law — to decide what being Canadian means to each of us.

So Canada will prevail whatever separatists have in store. But that does not mean all is in order in the Canadian house.

Quebec did not give its assent to our constitution, and until it does so, our union remains on an uncertain foundation. We must create the conditions of goodwill that will enable us to build a constitutional foundation with the full-hearted assent of all the partners in our federation.

To create these conditions of goodwill, tomorrow , we need to practice the federalism of recognition and respect today.

The federal government must respect the legitimate jurisdictions of the provinces, the cities and the aboriginal orders of government. Federal authority should have the confidence to move beyond frantic displays of its relevance by constant intrusion into other partners’ jurisdictions. It should concentrate on being a competent manager of its own jurisdiction. Who can say, for example, that the federal government is a competent manager of its responsibilities towards aboriginal peoples?

Recognition means understanding that all provinces are not the same, but all are equal.

Quebec is entitled to practical recognition of the distinctiveness of its language, culture, civil law and its history. It is entitled to be master of its own house within the Canadian federation.

Quebec is also entitled to play its part in international negotiations where its provincial jurisdictions are involved.

But respect is a two-way street. All provinces should respect the legitimate jurisdiction of the federal government.

It is charged with the defense of the country, the protection of its borders , the development of national infrastructure and a national economic market, as well as safeguarding the rights of citizenship. That all Canadians hold in common. Without respect for these federal domains, we cannot have a country.

The federal government does not possess a monopoly in foreign affairs but it is appropriate for it to coordinate Canada’s external presence to work together with provinces to ensure that Canada speaks with one voice, even if the voice that speaks for Canada comes from a province.

Respect and recognition also imply clarity. Mr. Harper’s strategy of calculated ambiguity towards Quebec’s international aspirations is a dangerous game. Already Mr. Duceppe salutes Mr. Harper’s gambit on UNESCO as the first petit pas towards an independent foreign policy for Quebec.

This game has to stop.

In dialogue together, Canada and Quebec must demarcate who does what in international relations so that Quebec’s aspirations for a voice in international domains can be reconciled with the right of Canada to co-ordinate our nation’s presence in the world. If we display our jurisdictional quarrels to the world, we will reduce Canada’s standing , but Quebec’s too.

In promoting a politics of recognition and respect within the federation, we need to change the way we think about national unity. For too long, we have equated national unity with the challenge of Quebec.

If we remember the immense role that Quebeckers since Laurier have played in the making of our nation, if we recall the continual tradition of political innovation that has flowed from Quebec and inspired the rest of Canada, from the Quiet Revolution onwards, it is clear that Quebec has never been the Canadian problem. Quebeckers have always been part of the solution.

Today, we need to re-think the question of national unity. We are divided by much more than language. We are divided by race, religion, class and ethnicity. We are divided into town and country, rural and urban, eastern and western, northern and southern regions. As population concentrates in our cities, our regions and small towns feel left behind.

Canadians long to be more united. They know that we are more than 10 provinces and territories strung together like a string of beads along the 49th parallel.

Unity does not mean a domineering Ottawa. It does not mean a federalist steamroller. Instead of thinking that unity must require a domineering federal government, we need to understand that unity means a strong federation in which orders of government take responsibility, display
accountability, and respect each other’s domains.

We are far from that ideal.

Some provinces are running up huge surpluses while others are struggling to balance their books. This horizontal imbalance in the federation threatens to weaken Canada’s capacity to maintain roughly equal conditions of citizenship for each of our people, regardless of the province in which they live.

The right way to fix this is not to rob Peter to pay Paul, not to confiscate the wealth of rich provinces with new energy taxes, but to create a 10-province equalization standard that counts all of the fiscal capacity of the provinces and then uses federal tax dollars to equalize the condition of those provinces still behind.

There is also a vertical imbalance between a federal government that runs up surpluses, while several provinces struggle to fund their ever-rising costs in education and health care.

There is a right way and a wrong way to fix this problem. Permanent transfer of tax power to the provinces would damage the national unity of our country. Gutting Ottawa’s power to collect taxes won’t make the country stronger.

A federalism of respect and recognition points to another solution: just as we need to negotiate a 10-province standard for equalization, we need to negotiate a new 10-province standard for transfers to help provinces meet their spending needs in education and health. These need to be comprehensive, multi-year agreements between orders of government so that each can plan and budget and neither feels subject to blackmail on the one hand and lawless whim on the other.

Behind the issue of fiscal imbalance, we need to address a deeper question: what is the federal government for? What is its essential purpose in the federation?

I believe that the federal government has one core function: to maintain the national unity of our country by sustaining the indivisibility of Canadian citizenship. It is the only order of government with this specific task.

Equality of opportunity means that all Canadian citizens enjoy roughly comparable rights, responsibilities and services.

The chief threat to our country is the weakening of the bonds of common citizenship.

It is good for provinces to experiment with new ways to deliver health care and contain costs. But we have fought for 50 years so that health outcomes do not depend on income. We do not want them to depend on the accident of location either. Defending the basic principles of the Canada Health Act is vital to maintaining the equality of our citizenship.

The federal government is charged with maintaining a national economic space. Do we truly possess one if Quebec workers are barred from working in Ontario and vice versa? If professional credentials recognized in one province are turned down in another? If students from one jurisdiction have to pay more to study in another province? If there is not one national securities market but 10, with separate regulators for each?

We cannot promote equality of opportunity without a national strategy to improve our productivity and our capacity for innovation.

Such a strategy doesn’t mean more government intervention. Indeed it may mean less: cutting through red tape that hampers exporters; breaking down inter provincial barriers to the free movement of labour and capital; cutting back on the cozy rules that protect our banks, insurance and telecommunications companies from needed foreign competition.

A national productivity strategy implies a productive government: one that uses tax dollars frugally, that eliminates waste, that cuts taxes whenever it can be done without endangering common services.

Besides making government itself more productive, a national productivity strategy has to invest in infrastructure — to build the national gateways in Halifax and Vancouver for global export traffic and the national links to move goods, energy supplies, people and information in between.

A national productivity strategy invests in people. A productive future requires sustained, multigenerational investment by government, corporations and people themselves, in post-secondary education, science and technology research.

I have spent a lot of my life in higher education. When I was in the classroom, I always knew I was not just in the business of teaching a subject. I was teaching hope and self-belief, the key engines of productivity.

A national productivity strategy is an opportunity strategy.

We cannot be productive unless all Canadians participate.

Our society lives by the promise of opportunity equally distributed to all.

We know how far short we fall. Aboriginal Canadians, visible minorities new to our country, and the working poor lack opportunity, security and skills. We are wasting our seed corn.

The federal government has long been charged with providing income security for Canadians. We must take steps to enhance the equality of life chances for the working poor. Canadians working 35 hours a week earning minimum wage are making less than $15,000 a year. These hard-working Canadians are now under-represented in our income security regime. We need to make certain that our system provides the incentives for them to remain or return to the labour market, work hard, while removing the fear and insecurity that blights their potential.

Let us commit ourselves to a Canada where no one goes hungry at night, where no one is denied a world-class education because of their race or ancestry; where we bet the future of our country on the proposition that if we can unlock the hidden talent of every citizen, we will always pay our way in the world.

We cannot afford to waste the productive talents of new immigrants. If we fail to recognize credentials, if we fail to invest in language training and re-settlement assistance, we risk creating new citizens who feel betrayed by their Canadian home.

We need to recast our immigration policies as a crucial element of a national productivity strategy. The federal government should increase its investment in programs that re-train immigrants, that top up their credentials, that apprentice them in Canadian companies so that they can gain Canadian experience. If they can’t get recognition of their credentials in one province, the federal government should assist them to move to provinces that will recognize their skills.

In a globalized economy being open to new experience is the key to success, being provincial a sure way to be left behind. If you ask a representative group of young Canadians how many of them have actually lived outside their own province, studied in another jurisdiction or worked outside of their region, you would be dismayed by how few have done so.

We cannot be a country unless we know each other, unless we have lived with each other, unless a Canadian from Chicoutimi has been to Banff, and a citizen of Whitehorse has had the opportunity to study in Halifax.

Innovative federal policy has helped to deepen our national experience. The Canada Council, the CBC, the research councils in the social sciences and humanities have all helped to deepen and extend the networks of knowledge and connection that tie us together as Canadians.

An essential deepening of our common experience has been the promotion of bilingualism: increasing the numbers of English speaking children who grew up in French immersion, as well as the number of francophones who learn English in order to advance in the global economy.

But the federal government can do more to promote a national experience: by offering bursaries, internships and tax credits to help young Canadians to study and work in other provinces and to serve overseas in humanitarian and development work.

To build a country, we must create citizens, and to create citizens, we must create shared national experience. We need to make it easier for Canadians to get about their country and begin to feel a love for it in their bones.

My Canada is held together by a spine of citizenship, common rights, responsibilities and common knowledge so that we truly feel we are one people. This is not just an important priority of political leadership at the federal level. It is, in my view, the only priority.

This is a different view of Canada from the one offered by Stephen Harper. He stands for a decentralized, re-provincialized Canada, with growing differentials between the regions and provinces, with growing differences between rich and poor regions, and rich and poor individuals. It is a sauve qui peut Canada. His is also an idea of politics which sees government as the problem, when it is often the solution. When Canadians are presented with the choice between the slow provincialization of our country and a Liberal vision that seeks to use government to sustain the equality of our citizenship, I know how they will chose.

I believe in Canadians. I believe in you. As I said at the beginning, we are a serious people.

THE YEAR OF LIVING DEMOCRATICALLY:

Indonesia back on the world stage (Michael Vatikiotis, 3/30/06, Asia Times)

Welcome to the brave new world of Indonesian foreign policy. The international community has only just started to focus on Indonesia's successful democratic transition, the economy is only just recovering from nearly a decade of malaise and crisis, and the business community is waiting with genuine expectation for the government's "war on corruption" to be won. But President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is an impatient man - he wants Indonesia to make its mark on the world now.

"We are the fourth-most-populous nation in the world. We are home to the world's largest Muslim population. We are the world's third-largest democracy. We are also a country where democracy, Islam and modernity go hand in hand," Yudhoyono declared last May in his first major foreign-policy speech. "And our heart is always with the developing world, to which we belong. These are the things that define who we are and what we do in the community of nations."

In fact, what Yudhoyono aims to do is pretty ambitious. Bringing democracy to Myanmar comes high up the list. So, too, does helping Palestinians win their statehood from Israel. Then there is North Korea: the president wants to visit Pyongyang and has already sent an envoy to the hermit state to try to restart stalled security talks between the two Koreas. And if dealing with one end of the "axis of evil" isn't risky enough, Indonesia has also flagged its intention to help reconcile Iran with the West, exemplified by Wirajuda's visit to Tehran last month, and thereafter by at least two high-level visits by Iranian officials to Jakarta.

Talk to many Indonesians about Yudhoyono's foreign-policy objectives and they will argue that the country simply isn't ready to take on the world. There are too many priorities at home: sorting out the economy, combating corruption, resolving internal conflicts and curbing Islamic militancy, to name just a few. Realists and pragmatists such as former foreign minister Ali Alatas argue that Indonesia is weak and has no clout in the international community. "Who would listen?" Alatas asks, though he recently served as a special envoy to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Fortunately for Yudhoyono, the United States is listening. Indonesia's democratic and moderate Islamic credentials appeal to Washington, which is also on the lookout for a strategic counterbalance to China in the region.

"Your challenge now is to expand the peace, the opportunity and the freedom that we see in much of Southeast Asia to all of Southeast Asia," Rice said in a speech to an Indonesian international-relations forum during her mid-March visit to Jakarta. "The United States is eager to work with ASEAN through our new enhanced partnership, and we look to Indonesia ... to play a leadership role in Southeast Asia and in the dynamic changing East Asia."

GIVE THEM A FENCE TO PLAY WITH AND YOU CAN DISTRACT THEM FOR YEARS (via Pepys):

How the GOP can survive the immigration debate (Dick Morris, 3/.29/06, The Hill)

One must separately consider the three key elements of immigration reform under discussion: The border fence, the guest-worker program and the criminalization of illegal aliens and those who employ them.

The GOP base wants a fence. It is vital to the entire concept of whether or not we can control our borders. All efforts to beef up manpower on the border have failed to stem the daily flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. A fence is the only way to do it. By backing a fence and demonstrably taking control of our southern border, the Republican Party will appease the demands of its base.

But to prevent disaster among Latino voters, it must accompany the fence with a more liberal policy on guest workers and criminalization.

Simply put, the fence must have a gate that swings open for immigrants we want and need. To avoid permanently antagonizing our southern neighbors and to keep the labor supply on which so much of American business and prosperity depend, we need a guest-worker program.

The GOP base, happy with the fence, will probably go along with it. Whatever the Congress needs to do to differentiate the guest-worker program from amnesty it should do, but it must pass a generous guest-worker program. (If it is necessary for those here illegally to return to Mexico and reenter as registered and enrolled guest workers, to convince the right that a guest-worker program is not amnesty, so be it).

With a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, we will be slitting our own throats by denying our economy access to Mexican workers. We just need to make them legal, not illegal. With a border fence to enforce the difference, a guest-worker program will work politically.

OUGHTN'T THE THEOCRATS BE THE ISOLATIONIST, PROTECTIONIST, NATIVISTS?:

The Erring Republican Authority: Kevin Phillips is wrong about everything. Why is he taken so seriously? (Jacob Weisberg, March 29, 2006, , Slate)

Phillips' declinism relies on fatuous anti-market prejudices familiar from his earlier work: that a healthy economy must be based in manufacturing, that free trade and globalization impoverish us, that foreign ownership is treacherous, that industrial policy works, and that a robust financial sector means trouble.

The hostility to Wall Street implicit in the last notion is part and parcel of a condescending, aristo-populism that recalls Gore Vidal without the twinkle. In the Phillips worldview, plutocrats exploit the American proletariat, which supports the policies that keep it miserable out of false consciousness—the poor hicks actually believe Christ is coming to save them. But any potential Marxist rigor swiftly dissipates into a haze of Syriana—paranoia about the Bush dynasty and the CIA, Skull and Bones, the House of Saud, and the discredited October Surprise conspiracy. Have I mentioned that Phillips is an appalling writer? His prose is cliché-ridden, self-referential, maddeningly repetitive, and dull enough to kill weeds.

Once upon a time, Kevin Phillips crunched a lot of numbers to give shrewd, if cynical, political advice to Republicans about capitalizing on white fear of black people. Since switching sides, he has proposed various ways for the liberals to knock down the conservative majority he helped to build. Democrats would be wise to beware of geeks bearing such gifts.

DREAMING OF A BROWN CHRISTMAS:

Blair will be gone by Christmas, say friends (Toby Helm, 31/03/2006, Daily Telegraph)

Tony Blair is to announce his resignation by Christmas, members of his inner circle believe.

The Prime Minister's closest aides feel that, following a series of damaging rows over education and "sleaze", he will quit within nine months.

The disclosure comes as John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, agreed to try to broker an agreement between Mr Blair and back-bench MPs over the succession after being warned that uncertainty about the leadership is having a disastrous effect on Labour morale.

THE USUAL SUSPECTS:

US regains top ranking for technology (Frances Williams, March 28 2006, Financial Times)

The US has regained top position in the 2005 information technology rankings compiled by the World Economic Forum after slipping to fifth place in 2004.

Releasing its latest Global Information Technology Report, Geneva-based WEF said the US lead reflected its excellent physical infrastructure, a supportive market environment and high levels of business and government usage of the latest technologies.

Singapore, first in 2004, came second and Denmark third. Four Nordic countries – the others being Iceland, Finland and Sweden – are in the top 10 alongside Canada, Taiwan and Switzerland.

The UK, in 10th place, is the top-ranked of the European Union’s large economies, followed some way behind by Germany (17), France (22) and Italy (42).

SLUSH FUND BABY:

Reiner Quits First 5 Panel: The move comes amid accusations that the state commission founded by the producer was using tax money to aid his preschool initiative. (Dan Morain, March 30, 2006, LA Times)

Hollywood producer Rob Reiner resigned Wednesday as chairman of a state commission he founded seven years ago to aid children, amid accusations that the commission used tax money to boost his new political campaign.

SHRINKING THE TENT ISN'T WINNING:

G.O.P. Risking Hispanic Votes on Immigration (DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 3/30/06, NY Times)

Over the last three national elections, persistent appeals by Mr. Bush and other Republican leaders have helped double their party's share of the Hispanic vote, to more than 40 percent in 2004 from about 20 percent in 1996. As a result, Democrats can no longer rely on the country's 42 million Hispanic residents as a natural part of their base.

In a lunch meeting of Senate Republicans this week, Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, the only Hispanic Republican in the Senate, gave his colleagues a stern warning. "This is the first issue that, in my mind, has absolutely galvanized the Latino community in America like no other," Mr. Martinez said he told them.

The anger among Hispanics has continued even as the Senate Judiciary Committee proposed a bill this week that would allow illegal immigrants a way to become citizens. The backlash was aggravated, Mr. Martinez said in an interview, by a Republican plan to crack down on illegal immigrants that the House approved last year.

The outcome remains to be seen. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said on Wednesday that he recognized the need for a guest-worker program, opening the door to a possible compromise on fiercely debated immigration legislation.

Democrats see an opportunity to "show Hispanics who their real friends are," as Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, put it.

But the issue is a delicate matter for Democrats as well. Polls show large majorities of the public both support tighter borders as a matter of national security, and oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. Many working-class Democrats resent what they see as a continuing influx of cheap labor.

The stakes are enormous because Hispanics now account for one of every eight United States residents, and for about half the recent growth in the country's population. Although Hispanics cast just 6 percent of the votes in the 2004 elections, birth rates promise an imminent explosion in the number of eligible voters.

"There is a big demographic wave of Hispanic kids who are native born who will be turning 18 in even greater numbers over the next three, four and five election cycles," Roberto Suro, director of the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, said.

SOUL FOOD FOR CRACKERS (via Mike Daley):

Cook a beef brisket to calm the soul, ease tension (TOMMY C. SIMMONS, March 20, 2006, AP)

If you have had one of those weeks with problems at work, fatigue at home, too much traffic and family making demands, you need a big dose of comfort food. What better to calm the soul than a good beef brisket?

It's inexpensive, wholesome, versatile - and so delicious.

Beef brisket is a boneless cut of meat from the breast section, the underside of the cow's forequarter. A whole beef brisket weighs from 8 to 10 pounds, with each pound serving two to three people. [....]

Brisket Braised in Beer

4 slices bacon

One 3-pound brisket

Salt and pepper

3 thinly sliced onions

Four 12-ounce bottles of beer (not dark)

1 large, peeled rutabaga, cut into 1/2-inch pieces

6 carrots, cut crosswise into 1 1/2-inch pieces

6 potatoes, cut into 1-inch pieces

2 tablespoons unsalted butter, softened but not melted

2 tablespoons all-purpose flour

1/2 cup minced fresh parsley

Preheat oven to 350 F.

Cook bacon in a Dutch oven over medium heat, stirring, until crisp. Transfer to paper towels and drain. Crumble bacon. Pour off all but 2 tablespoons of fat from bacon.

Pat brisket dry and season with salt and pepper.

Heat the bacon fat over medium-high heat until it is hot but not smoking. Add the brisket to the Dutch oven and brown on all sides. Transfer brisket to a platter. Add onions to Dutch oven and saute until golden. Add bacon, brisket and beer. Bring beer to a boil. Cover and braise in oven for 2 hours. Stir in rutabaga, carrots and potatoes, and braise for 45 minutes more, or until vegetables are tender. Transfer brisket and vegetables to plate. Cover and keep warm.

Blend butter and flour and set aside. Bring braising liquid to a boil and reduce to about 3 cups. Gradually whisk in flour-butter mixture. Simmer for 3 minutes.

Slice brisket and put on plate with vegetables. Pour some sauce over dish. Sprinkle with parsley.

Makes 6 to 8 servings.

(Recipe from http://www.eHow.com)

The Carnival of Homeschooling (Henry and Janine Cate)

WORKING THE RIM:

Blair in Indonesia terror accord (BBC, 3/30/06)

Prime Minister Tony Blair has promised to work closely in the fight against terrorism with Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population.

Mr Blair was speaking after meeting President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono for an hour in the capital, Jakarta. [...]

After the meeting between the two heads of state, Mr Blair described Indonesia as a "crucial partner" in ensuring greater understanding of people of different faiths. [...]

Mr Blair's visit is the first by a British prime minister to Indonesia in two decades.

The country, which has a population of about 225 million, has developed close business ties with Britain and the US.

The BBC's correspondent in Jakarta, Tim Johnston, says Indonesia is increasingly being seen as a vital bridge between Western and Islamic nations.

THE UNSERIOUS ALTERNATIVE:

Democrats Detail Security Policy: Bin Laden, Iraq and Domestic Safety Identified as Midterm Issues (Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz, March 30, 2006, Washington Post)

Emboldened by President Bush's declining approval ratings, Democrats unveiled a national security platform yesterday for the midterm elections that stresses renewed focus on capturing Osama bin Laden, reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq and stepped up protection at home.

DID SHE HAVE A DENTIST'S APPOINTMENT SHE NEEDED TO GET TO?:

Journalist Jill Carroll Released in Iraq (Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer, 3/30/06, Washington Post )

American journalist Jill Carroll, abducted in early January by gunmen in Baghdad, was released to a Sunni Arab political party in the capital Thursday morning after 82 days in captivity.

"I was never hurt, ever hit," she told a Washington Post reporter. "I was kept in a safe place and treated very well."

Like Susanne Osthoff and Giuliana Sgrena.

MORE:
Questions About Carroll's Captivity (Howard Kurtz, March 31, 2006, Washington Post)

Reporters for big news organizations, after all, generally travel with security details, while Carroll is a 28-year-old freelancer who went to Baghdad on her own, became a stringer for the Christian Science Monitor and clearly was bent on understanding Iraqi culture.

This is a courageous young woman.

I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd. Carroll seemed bent on giving her captors a positive review, going on about how well they treated her, how they gave her food and let her go to the bathroom. And they never threatened to hit her. Of course, as we all saw in those chilling videos, they did threaten to kill her. And they shot her Iraqi translator to death.

Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?

Now perhaps this is unfair, for there is much we do not know. We don't know why Carroll was kidnapped and why she was abruptly released. She says she doesn't either, but surely she must have gotten some clues about her abductors' outlook and tactics during her 82-day captivity. Maybe she was just shell-shocked right after being let go. Maybe she won't feel comfortable speaking out until she's back on American soil.

As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious. And they tell me that Carroll did cry -- off camera -- when the subject of her murdered translator came up. Still, people are buzzing because her taped remarks have been played over and over again on television. I hope she'll be able to share a fuller account of her ordeal soon.

ABC News has found a video on an insurgent Web site showing U.S. reporter Jill Carroll before she was released by her captors in Iraq. The circumstances surrounding the video are unclear and it is equally unclear whether Carroll was under duress during the taping.

The tape appears to have been made earlier today, before Carroll's captors released her, but the time of the taping has not yet been confirmed by ABC News. [...]

Voice: Do you have a message for Mr. Bush?

Carroll: (Laughs)Yeah, he needs to stop this war. He knows this war is wrong. He knows that it was illegal from the very beginning. He knows that it was built on a mountain of lies and I think he needs to finally admit that to the American people and make the troops go home and he doesn't care about his own people.

He doesn't care about the people here in Iraq, he needs to wake up and the people of America need to wake up and tell that what he's done here is wrong and so hopefully this time he can get the message that this war was wrong and the continuing occupation is wrong adn he could change his policies. He's dangerous for Iraq. He's dangerous for America. He needs to accept that and admit that to people.

Voice: Do you think the Mujahedeen will win against the American Army?

Carroll: Oh definitely. Things are very clear to see even now they're already winning. Everyday there are soldiers killed. Everyday humvees are blown up. Helicopters are shot down from the skies. Everyday, it's very clear that the Mujahedeen have the skills and the ability and the desire and the good reasons to fight that'll make them ensure that they will win.

Voice: What do you feel now that the Mujahedeen are giving you your freedom while there are still women in Abu Ghraib living in very bad (unclear)?

Carroll: Well, I feel guilty honestly. I've been here, treated very well, like a guest. I've been given good food, never, never hurt while those women are in Abu Ghraib. Terrible things are happening to them with the American soldiers are torturing them and other things I don't want, I can't even say, so I feel guilty and I also feels it shows the difference between the Mujahedeen and Americans, the Mujahedeen are merciful and kind that's why I'm free and alive. The American army they aren't [...not clear...] I feel guilty and I also feel that it just shows that Mujahedeen are good people, fighting an honorable fight, a good fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very, very bad way so I can't be happy totally for my freedom, there are people still suffering in prisons and very difficult situations.

UPDATE:
Exclusive: Jill Carroll Middle Man Says Kidnappers Demanded $8 Million (ABC News, April 12, 2006)

The man behind Jill Carroll's release tells ABC News in an exclusive interview that kidnapping the American journalist was a mistake. Sheikh Sattam al-Gaaod reveals what it took to free her — and why he supports the resistance.

Al-Gaaod was one of three people specifically thanked by Carroll's family after her release.

"They are defending their country," he said in an interview at his summer house outside Amman, Jordan. "They are an honest resistance. And sometimes they do mistakes."

One mistake, he said, was kidnapping Carroll. Al-Gaaod said he used his influence to help free her... [...]

Al-Gaaod said he believes attacks on U.S. troops are justifiable because the Americans are occupiers, but he calls attacks on civilians criminal.

The editor of the Christian Science Monitor said today he was unaware of any ransom payment paid by anyone.

MORE:
Kidnapped Reporter Had Unlikely Friend (The Boston Channel, April 13, 2006)

We're learning more about the road to freedom for kidnapped reporter Jill Carroll, who was released two weeks ago.

It turns out the former hostage from Massachusetts had an unlikely friend behind enemy lines.

NewsCenter 5's Mary Saladna reported that there were three people Carroll's family specifically thanked for her safe return when she was released from her captors, one of them a sheik who was once one of Saddam Hussein's closest business associates. He says he's now one of the proud leaders of the Iraqi insurgents.

"They are defending their country and they are honest resistancy and sometimes they do mistakes," he said.

GETTING THE HANG OF THIS ANGLOSPHERE THING:

Tories cut Palestinian aid: Canada first to join Israeli-led boycott (MITCH POTTER AND GRAHAM FRASER, 3/30/06, Toronto Star)

A senior minister in the new Hamas government last night accused Canada of "double standards" for deciding to freeze funding for the Palestinian Authority.

Khaled Abu Arafa, who learned of Ottawa's decision just hours after he was sworn in as Palestinian Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, told the Toronto Star he was "dismayed by a ruling that doesn't give us a chance."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay announced yesterday Canada has cut off contact and funding to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority but will be maintaining its aid to Palestinians through non-governmental organizations and international agencies.

This means a suspension of $7.3 million in Canadian funding, almost one-third of the $25 million a year that Canada spends in aid in the West Bank and Gaza. Canada became the first nation aside from Israel to cut off financial assistance to the authority since Hamas won the legislative elections in January.

MacKay announced that because the Hamas-led government has not renounced violence, recognized Israel or accepted the "road map" for peace, Canada is responding by cutting aid.

JUST GIMME MINE:

McCabe folds on pensions (PETER MACMAHON, 3/30/06, The Scotsman)

MINISTERS are preparing to back down on public sector pension reform in the face of the threat of a new wave of strike action by local authority staff.

The Scottish Executive had previously insisted there could be no movement on plans to raise the age at which hundreds of thousands of public sector workers could retire without any financial penalty, from 60 to 65.

But just a day after 200,000 local government workers took nationwide industrial action over the issue, Tom McCabe, the finance minister, has signalled a change of heart.

ON THE MARCH:

President Discusses Democracy in Iraq with Freedom House (George W. Bush, Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., 3/29/06)

We meet at a time of war, but also at a moment of great hope. In our world, and due in part to our efforts, freedom is taking root in places where liberty was unimaginable a couple of years ago. Just 25 years ago, at the start of the 1980s, there were only 45 democracies on the face of the Earth. Today, Freedom House reports there are 122 democracies, and more people now live in liberty than ever before.

The advance of freedom is the story of our time, and we're seeing new chapters written before our eyes. Since the beginning of 2005, we've witnessed remarkable democratic changes across the globe. The people of Afghanistan have elected their first democratic parliament in more than a generation. The people of Lebanon have recovered their independence and chosen their leaders in free elections. The people of Kyrgyzstan have driven a corrupt regime from power and voted for democratic change. The people of Liberia have overcome decades of violence and are now led by the first woman elected as a head of state in any African nation. And the courageous people of Iraq have gone to the polls not once, not twice, but three times, choosing a transitional government, a democratic constitution, and a new government under that constitution.

Each of these countries still faces enormous challenges that will take patience and the support of the international community to overcome. Yet, Freedom House has declared the year 2005 was one of the most successful years for freedom since the Freedom House began measuring world freedom more than 30 years ago. From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut and beyond, freedom's tide is rising, and we should not rest, and we must not rest, until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation.

In our history, most democratic progress has come with the end of a war. After the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the collapse of communism in the Cold War, scores of nations cleared away the rubble of tyranny and laid the foundations of freedom and democracy.

Today, the situation is very different. Liberty is advancing not in a time of peace, but in the midst of a war, at a moment when a global movement of great brutality and ambition is fighting freedom's progress with all the hateful violence they can muster. In this new century, the advance of freedom is a vital element of our strategy to protect the American people, and to secure the peace for generations to come. We're fighting the terrorists across the world because we know that if America were not fighting this enemy in other lands, we'd be facing them here in our own land.

On September the 11th, 2001, we saw the violence and the hatred of a vicious enemy, and the future that they intend for us. That day I made a decision: America will not wait to be attacked again. We will confront this mortal danger. We will stay on the offensive. America will defend our freedom.

We're pursuing the terrorists on many battlefronts. Today, the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. This month I've given a series of speeches on recent events in Iraq and how we're adapting our approach to deal with the events on the ground. At George Washington University I reported on the progress we have made in training the Iraqi security forces, the growing number of Iraqi units that are taking the lead in the fight, the territory we're handing over to them, and the performance they turned in after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

Last week in Cleveland, I told the American people about the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, which was once a key base of operations for al Qaeda and is now a free city that gives us reason to hope for a free Iraq. I explained how the story of Tal Afar gives me confidence in our strategy, because in that city we see the outlines of the Iraq we've been fighting for, a free and secure people who are getting back on their feet, who are participating in government and civic life, and are becoming allies in the fight against the terrorists.

Today, I'm going to discuss the stakes in Iraq and our efforts to help the Iraqi people overcome past divisions and form a lasting democracy, and why it is vital to the security of the American people that we help them succeed.

In the wake of recent violence in Iraq, many Americans are asking legitimate questions: Why are Iraqis so divided? And did America cause the instability by removing Saddam Hussein from power? They ask, after three elections, why are the Iraqi people having such a hard time coming together? And can a country with so many divisions ever build a stable democracy? They ask why we can't bring our troops home now and let the Iraqis sort out their differences on their own.

These are fair questions, and today, I'll do my best to answer them. I'll discuss some of the reasons for the instability we're seeing in Iraq, why democracy is the only force that can overcome these divisions, why I believe the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in freedom and peace, and why the security of our nation depends on the success of a free Iraq.

Today, some Americans ask whether removing Saddam caused the divisions and instability we're now seeing. In fact, much of the animosity and violence we now see is the legacy of Saddam Hussein. He is a tyrant who exacerbated sectarian divisions to keep himself in power. Iraq is a nation with many ethnic and religious and sectarian and regional and tribal divisions. Before Saddam Hussein, Iraqis from different communities managed to live together. Even today, many Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shia branches. And in many small towns with mixed populations, there's often only one mosque where Sunni and Shia worship together. Intermarriage is also common with mixed families that include Arabs and Kurds and Sunnis and Shia and Turkmen, Assyrians, and Chaldeans.

To prevent these different groups from coming to challenge his regime, Saddam Hussein undertook a deliberate strategy of maintaining control by dividing the Iraqi people. He stayed on top by brutally repressing different Iraqi communities and pitting them one against the other. He forced hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of their homes using expulsion as a weapon to subdue and punish any group that resisted his rule. By displacing Iraqi communities and dividing the Iraqi people, he sought to establish himself as the only force that could hold the country together.

In Saddam's campaign of repression and division, no Iraqi group was spared. In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein unleashed a brutal ethnic cleansing operation against Kurds in northern Iraq. Kurdish towns and villages were destroyed. Tens of thousands of Kurds disappeared or were killed. In his effort to terrorize the Kurds into submission, Saddam dropped chemical weapons on scores of Kurdish villages. In one village alone, a town called Halabja, his regime killed thousands of innocent men and women and children, using mustard gas and nerve agents. Saddam also forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their homes, and then he moved Arabs into those homes and onto the properties of the people who were forced to leave. As a result of this strategy deep tensions persist to this day.

Saddam also waged a brutal campaign of suppression and genocide against the Shia in the south of Iraq. He targeted prominent Shia clerics for assassination. He destroyed Shia mosques and holy sites. He killed thousands of innocent men, women and children. He piled their bodies into mass graves. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Saddam brutally crushed a Shia uprising. Many Shia fled to the marshes of southern Iraq. They hid in the wetlands that could not be easily reached by Saddam's army.

The wetlands, by the way, were also home to the Marsh Arabs, an ancient civilization that traces its roots back 5,000 years. So Saddam destroyed the Marsh Arabs, and those who hid in the marshes, by draining the marshes where they lived. In less than a decade, the majority of these lush wetlands were turned into barren desert, and most of the Marsh Arabs were driven from their ancestral home. It is no wonder that deep divisions and scars exist in much of the Shia population.

Saddam also oppressed his fellow Sunnis. One of the great misperceptions about Iraq is that every Sunni enjoyed a privileged status under Saddam's regime. In truth, Saddam trusted few outside his family and his tribe. He installed his sons and his brothers and his cousins in key positions. Almost everyone was considered suspect, and often those suspicions led to brutal violence.

In one instance, Saddam's security services tortured to death a pilot from a prominent Sunni tribe, and then dumped his headless body in front of his family's house. It caused riots that he then brutally suppressed. In the mid-1990s, Saddam rounded up scores of prominent Sunni economists and lawyers and retired army officers and former government officials. Many were never heard from again.

It is hard to overstate the effects of Saddam's brutality on the Iraqi nation. Here's what one Marine recalls when he was on the streets of the Iraqi capital. He said, quote, "I had an Iraqi citizen come up to me. She opened her mouth and she had no tongue. She was pointing at the statue. There were people with no fingers waving at the statue of Saddam, telling us he tortured them. People were showing us scars on their back." Iraq is a nation that is physically and emotionally scarred by three decades of Saddam's tyranny, and these wounds will take time to heal. As one Marsh Arab put it, "Saddam did everything he could to kill us. You cannot recover from that right away."

These are the kinds of tensions Iraqis are dealing with today. They are the divisions that Saddam aggravated through deliberate policies of ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence. As one Middle East scholar has put it, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "a society slowly and systematically poisoned by political terror. The toxic atmosphere in today's Iraq bears witness to his terrible handiwork."

The argument that Iraq was stable under Saddam and that stability is now in danger because we removed him is wrong. While liberation has brought its own set of challenges, Saddam Hussein's removal from power was the necessary first step in restoring stability and freedom to the people of Iraq.

Today some Americans are asking why the Iraqi people are having such a hard time building a democracy. The reason is that the terrorists and former regime elements are exploiting the wounds inflicted under Saddam's tyranny. The enemies of a free Iraq are employing the same tactics Saddam used -- killing and terrorizing the Iraqi people in an effort to foment sectarian division.

For the Saddamists, provoking sectarian strife is business as usual. And we know from the terrorists' own words that they're using the same tactics with the goal of inciting a civil war. Two years ago, we intercepted a letter to Osama bin Laden from the terrorist Zarqawi, in which he explains his plan to stop the advance of democracy in Iraq. Zarqawi wrote: "If we succeed in dragging the Shia into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to waken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger. The only solution is for us to strike the religious and military and other cadres among the Shia with blow after blow."

The terrorists and Saddamists have been brutal in the pursuit of this strategy. They target innocent civilians; they blow up police officers; they attack mosques; and they commit other acts of horrific violence for the cameras. Their objective is to stop Iraq's democratic progress. They tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They tried to stop millions of Iraqis from voting in the January 2005 elections. They tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the October referendum on the constitution. And they tried to stop millions from voting in the December elections to form a government under that constitution.

And in each case, they failed. With every election, participation was larger and broader than the one that came before. And in December, almost 12 million people -- more than 75 percent of eligible voters -- defied the terrorists to cast their ballots. With their votes, the Iraqi people have spoken and made their intentions clear: They want to live in liberty and unity, and they're determined to chart their own destiny.

Now the elements of a free Iraq are trying to stop the -- the enemies of a free Iraq are trying to stop the formation of unity government. They've learned they cannot succeed by facing coalition and Iraqi forces on the battlefield, so they've taken their violence to a new level, by attacking one of Shia Islam's holiest sites. They blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra in the hope that this outrageous act would provoke the Shia masses into widespread reprisals which would provoke Sunnis to retaliate and drag the nation into a civil war.

Yet, despite massive provocations, Iraq has not descended into civil war. Most Iraqis have not turned to violence. The Iraqi security forces have not broken up into sectarian groups waging war against each other. Instead, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish soldiers stood together to protect religious sites, enforce a curfew, and restore civil order.

In recent weeks, these forces passed another important test when they successfully protected millions of Shia pilgrims who marched to the cities of Karbala and Najaf for an annual religious holiday. In 2004, the terrorists launched coordinated strikes against the pilgrims, killing scores of innocent worshipers. This year, the pilgrimage was largely peaceful, thanks to the courage and the unity of the Iraqi security forces. In the midst of today's sectarian tension, the ability of Iraqis to hold a peaceful gathering by millions of people is a hopeful sign for the future of Iraq.

In these last few weeks, we've also seen terrible acts of violence. The kidnapings and brutal executions and beheadings are very disturbing. There's no place in a free and democratic Iraq for armed groups operating outside the law. It's vital to the security of a free Iraq that the police are free of militia influence. And so we're working with Iraqi leaders to find and remove leaders from the national police who show evidence of loyalties to militias. We're partnering U.S. battalions with Iraqi national police to teach them about the role of a professional police force in a democratic society. We're making clear to Iraqi leaders that reining in the illegal militias must be a top priority of Iraq's new government when it takes office.

The violence we're seeing is showing the Iraqi leaders the danger of sectarian division, and underscoring the urgency of forming a national unity government. Today, Iraqi leaders from every major ethnic and religious community are working to construct the path forward. Our Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad, is helping Iraq's leaders reach out across political and religious and sectarian lines, so they can form a government that will earn the trust and the confidence of all Iraqis.

Putting aside differences to build a democracy that reflects the country's diversity is a difficult thing to do. It's even more difficult when enemies are working daily to stop your progress and divide your nation. Yet Iraqis are rising to the moment. They deserve enormous credit for their courage, and their determination to succeed.

Iraqi leaders are coming to grips with an important truth: The only practical way to overcome the divisions of three decades of tyranny is through democracy. Democracy is the only form of government where every person has a say in the governance of a country. It's the only form of government that will yield to a peaceful Middle East. So Iraqis are working to overcome past divisions and build a free society that protects the rights of all its citizens. They're undertaking this progress with just a year's experience in democratic politics.

Many of the institutions and traditions we take for granted here in America -- from party structures to centuries' experience with peaceful transitions of power -- are new to Iraq, so we should not be surprised if Iraqis make mistakes or face setbacks in their efforts to build a government that unites the Iraqi people.

We're beginning to see the signs of progress. Earlier this month, Iraqi leaders announced they had reached an agreement on the need to address critical issues such as de-Baathification in the operation of security ministries, and the distribution of oil revenues in the spirit of national unity. They agreed to form a new national security council that will improve coordination within the government on these and other difficult issues. This council will include representatives from all major political groups, as well as leaders from Iraq's executive, judicial and legislative branches. As a result of this council's considered advice, the Iraqi government that emerges will be more effective and more unified.

Another important sign of progress is that Saddam Hussein is now being called to account for his crimes by the free citizens of a free Iraq. Millions of Iraqis are seeing their independent judiciary in action. At the former dictator's trial, Iraqis recently saw something that's got to be truly amazing to them. When Saddam Hussein stood up and began to give a political speech, the presiding judge gaveled him down. Saddam growled at the judge, declaring, "I'm the head of state." The judge replied, "You used to be the head of the state. And now you're a defendant."

Three years ago any Iraqi who addressed Saddam in this way would have been killed on the spot. Now the former dictator is answering to a judge, instead of meting out arbitrary justice, and Iraqis are replacing the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.

Finally, some Americans are asking if it's time to pull out our troops and leave the Iraqis to settle their own differences. I know the work in Iraq is really difficult, but I strongly feel it's vital to the security of our country. The terrorists are killing and maiming and fighting desperately to stop the formation of a unity government because they understand what a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East means for them and their ideology. They know that when freedom sets root in Iraq, it will be a mortal blow to their aspirations to dominate the region and advance their hateful vision. So they're determined to stop the advance of a free Iraq, and we must be equally determined to stop them.

The irony is that the enemy seems to have a much clearer sense of what's at stake than some of the politicians here in Washington, D.C. One member of Congress who has proposed an immediate withdrawal of American forces in Iraq recently explained that what would happen after American forces pulled out was this: He said, "They'll fight each other, somebody will win, they'll settle it for themselves." While it might sound attractive to some, it would have disastrous consequences for American security. The Iraqi government is still in transition, and the Iraqi security forces are still gathering capacity. If we leave Iraq before they're capable of defending their own democracy, the terrorists will win. They will achieve their stated goal. This is what the terrorists have told us they want to achieve. They will turn Iraq into a safe haven. They will seek to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. They will use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East. They will use Iraq as a base from which to launch further attacks against the United States of America.

Mindful of recent history, I ask you to think about what happened in Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the United States helped Afghan freedom fighters drive the Soviet Red Army from Kabul, and once the Soviets withdrew, we decided our work was finished and left the Afghans to defend [sic] for themselves. Soon the terrorists moved in to fill the vacuum. They took over the country; they turned it into a safe haven from which they planned and launched the attacks of September the 11th.

If we leave Iraq before the job is done, the terrorists will move in and fill the vacuum, and they will use that failed state to bring murder and destruction to freedom-loving nations.

I know some in our country disagree with my decision to liberate Iraq. Whatever one thought about the decision to remove Saddam from power, I hope we should all agree that pulling our troops out prematurely would be a disaster. If we were to let the terrorists drive us out of Iraq, we would signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve and tighten their repressive grip. The global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever. For the security of our citizens and the peace of the world, we will not turn the future of Iraq over to the followers of a failed dictator, or to evil men like bin Laden and Zarqawi.

America will leave Iraq, but we will not retreat from Iraq. We will leave because Iraqi forces have gained in strength, not because America's will has weakened. We will complete the mission in Iraq because the security of the American people is linked to the success in Iraq.

We're pursuing a clear strategy for victory. Victory requires an integrated strategy: political, economic and security. These three elements depend on and reinforce one another. By working with Iraqi leaders to build the foundations of a strong democracy, we will ensure they have the popular support they need to defeat the terrorists. By going after the terrorists, coalition and Iraqi forces are creating the conditions that allow the Iraqi people to begin rebuilding their lives and their country. By helping Iraqis with economic reconstruction, we're giving every citizen a real stake in the success of a free Iraq. And as all this happens, the terrorists, those who offer nothing but death and destruction, are becoming isolated from the population.

I wish I could tell you the violence in Iraq is waning and that all the tough days in the struggle are behind us. They're not. There will be more tough fighting ahead with difficult days that test the patience and the resolve of our country. Yet, we can have faith in the final outcome because we've seen freedom overcome the darkness of tyranny and terror and secure the peace before. And in this century, freedom is going to prevail again.

In 1941, the year the Freedom House began its work, the future of freedom seemed bleak. There were about a dozen lonely democracies in the world. The Soviet Union was led by the tyrant Stalin who massacred millions. Hitler was leading Nazi Germany in a campaign to dominate Europe and eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. An imperial Japan launched a brutal surprise attack on America. Today, six decades later, the Soviet empire is no more; Germany and Japan are free nations, and they are allies in the cause of peace; and the majority of the world's governments are democracies.

There were doubters six decades ago who said that freedom could not prevail. History has proved them wrong. In this young century, the doubters are still with us; but so is the unstoppable power of freedom. In Afghanistan and Iraq and other nations, that power is replacing tyranny with hope, and no one should bet against it.

One of the greatest forces for freedom in the history of the world is the United States Armed Forces. In the past four-and-a-half years, our troops have liberated more people than at any time since World War II. Because of the men and women who wear our nation's uniform, 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan have tasted freedom, and their liberation has inspired millions more across the broader Middle East to believe that freedom is theirs, as well.

This is going to be freedom's century. Thank you for giving me a chance to come and visit with you. May God bless. (Applause.) [...]

Q Mr. President, I'm from the Public International Law and Policy Group. I'm also from Egypt and I aspire to one day go back there and join Egyptian politics. So my question is --

THE PRESIDENT: Go for President. (Laughter.)

Q I'm working on it, I'm working on it -- in 2017, everyone. (Laughter.) But my question is, would you support the regime of Gamal Mubarak if he takes over after President Mubarak?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a leading question. (Laughter.)

Q -- question.

THE PRESIDENT: No? That's a question I don't answer question. (Laughter.) I support a country which does not fear political movements, but is willing to compete with political movements. That's the kind of country I support.

There's a -- first of all, I appreciate the fact that there were elections in Egypt. That's positive. I think people in positions of responsibility like mine ought to say, if there seems to be a movement gaining ground on the streets, the question ought to be why; not how can we repress it, but what is taking place? What is it that's causing somebody to be in favor? What are they saying that I'm not saying, or what are they doing that I'm not doing?

Competition for ideas and the votes of people are very healthy in societies. As a matter of fact, it's one of the ways to defeat the terrorists. Terrorists feed on resentment. When people don't feel their voices are heard, they become resentful, and then they become eligible for recruitment. If people don't feel like they have a chance to express themselves and have the government listen to them, they're likely to turn to people -- the false prophets, people who subvert a great religion to play on people's frustrations and then use that false prophecy to kill.

And so I -- the answer to your question is, is that I support an openness in the political process. I think when -- I think Egypt is a -- has a chance to be one of the leaders of the freedom movement in the Middle East. I recognize that not everybody is going to embrace this concept of democracy and freedom as firmly as I'd like them to. But all of us have got to continue to advance progress.

One of the interesting debates we have about the freedom movement is whether or not institutions have to be right before there's elections. So in other words, kind of one of these interesting philosophical debates that's taking place. My answer -- you heard my answer -- my answer is, you got to have -- you can't wait for perfect, because it's an excuse for the status quo.

Elections start the process. They're not the end of the process. They're oftentimes the beginning of the process. And one of the reasons I respect the Freedom House is because you understand that you follow elections with institution-building and the creation of civil society. But for those who say, well, we can't have elections until everything is just right, or until we know the outcome of the elections, are those who provide excuse, in my judgment, for a foreign policy which in the past has said, it's okay, just so long as energy is priced okay; and okay so there's no ruffles on the -- the sea looks calm. My problem with that attitude is, beneath the surface, there's resentment and anger.

I'll also tell you another -- I'm not going to tell you your business in the Freedom House, but I think a movement that must be tapped into in order to advance freedom is the women's movement. I just -- there is something universal about the desire to be treated fairly and equally. And therefore, in societies in which women are not being treated fairly and equally provides great opportunities to advance the cause of freedom. We've got to be wise about how we do it in the United States. Sometimes the stamp of America obviously provides those who are trying to resist freedom, given them an excuse not to. I understand that. But it's -- there are great opportunities in the world.

The temptation in today's society is to say, it's not worth it. Or, certain people can't self-govern. It's really part of the debate in Iraq, isn't it, when you think about it -- is, can these people self-govern? And I can understand why some in America say they can't, because all they see is unbelievable violence. And we're a country of deep compassion. We care. One of the great things about America, one of the beauties of our country, is that when we see a young, innocent child blown up by an IED, we cry. We don't care what the child's religion may be, or where that child may live, we cry. It upsets us. The enemy knows that, and they're willing to -- they're willing to kill to shake our confidence. That's what they're trying to do.

They're not going to shake my confidence, I just want you to know. I understand their tactics and I know their designs. But I also believe that Iraqis can and want to self-govern. That's what I believe. And so when you see me make decisions, or make statements like I make, you've got to understand it's coming from a basic set of beliefs. That's what I believe. And that's what a decision-maker ought to do. The decision-maker ought to make decisions based upon deep-seeded beliefs. You don't need a President chasing polls and focus groups in order to make tough decisions. You need Presidents who make decisions based upon sound principle.

Now, people may not agree with the decisions; I understand that. But I hope after this talk, those of you who didn't agree at least know I'm making my decisions based on something I believe deep in my soul, and something that's worked in the past. Democracies have yielded the peace. I believe 30 years form now, people are going to look back at this moment and say, thank goodness a generation of Americans stood up and said, we have faith in democracy, faith in democracy to lay the foundation for peace, and an American President will be discussing issues of peace with duly-elected leaders in the Middle East, and our children will be better off for it.

And I want to tell you one anecdote now that you've got me wound up. (Laughter.) I sit down at the table with Prime Minister Koizumi. I tell this story all the time, because one of my jobs is to go out and explain to the American people the consequences of the decisions that I have made and why I think it's in our interests. Koizumi and I are not only good friends, but we're partners in peace. We talk about a variety of issues -- North Korea is an issue, we talk -- you know, he's got 1,000 troops in Iraq. Isn't that amazing, when you think about it? Because he understands the benefits of democracy in the broader Middle East. We're close friends.

Sixty years ago -- it seems like an eternity for a lot of people, I recognize that, but it's not that long ago -- my dad fought the Japanese, and so did your relatives. They were the sworn enemy of the United States of America. I find it an unbelievable part of history that I am now sitting down at the table with the Prime Minister of Japan talking about the peace, and my dad fought them. And so what happened? What happened was, Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy. That's what happened. And now they're peaceful. And they sit at the table with their former enemy. I think that's a lesson worth listening to and understanding.

But I bet you after World War II there were great doubters as to whether or not Harry Truman was doing the right thing to help Japan become a democracy. I see Stevens nodding, he was there. Weren't you? (Laughter.) Well, I wasn't. (Laughter.) But I'm reading a lot about it. And I believe it's a lesson for all of us in this -- in the 21st century. Spreading democracy is hard work. It's hard to overcome sectarian division and torture. It's hard to overcome that. But it's worth it, for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

A QUARTER OF THE WAY THERE:

States Have More Schools Falling Behind (Paul Basken, March 29, 2006, Bloomberg News)

More than a quarter of U.S. schools are failing under terms of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, according to preliminary state-by-state statistics reported to the U.S. Department of Education.

At least 24,470 U.S. public schools, or 27 percent of the national total, did not meet the federal requirement for "adequate yearly progress" in 2004-2005. The percentage of failing schools rose by one point from the previous school year. Under the 2002 law, schools that do not make sufficient academic progress face penalties including the eventual replacement of their administrators and teachers.

The results raise doubts about whether the law is working and its results are fairly calculated, said Michael Petrilli, vice president for policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington-based research group.

THE PRICE IS RIGHT:

Israelis vote for peace at their price (Con Coughlin, 30/03/2006, Daily Telegraph)

The true indicator of the desire for peace lies in the performance of Likud and Labour, which were once regarded as the traditional parties of government in Israel.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, conducted his campaign on a "no surrender" ticket - ie, that Israel would not undertake further unilateral withdrawals from Palestinian territory following last summer's forcible removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip. In his view - and that of his followers - the West Bank is part of Eretz Israel, the biblical land of Israel, and Jews have just as much right to live there as Arabs.

Amir Peretz, the Labour leader, while supporting the disengagement policy, favours a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, rather than simply abandoning them to the apartheid-style enclaves they inhabit in the West Bank.

The humiliating defeat inflicted on Likud, which won just 11 seats - its lowest share of the vote since the early 1970s - and Labour's surprisingly strong showing with 20, is indicative of the direction in which public opinion is moving. [...]

Arafat's refusal to accept Barak's offer, and his subsequent involvement in launching the second intifada, explains the radically different approach that has been taken, first by Sharon and more recently by Olmert, in seeking a permanent resolution of Israel's security needs. If the Palestinians are not interested in negotiating a peace settlement, the Israeli government will implement one with or without their involvement or approval.

Olmert indicated during the election campaign that he will apply this policy of unilateral withdrawal, which was unveiled during Israel's disengagement from Gaza last August, to the West Bank if the Palestinians are unwilling to participate in meaningful negotiations. This prospect appears more remote than before with the radical Palestinian Islamic group Hamas - which does not even recognise Israel's right to exist - yesterday forming the new Palestinian government.

In a ploy aimed at influencing the Israeli electorate, Ismael Haniya, Hamas's new Palestinian prime minister, declared on the eve of the poll that he was keen to enter a dialogue with the new Israeli government, and thereby avoid the bloodbath his organisation threatens will inevitably occur if Israel proceeds with its unilateralist agenda.

The problem for Haniya and the rest of the Palestinian leadership is that, from Israel's point of view, the negotiating parameters have changed dramatically in the past five years.

The 97 per cent of occupied Palestinian territory Barak offered Arafat is no longer on the table. When Olmert last week outlined his ambitious plan to establish permanent borders by 2010, he indicated that Israel was prepared to vacate only 84 per cent of Palestinian territory. The large Israeli suburban settlements, such as Ma'ale Adumim on the outskirts of Jerusalem, would remain under Israeli control, as would the strategically important Jordan valley.

Indeed, the proposed new border bears an uncanny resemblance to the nine-metre-high security fence (Palestinians call it the "apartheid fence") built by Sharon to isolate the main Palestinian population centres from Israel.

Olmert, like Sharon, does not seem to mind whether Israel's borders are established unilaterally, or through negotiations with the Palestinians - assuming the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority is actually committed [to] having a serious dialogue.

NOT AS MUCH AS THEY DESERVE FOR ADOPTING TRANSNATIONALISM:

Judicial activism or restraint? (Walter E. Williams, March 29, 2006, Creators Syndicate, Inc.)

Are federal, state and local justices appointed to office to impose their personal views on society or to interpret law? Is it a judge's duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and state constitutions in the cases of state and local judges, or is it their duty to uphold foreign law and United Nations treaties? Should what a judge sees as "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights govern court decisions, or the U.S. Constitution?

It was the former – not the U.S. Constitution – that determined last year's Roper v. Simmons decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the execution of a convicted murderer because he was 17 years old at the time of his offense. [...]

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker has little patience with his colleagues who use their office to impose their values instead of applying the written law, but he's in trouble for saying so. Judge Parker wrote an opinion article that was published in the Birmingham News on Jan. 1. It criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that banned executions for murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. [...]

Joel Sogol, former chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union's litigation committee, filed a complaint against Judge Parker with Alabama's Judicial Inquiry Commission. The complaint charges Parker with violating Alabama's judicial ethics standards when he publicly criticized his eight Supreme Court colleagues and the Roper v. Simmons U.S. Supreme Court decision. Sogol says that Judge Parker's criticism breeds contempt for the law.

Sogol has it wrong. It's the court's failure to meet its constitutional duties that breeds contempt for the law.

SPEAKING OF OSLO SYNDROME:

Audiences in Seoul face the music about North Korea (Donald Kirk, 3/30/06, The Christian Science Monitor)

Telling the world "what it is like" motivated the director, a North Korean refugee, to press on with the production in the face of funding problems and a government that remains extremely uncomfortable with criticism of its northern neighbor.

Officials called asking the show not to go on, says director Jung Sung San, who escaped to China after leaping from a truck carrying him to prison in 1994. He had been sentenced to 13 years in jail for listening to South Korean music. "We got anonymous calls telling us not to do it. We toned it down and revised it a lot."

"SORRY," BEATS THE HECK OUT OF A TORT CLAIM (via Raoul Ortega):

British Columbia bill would allow apologies without legal fallout (The Associated Press

Sorry may soon no longer be so hard to say in British Columbia.

The provincial government on Tuesday became the first in Canada to propose legislation that would allow people and organizations to apologize without risking liability for damages or other penalties. Under the measure, evidence of an apology would not be admissible in legal proceedings.

"There are times when an apology is very important and appropriate, but the legal implications have long been uncertain," provincial Attorney General Wallace T. Oppal said in the legislature.

"The Apology Act is designed to promote the early and mutually beneficial resolution of disputes by allowing parties to express honest regret or remorse," Oppal said.

WANT TO BEAT BERNIE SANDERS? MAKE HIM VOTE ON GUN LEGISLATION:

Legislature passes bill to expand when deadly force can be used (BOB JOHNSON, 3/29/06, Associated Press)

The Alabama House gave final passage Tuesday to legislation to expand the instances where a person can kill someone to protect a home or vehicle.

The House passed the legislation 82-9 after breaking a filibuster by some black legislators, who expressed concern it would cause people to be shot when they accidentally stray on someone's property.

The legislation now goes to Gov. Bob Riley. A spokesman for the governor, David Ford, said Riley has said he supports the bill.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY

Congresswoman McKinney Punches Police Officer (Drudgereport, 3/29/06)

MORE... Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a U.S. Capitol Police officer today after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector, HOTLINE reports... The entire incident is on tape. The cop is pressing charges and the USCP are waiting until Congress adjourns to arrest her, a source claims... Developing...

THE DUBAIANS WOULDN'T HAVE LET IT THROUGH:

Lapses in cargo screening uncovered: Undercover officers reveal the need for even tighter security, after sneaking 'dirty' bomb material into the US. (Alexandra Marks, 3/30/06, The Christian Science Monitor)

All it took were some forged documents to "smuggle" into the US enough nuclear material to make a "dirty" bomb - the kind that mixes radioactive material with conventional explosives to cause extra damage.

In a government sting, US investigators twice managed to slip the illicit materials across America's border, once at a point of entry from Canada and another time from Mexico. And that was after border agents in both instances detected the presence of the nuclear material, but were duped by Nuclear Regulatory Commission documents the investigators had faked.

THE ABERRATIONAL PARTY IS IN CONTROL NOW:

'The Last Helicopter': Mideast dictators try to "wait Bush out." They may be miscalculating. (AMIR TAHERI, March 29, 2006, Opinion Journal)

Hassan Abbasi has a dream--a helicopter doing an arabesque in cloudy skies to avoid being shot at from the ground. On board are the last of the "fleeing Americans," forced out of the Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam) by "the Army of Muhammad." Presented by his friends as "The Dr. Kissinger of Islam," Mr. Abbasi is "professor of strategy" at the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps University and, according to Tehran sources, the principal foreign policy voice in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration.

For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of "running away," leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.

To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U.S. could be narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter." It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the corpses of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.

According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration"....

PSSSST...YOU'RE OUR EMPLOYEES:

Judge Rules Teachers Have No Free Speech Rights in Class (Matthew Rothschild, March 24, 2006, The Progressive)

Here's an update on Deb Mayer, the teacher who said her contract was not renewed because she answered a student's question about whether she would participate in a demonstration for peace. [...]

On March 10, Judge Sarah Evans Barker dismissed Mayer’s case, granting summary judgment to the defendants.

The judge said the school district was within its rights to terminate Mayer because of various complaints it received from parents about her teaching performance.

But beyond that, Judge Barker ruled that “teachers, including Ms. Mayer, do not have a right under the First Amendment to express their opinions with their students during the instructional period.”

The judge ruled that “school officials are free to adopt regulations prohibiting classroom discussion of the war,” and that “the fact that Ms. Mayer’s January 10, 2003, comments were made prior to any prohibitions by school officials does not establish that she had a First Amendment right to make those comments in the first place.” The judge also implied that Mayer, by making her comments, was attempting to “arrogate control of the curricula.”

And the judge gave enormous leeway to school districts to limit teachers’ speech in the classroom.

“Whatever the school board adopts as policy regarding what teachers are permitted to express in terms of their opinions on current events during the instructional period, that policy controls, and there is no First Amendment right permitting teachers to do otherwise,” Judge Barker wrote.

COROLLARY TO BURKE (via Gene Brown):

Peace isn't made when real wrongdoing goes ignored (Jonathan Gurwitz, 03/29/2006, San Antonio Express-News)

"The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics."
-Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos-Horta, writing in the Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2004

A peace laureate acting as an advocate for war might seem odd. Odd, unless you understand that war is not the worst evil known to mankind. And odd, unless you understand that the absence of war is far from being the same thing as peace.

"Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate," Ramos-Horta wrote. "It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad."

I recalled Ramos-Horta's powerful essay while reading the piddling statement from Christian Peacemaker Teams after coalition forces stormed a house on the outskirts of Baghdad and freed three of the organization's members.

BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S:

Enough with the globo-gab: Transnationalism may be on the way out -- and not a moment too soon
(MARK STEYN, 3/27/06, Maclean's)

In Redefining Sovereignty, Orrin C. Judd brings together a splendid collection of essays on the tension between national sovereignty and the new transnational entities. Full disclosure: there's an approving quote from me on the front of the book, but other than that I have no stake in its success or failure; don't know Mr. Judd, nor most of his stellar contributors, from Václav Havel and Jesse Helms to Francis Fukuyama and Kofi Annan. The token Canadian is a good choice: David Warren, represented by a fine essay yoking Bush's approach to Islamism with Lincoln's to the Civil War -- liberating the Middle East is not the point of the exercise, any more than liberating the slaves was. But in both cases it was necessary to fulfill the strategic objectives of saving the Union a century and a half ago, and of saving the nation-state system today. As another contributor, Lee Harris, puts it, "The liberal world system has collapsed internally." He means that there are no longer, in Kant's phrase, "maxims of prudence." That's to say, we don't know the limits of behaviour. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map, we cannot reliably assure ourselves (though many foolish experts do) that this is just a bit of rhetorical red meat, a little playing to the gallery for the Saturday-night jihad crowd.

The transnational gabfests aren't much use in this new world. The Kyoto treaty is, in that sense, the quintessential expression of the higher multilateralism: the point of Kyoto is not to do anything about "climate change," but to give the impression of doing something about it, at great expense. If climate change is a pressing issue and if the global economy is responsible -- two pretty big "ifs" -- then Kyoto expends enormous (diplomatic) energy and (fiscal) resources doing nothing about it: even if those who signed on to it actually complied with it instead of just pretending to, all that would happen is that by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07 degrees -- an amount that's statistically undetectable within annual climate variation.

That's fine for "climate change," which, insofar as there is an imminent threat, is a good half-millennium away. As Kofi Annan, the bespoke embodiment of transnationalism's polite fictions, says, "There is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations." Which is swell if your priority is "legitimacy." That and a dime'll get you a cup of coffee -- unless the tsunami hits and sweeps the lunch counter out to sea. Yet these days, even with natural disasters, the international order divides -- like Bagehot's view of the British constitution -- into its "dignified" and "efficient" halves. The efficient humanitarians -- the Pentagon and the Royal Australian Navy -- have boots on the ground in Indonesia and Sri Lanka within hours, rescuing people, feeding them, housing them. The dignified humanitarians -- the UN's 24/7 permanent humanitarian bureaucracy -- are back in New York holding press conferences to announce they'll be sending a top-level situation-assessment team to the general vicinity to conduct a situation assessment of the situation just as soon as the USAF emergency team has flown in and restored room service to the five-star hotel.

Kofi Annan referred to the UN's "unique legitimacy," and he's right about the "unique" part. The transnational system, in insisting that the foreign minister of Syria is no different from the foreign minister of Denmark, confers a wholly unmerited legitimacy on the planet's gangster states. In Redefining Sovereignty, Roger Scruton wonders of Saddam "how it is that a petty tyrant could have defied the world for so long." But, if "the world" is represented by the UN's "unique legitimacy," you don't have to defy it, you just have to strike a deal -- in this case, the Oil-for-Food program, that Hydra-headed racket under which, among other fascinating codicils and appendices, a million greenbacks from Saddam got funnelled via his Korean chum Tongsun Park into a Canadian petroleum company run by the son of the quintessential transnational Canadian Maurice Strong -- Mister Kyoto himself.

Based on current trends, by mid-century, America, India and China will each be producing roughly 25 per cent of world GDP, with Europe down to 10 per cent. As the columnist John O'Sullivan points out, the three global powerhouses are all strongly attached to traditional notions of national sovereignty, so Europeans and others who've bet on transnationalism have the next 10 years to cement its existing institutions and expand its reach.

STILL THE GREATEST:

Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus Play Madison Square Garden (EDWARD ROTHSTEIN, 3/29/06, NY Times)

It takes a peculiar sort of ambition to want to catch a 70-pound cannonball being propelled at your rib cage at 75 miles an hour. Or to teach three Doberman pinschers to dance on their hind legs. Or to lower yourself under the belly of a horse as it gallops around a ring. Or to ride a motorcycle at 50 miles an hour, circling inside a 16-foot-diameter sphere, four inches away from six other racing cyclists.

Maybe it even takes a peculiar sort of ambition to want to watch these things. But watching — which can be done now at Madison Square Garden at the 136th edition of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus — is also peculiarly satisfying and entertaining.

YA PAYS YOUR MONEY AND YA MAKES YOUR CHOICES (via The Mother Judd):

Taking on the teachers unions (Frederick M. Hess and Martin R. West, March 29, 2006, Boston Globe)

IT IS RARE -- and risky -- for a governor and national political aspirant to put the interests of children above those of a constituency that has as much electoral clout as the teachers unions. Yet Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has done just that with the education reform package he proposed last September and is touting nationwide.

The governor's bill seeks to upend the status quo in teacher pay and evaluation that has been written into collective bargaining agreements across the Commonwealth. Specifically, it would offer annual bonuses for teachers with a math or science degree who pass the teacher test in their subject, forgo tenure, and receive a satisfactory year-end evaluation. It would also make teachers in all subjects eligible for a bonus upon receiving an exemplary evaluation and empower superintendents to reward teachers who work in low-performing schools. Crucially, the bill would remove teacher evaluation from the collective bargaining process and establish statewide criteria for assessing each teacher's ''contribution to student learning."

While several states and districts nationwide are experimenting with differential pay for teachers, Romney's proposals are noteworthy for their breadth and the size of the proposed bonuses. All told, an effective math or science teacher could receive up to $15,000 a year in three bonuses.

Catherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, predictably criticized Romney's proposals as ''inequitable, divisive, and ineffective."

ALL ABOUT FORCING THE CONTRADICTIONS:

Driver charged in I-277 crash that killed fetus (Michael O'Malley, March 29, 2006, Cleveland
Plain Dealer)

An Akron man who police say was driving drunk at high speeds has been charged with homicide in a one-car crash that paralyzed his pregnant teenage girlfriend and killed the fetus she was carrying.

ALL THAT TIME WASTED ON MATH & READING...:

Cleveland schools struggle with 'No Child' law's rules (Ellen Jan Kleinerman, March 29, 2006, Cleveland Plain Dealer)

Test scores in math and reading rose under the No Child Left Behind law in Cleveland and in districts nationwide, according to a new study, but there was a price.

About 70 percent of the 299 districts in the survey cut back on instruction in at least one other subject to make more time for reading and math - the two areas monitored under the law, said Jack Jennings, CEO of the Center for Education Policy, a Washington, D.C., research group.

YOU'D HAVE TO BE EUROPEAN TO WRITE THAT HEADLINE:

Violence Mars French Strike (Stefan Simons, 3/29/06, Der Spiegel)

NOW THEY FACE THE REAL ENEMY:

Choosing Divorce over Peace ( Pierre Heumann, 3/29/06, Der Spiegel)

Ehud Olmert's election victory shows that Israel is turning inward: voters want their government to focus on fighting poverty inside Israel rather than pursuing a peace process they have lost faith in. Israelis have accepted a plan to separate themselves from the Palestinians with a security barrier and a final redrawing of the border.

The Israelis are demanding a change in politics -- center-left instead of center-right, inward rather than outward-looking. They paved the way for that change in Tuesday's parliamentary election. Parties pledging a withdrawal from the West Bank got the most support. Voters hope the pullout will free up the energy and the resources needed to solve the country's problems. [...]

The election sprung unpleasant surprises on a number of politicians. Olmert may have won but his support was considerably weaker than opinion polls had indicated. The Labor Party fared better than expected, and Olmert will now have to come to an arrangement with Amir Peretz, the former trade union leader who now leads the party.

MOVABLE TYPE SPARKS ANOTHER REFORMATION (via M Ali Choudhury):

Iran Hard-Line Regime Cracks Down on Blogs (LARA SUKHTIAN, 3/28/06, Associated Press)

The Iranian blogging community, known as Weblogistan, is relatively new. It sprang to life in 2001 after hard-liners — fighting back against a reformist president — shut down more than 100 newspapers and magazines and detained writers. At the time, Derakhshan posted instructions on the Internet in Farsi on how to set up a weblog.

Since then, the community has grown dramatically. Although exact figures are not known, experts estimate there are between 70,000 and 100,000 active weblogs in Iran. The vast majority are in Farsi but a few are in English.

Overall, the percentage of Iranians now blogging is "gigantic," said Curt Hopkins, director of an online group called the Committee to Protect Bloggers, who lives in Seattle.

"They are a talking people, very intellectual, social, and have a lot to say. And they are up against a small group (in the government) that are trying to shut everyone up," said Hopkins.

To bolster its campaign, the Iranian government has one of the most extensive and sophisticated operations to censor and filter Internet content of any country in the world — second only to China, Hopkins said.

It also is one of a growing number of Mideast countries that rely on U.S. commercial software to do the filtering, according to a 2004 study by a group called the OpenNet Initiative. The software that Iran uses blocks both internationally hosted sites in English and local sites in Farsi, the study found.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE A JUNKIE, YOUR PUSHER MAY AS WELL BE FROM THE AXIS OF GOOD:

Brazil hopes to build on its ethanol success (David J. Lynch, 3/28/06, USA TODAY)

A three-decade-long alternative energy campaign has outfitted Brazilian filling stations with fuel pumps that offer pure ethanol, a blend of gasoline and 20% ethanol called gasohol, or even natural gas. This year, Brazil will achieve energy independence — a goal the United States has been chasing without success since the energy crises of the 1970s.

Now, even as the U.S. haltingly sets out on the path Brazil blazed, producers here are drawing up plans to transform sugar-cane-based ethanol from a national success to a global commodity. Brazilian companies are investing $9 billion in dozens of new sugar mills to boost ethanol production while aiming to double exports by 2010. The eventual goal is to spread new ethanol industries in countries from Japan to Nigeria.

"We are moving fast to the wholesale export of ethanol. ... We're investing in infrastructure in Brazil to make it easier to export in large quantities," says Jose Gabrielli, chief executive of the state-owned oil company Petrobras, which oversees ethanol sales abroad.

In the USA, ethanol imports are expected to surge from modest levels this year as refineries phase out a gasoline additive called MTBE, says the Energy Information Administration.

SO SPECIAL:

Joe's Special: From The San Francisco Ferry Plaza Farmers' Market Cookbook by Christopher Hirsheimer and Peggy Knickerbocker (The Splendid Table, 3/29/06)

This dish has appeared on San Francisco restaurant menus for decades, and is still regularly ordered at Original Joe's on Taylor Street, which dates to 1937. [...]

* 3 or 4 large eggs
* Salt and freshly ground black pepper
* 4 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
* 1 pound ground grass-fed beef
* 1 clove garlic, minced
* 1 large onion, any kind, finely chopped
* 1 pound spinach, tough stems removed and leaves chopped
* 1/2 teaspoon dried oregano

1. In a bowl, lightly beat the eggs until blended and season with salt and pepper. Set aside.

2. In a large, heavy skillet, heat 2 tablespoons of the olive oil over medium-high heat. Crumble the beef into the pan and cook, stirring, until some of the red is gone but not a minute longer. This will take only a few minutes (keep it pink). Pour off the excess fat and transfer the meat to a bowl. Set aside and keep warm.

3. Meanwhile, add the remaining 2 tablespoons olive oil to the skillet and place over medium heat. Add the garlic and onion and cook, stirring occasionally, until the onion is translucent, 3 to 4 minutes. Add the spinach and cook, stirring occasionally, until it wilts and is tender, 3 to 5 minutes. Season with salt and pepper. Return the meat to the pan, add the oregano, and taste and adjust the seasoning.

4. Add the eggs, reduce the heat to low, and cook, stirring constantly, just until the eggs are set, another minute or two, then serve.

CAP CRUSADER:

Caspar Weinberger's In the Arena (Edwin Black)

In the Arena [Regnery], Casper Weinberger's plain prose memoir generally devoid of emotion recounts the 20th century as it intersected the events of his life.

In the very first chapter, Weinberger bluntly lays to rest the assumption that he was raised Jewish, recounting that both his father and grandfather were indifferent to any religion dating back to a synagogue quarrel in Bohemia three generations earlier. Weinberger was instead influenced by his mother's interest in the Episcopalian Church. Later, during his Harvard days, he became an active Episcopalian, confessing that his "faith in God has been an enormous influence and comfort all my life."

Weinberger's intense interest in things military started with his "illegal" attempt to join the RAF in 1941 to fight Germany before the US joined the war. (He was turned down because of bad eyesight.) Later, he did enlist in the army, serving in the South Pacific. [...]

Laced throughout the book is Weinberger's immense devotion to and admiration of Ronald Reagan, whom he credits with winning the Cold War. The turning point, Weinberger writes, was "when President Reagan, in perhaps his most major violation of conventional wisdom, blatantly told the world that Communism was an Evil Empire."

NO SOLACE FOR NATIVISTS:

Boehner hints a back down on 'amnesty' (Charles Hurt, March 29, 2006, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner refused yesterday to rule out compromising with the Senate to expand the House border security bill to include a guest-worker program or provisions that opponents call "amnesty." [...]

Conservatives were especially appalled to see so many Republicans -- Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas -- join panel Democrats to approve the proposal.

"It appears that the members of the committee who voted for this misguided legislation are more in tune with the thousands of protesters waving Mexican flags in the streets of Los Angeles than they are with the overwhelming majority of Americans who are demanding that America's borders and national security be protected," said Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union. [....]

The only solace for the conservatives has been the House, where many Republicans adamantly oppose any process that permits current illegals to apply for citizenship without first leaving the country. Also, they say Congress must prove to voters that they can enforce existing immigration laws and strengthen the borders before creating any guest-worker program that draws new immigrants.

Mr. Boehner and other House leaders said yesterday they still prefer their border-security-only bill.

MORE:
Who are illegal immigrants? Most are young, bring families (Stephen Ohlemacher, 3/29/06, The Associated Press)

They are more likely than American citizens to hold jobs but less likely to have high-school diplomas. They tend to be younger, and many have children who were born in the U.S., making the kids citizens.

They are illegal immigrants, their numbers estimated at 12 million as the question of what to do about them reaches a boiling point on Capitol Hill.

Fewer than half fit the profile of young men sneaking across the border to find jobs and send money back home to their families. Today, most bring their families with them, according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington.

"There's about 6.5 million adults who are in families, either couples or couples with children, and there's another 2 million children," said Jeffrey Passel, a senior research associate at the center. "The vast majority of this population is families."

AS MODO'S FAMILY SHOULD WRITE HERS:

McCain tweaks maverick image (EJ Dionne, 3/29/06, Seattle Times)

McCain's problem is that political parties very rarely nominate mavericks, and McCain has decided the only way he'll ever be president is as the Republican nominee. So today he cares very much about what hurts him or helps him in his own party.

The most flagrant sign of this was his February vote to continue Bush's dividends and capital-gains tax cuts that he once eloquently opposed.

"It's a big flip-flop," one-time McCain foe Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, told The Washington Times' Donald Lambro, "but I'm happy that he's flopped."

Those of us who defended McCain in the days when the likes of Norquist were attacking him do see the Arizona Republican's new position as a major flop. But so what? Norquist has more power in Republican primaries than McCain's old base among pundits and reporters. Whenever a liberal turns on McCain these days, the senator's supporters gleefully e-mail the criticism to conservative activists as a sign of their man's true faith.

The prevailing view among McCain's lieutenants — it's also the conventional political view — is that since the main obstacle to his nomination in 2008 comes from the right and from Bush partisans, McCain's main task is to appease the right and make nice with Bush on issues (such as Iraq) where McCain actually agrees with the president. Liberal attacks can be ignored since most liberals will eventually vote against McCain anyway. There will be plenty of time after he's nominated for McCain to don his maverick apparel again for the benefit of moderates and independents. [...]

Republican and Democratic friends alike object that this analysis is based on a misunderstanding: McCain's non-conservative, non-Republican sympathizers, they argue, have always overrated his progressive credentials. It's time to face the fact that McCain really is a conservative Republican and stop hoping he's something else.

INSIDE JOB:

Joshua Brewster Bolten: Longtime Ally, Now a Top Aide (ELISABETH BUMILLER, 3/29/06, NY Times)

Joshua B. Bolten, the incoming White House chief of staff, would appear to have the insider credentials and ability to soothe Congress that the White House desperately needs.

He grew up in establishment Washington, the son of a C.I.A. officer, and graduated from the elite St. Albans School, former Vice President Al Gore's alma mater. As White House budget director, he amused his 500-member staff by renaming his weekend rock band Deficit Attention Disorder for a performance at the Office of Management and Budget. He has nurtured relationships on Capitol Hill, and is personally close to President Bush.

But the question is whether Mr. Bolten is the man to right a listing presidency, and whether his skills, instincts and access to Mr. Bush are enough to overcome public anger over the war in Iraq and the growing questions in Washington about the competence of the West Wing staff. Mr. Bolten, after all, has been with Mr. Bush from his first days as a presidential candidate, and in the last three years has presided over the biggest budget deficits in the history of the United States.

WHY TAMPER WITH PERFECTION?:

New Bazooka Joe something to chew on (Jesse Noyes, March 29, 2006, Seattle Times)

Bazooka Joe might be over 50, but he’s never looked so young.

The eternal kid is getting a fresh look as executives plan a $4 million relaunch of the iconic brand in an effort to entice a new generation of bubble gum chewers.

“Bazooka Joe has sort of been brought back to life,” said Paul Cherrie, managing director at The Topps Co., which owns the Bazooka Joe brand. “He’s been contemporized.

TIME TO INVEST IN ZODIAC BOATS:

South of the border, fence is no deterrent: Would-be migrants say nothing will stop them from working in US. (Danna Harman, 3/29/06, The Christian Science Monitor)

While debate in the US continues over immigration reform policy, here, on the south side of the border, there seems to be consensus that enforcement measures will deter almost no one. "Walls and lights and sensors and police fill our heads," says Dagoberto Martinez, "...but they don't make us turn back." [...]

The border patrol caught 1.2 million would-be illegal immigrants in 2005; that's an average of one arrest every 30 seconds. There are no official stats for how many made it across, but the Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are, today, between 11.5 and 12 million illegal immigrants living in the US, of whom 56 percent are Mexicans.

From Altar, some, going it alone, flag down buses headed north, where they will try to sneak across. Others - the majority, according to the US Border Patrol - have hired coyotes, or people smugglers, to guide them. These travelers get on vans and are shuttled to whatever point along the border has been chosen for them that day.

COOL BRITANNIA:

Blair cooling on green targets for Kyoto successor (Philip Webster in Auckland, Mark Henderson and Lewis Smith, 3/29/06, Times of London)

TONY BLAIR was accused last night of caving in to American pressure by proposing a watered-down replacement for the Kyoto Protocol that relies on new technology rather than binding greenhouse gas cuts as the solution to climate change.

The Prime Minister will call today for a new international goal of stabilising temperatures and carbon emissions at present levels when the Kyoto agreement expires in 2012, to be achieved primarily by investment in cleaner energy technologies. [...]

Mr Blair’s proposal, which comes as the Government admitted that it would miss its pledge to reduce carbon dioxide output by 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2010, will be laid out in a speech to a climate change conference in Wellington, the New Zealand capital.

ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL:

Caspar Weinberger (Daily Telegraph, 29/03/2006)

Caspar Weinberger, who died yesterday aged 88, was US Secretary of Defence under President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1987, and a loyal friend to Britain during the Falklands War.

LOVE THE SMELL OF TEAR GAS IN THE EVENING?:

Strike protests in Paris and London (Philip Johnston, 29/03/2006, Daily Telegraph)

[W]hereas in Britain the day was marked by nothing more revolutionary than picket lines and rallies, in France it ended with clashes on the streets. In Paris, where 700,000 marched, police used tear gas against several hundred youths who threw bottles and petrol bombs.

The protest, which threatens to bring down the government of Dominique de Villepin, forced the Eiffel Tower to close and caused delays for commuters. A third of flights were cancelled, 70 per cent of public transport was disrupted and national newspapers failed to appear. [...]

[A]s night fell in Paris, the smell of tear gas was in the air.

OLMERT AND BUSH IS ALL THE CONSENSUS REQUIRED:

Victory puts Olmert at centre of Israeli politics (Tim Butcher, 29/03/2006, Daily Telegraph)

The political landscape of Israel was redrawn last night as the newly-formed Kadima party led by Ehud Olmert became the first centrist movement to win an Israeli general election in the 58-year history of the Jewish state. [...]

"We are ready to compromise, to give up parts of the beloved Land of Israel … and evacuate, under great pain, Jews living there, in order to create the conditions that will enable you to fulfil your dream and live alongside us," he said.

"It is time for the Palestinians to change their ethos, to accept compromise as soon as possible. If they manage to do this soon, we will sit and work out a plan. If not, Israel will take control of its own fate, and in consensus among our people and with the agreement of the world and US President George Bush, we will act. The time has come to act."

As the results came in there were gains for Left-wing parties including Labour and a surprisingly strong performance by a party campaigning for pensioners but the election was a disaster for the Right-wing Likud, which lost two thirds of its seats.

According to the first exit polls, Kadima (which means Forward) won 30-32 seats, fewer than the 35-40 seats suggested by earlier polls but still enough to ensure Mr Olmert would lead the next government as prime minister.

In a late-night victory speech Ehud Olmert spoke of a new chapter in Israel’s history, offering peace to its enemies and uniting internal divisions.

Just four months after the party was formed by Ariel Sharon – to whom Mr Olmert paid fulsome tribute – Kadima was predicted to win 28 seats after votes were counted in 50 per cent of polling stations, according to Israel Channel 10 Televison.

The centre-left Labour party came second, winning 20 seats, leaving Mr Olmert the possibility of heading a centre-left coalition with more than half of the Israeli parliament’s 120 seats.

In a major blow for Binyamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister and anointed heir to Mr Sharon until last year, his divided and bickering Likud Party was reduced to a right wing parliamentary rump, predicted to win just 12 seats.

STUPID HOOK, INTERESTING STORY

The Secret of George Mason: What its Final Four basketball team and its unusual economics department have in common (Peter Boettke and Alexander Tabarrok, Slate, 3/28/06)

Unlike his neighbors, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, founding father George Mason has rarely gotten his props from historians and the public. Until recently, the same could be said of the university bearing his name. But the advancement of Mason's basketball team to the NCAA's Final Four is only the school's latest surprise win. The GMU economics department—which didn't even award Ph.D.s until 1983—has two Nobel Prize winners on its faculty. The law school ascended to the first tier several years ago, a striking achievement for a new program that 10 years ago was being run out of an old department-store building. What's remarkable is that GMU's freewheeling basketball team and its free-market academic teams owe their successes to very similar, market-beating strategies....

James Buchanan, GMU's first Nobel Prize winner, has never had an Ivy League position and indeed he has never taught above the Mason-Dixon Line. Gordon Tullock, a potential future Nobelist, has no degree in economics and took only one class in the subject. Vernon Smith, who moved his team from the University of Arizona (again, no Harvard) to GMU in 2001, had to fight to get people to treat experimental economics as more than a cute parlor game.

In the academic market, herd behavior is compounded by political correctness. In the 1960s, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock were joined at the University of Virginia by Ronald Coase (who would later win his own Nobel). But the university administration and powerful organizations like the Ford Foundation thought their free-market ideas (limited government, tax cuts, selling radio spectrum!) were disreputable, and they worked hard to push them out of the university.

OKAY, THERE'S YOUR STREET CRED, NOW START CUTTING:

Fed boosts key interest rate for 15th time (Associated Press, Mar. 28, 2006)

The Federal Reserve on Tuesday boosted a key interest rate to the highest level in five years as new Chairman Ben Bernanke followed the Alan Greenspan inflation-fighting formula.

The action, the 15th consecutive quarter-point move, left the federal funds rate at 4.75 percent, its highest level since April 2001.

IT AIN'T F'IN EASY:

Americans see profanity getting worse (Associated Press, Mar. 28, 2006)

This is a story about words we can't print in this story.

You probably hear these words often, and more than ever before. But even though we can't print them - we do have our standards - we can certainly ask: Are we living in an Age of Profanity?

Nearly three-quarters of Americans questioned last week - 74 percent - said they encounter profanity in public frequently or occasionally, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. Two-thirds said they think people swear more than they did 20 years ago. And as for, well, the gold standard of foul words, a healthy 64 percent said they use the F-word - ranging from several times a day (8 percent) to a few times a year (15 percent).

WE ALWAYS WIN WHEN WE MAKE IT ABOUT VALUES (via Glenn Dryfoos):

Next step for immigration (Arnold Schwarzenegger, March 28, 2006, LA Times)

Here are the basic immigration principles that have always guided me and that I believe should guide Congress.

First, immigration is about our security. The first order of business for the federal government is to secure our borders. And Washington simply must do a better job of it. We learned on 9/11 that not all those who cross our borders want to share in the American dream. A few want to replace it with a nightmare. If we don't know who is coming over our borders, we won't know what they might do. And in a post-Sept. 11 world, that is a risk we cannot take. Congress must strengthen our borders.

That's why as governor of California, I have supported legislation to end human trafficking and stop the issuance of driver's licenses to those who aren't legal residents. By bringing folks out of the shadows and into the light, we help immigrants, and we help America.

Criminalizing immigrants for coming here is a slogan, not a solution. Instead, I urge Congress to get tough on those illegal immigrants who are a danger to society. If an illegal immigrant commits a serious crime, he must leave the country — one strike and you're out. No excuses, no delays.

Second, immigration is about our economy. The freest nation in the world, and the freest economy in history, depend on a free flow of people. Immigrants are here to work and contribute. I support efforts to ensure that our businesses have the workers they need and that immigrants are treated with the respect they deserve. We should pass a common-sense temporary worker program so that every person in our nation is documented.

We can embrace the immigrant without endorsing illegal immigration. Granting citizenship to people who are here illegally is not just amnesty … it's anarchy. We are a country of immigrants, yes. But we are also a nation of laws. People who want to be citizens will want to do it the right way.

Finally, immigration is about our values. Too often the debate centers on what immigrants owe us. Too seldom do we ask what we owe them. Above all, we owe it to our country and our immigrants to share our values. We should talk about our history, our institutions and our beliefs. We should assimilate immigrants into the mainstream. We want immigrants to not just live in America but to live as Americans.

WHY HE'S NOT A LIBERTARIAN (via Gene Brown):

Can $10,000 Check End Welfare State? (Andrew Ferguson, March 28, 2006, Bloomberg)

"Harebrained'' may not be the first word that comes to mind when you hear about "In Our Hands,'' Charles Murray's new book. "Crazy'' might come first, or maybe the more idiomatic "crackers.''

But then you start to read it, and the word that pops into your mind is ``Hmmmmm,'' which of course isn't technically a word at all.

Murray, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, has made himself famous as a provocateur -- a social scientist and activist who plants his flag at the furthest edges of the contemporary debate and then waits for everyone else to join him.

It takes a while, but often they do. ``Losing Ground,'' his book on the failures of the U.S. welfare system, was considered scandalous when it was published in 1984. Twelve years later it served as the basis for the welfare reform signed by President Bill Clinton.

``In Our Hands'' is an attempt to leapfrog today's political argument about the size of government. The idea he offers is so unexpected and radically comprehensive that it could force both sides to question their own presuppositions. But first they have to read the book. [...]

His larger goal is to revive those social institutions, particularly the family, the workplace and the local community, which the welfare state has weakened and supplanted and ``through which people live satisfying lives.''

If you want to see the enervating effects of the all- encompassing welfare state, he says, look at Europe, where marriage and birth rates have plunged and work and religion have lost their traditional standing as sources of happiness and personal satisfaction.

In Europe, he says with evident disdain, ``the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.''

Here the reader of ``In Our Hands'' may suddenly pull up short. What began as a wonkish policy tract enlarges into an exploration of how people live lives of meaning and purpose.

Who knew? It turns out that Charles Murray, the nation's foremost libertarian philosopher, is a moralist.

In the end, though, moralizing and libertarianism make for an uncomfortable fit.

On the one hand, Murray says he wants to liberate citizens from the welfare state so they can live life however they choose. On the other hand, by liberating citizens from the welfare state, he hopes to force them back into lives of traditional bourgeois virtue.

It's a circle that Murray can't quite square, but it's fun watching him try.

MORE:
The Plan to Replace the Welfare State (Max Borders, 28 Mar 2006, Tech Central Station)

Borders: You have elsewhere called yourself a libertarian.

Murray: Absolutely. I wrote a book calling myself a libertarian.

Borders: So do you believe that justice demands we correct the -- as the philosopher John Rawls would put it -- the natural lottery, the inequalities that life hands us? Or is In Our Hands a kind of pragmatic compromise with the egalitarian left?

Murray: More the latter. I want to say to my fellow libertarians out there: I not only still consider myself a libertarian, I don't consider that I've wavered in it.

But here's what I think we have to talk about. You think, if you're a libertarian -- as I think -- that the best solution of all is to leave all of this money in the hands of the people who started with it. And this would energize unimaginably effective, widespread, voluntary means of dealing with the problems we face. You believe that. I believe that. That's fine.

We cannot blink at the fact that there's so much money out there -- and the impulse to use the government to redistribute is widespread. We are not going to change that. For all time to come, governments are going to take in vast sums of money and redistribute it. And then the question for libertarians becomes: if one accepts that it's going to happen, is there a way to do this which leaves people's lives in their own hands?

And that's the source of the title of the book. So there will still be government redistributing a lot of money. The big difference is it's no longer bureaucrats who are going to be doling it out in dribs and drabs under certain conditions if you have demonstrated certain kinds of need. It is going to be giving people sufficient resources to run their own lives.

But let me add, however, one other element.

Whereas I still think that the best solution is the pure libertarian solution, I am more sympathetic – and I think my work on The Bell Curve and IQ sort of pushed this along -- I am more and more sympathetic to the proposition that in the lottery of life some people come up with the short end of the stick on a whole bunch of different dimensions. It's not so bad if you don't have an IQ of 130 if you're beautiful, charming, or industrious. After all, there are all sorts of bundles of qualities that make it very hard to rank people from "high" to "low."

It is also true that there are substantial numbers of people who are not that smart, not that beautiful, not that charming, not that industrious, for reasons that they have no control over -- and they've gotten the short end of the stick. So if I'm talking about using government to redistribute some resources to that person, I'm not going to lie awake nights thinking that I've done some awful thing by helping them out. I'm happy with this compromise.

WE NEED THEM AS MUCH AS THEY NEED US:

Immigration: Global Economies' Crack Cocaine (David A. Andelman, 03.27.06, Forbes)

There was rioting and strikes by construction workers in Dubai last week, which ordinarily wouldn't raise much of a blip on the global radar screen, except for what some of the workers were saying: It's getting to the point where we can earn more money back home in India than we can in the Middle East.

That is a little-recognized, but potentially hugely dangerous, prospect that has gone all but unremarked. Across the region, but especially in the heart of the Arabian Gulf--Saudi Arabia and Dubai in particular--the engine of explosive growth and rapid development has brought millions of grotesquely underpaid workers from the subcontinent and Southeast Asia. How else could one tiny city-state, Dubai, have 80 apartment buildings, each 30 to 60 stories in height, rising at the same time, not to mention the world's tallest office building, expected to exceed 100 stories when it's completed. This structure, the Burj Dubai, happened to have been the scene of last week's violent labor actions, which spread to the construction site of the emirate's new airport facility.

And the construction in Dubai is only the tip of the iceberg, especially for the Gulf region. Saudi Arabia is already in advanced stages of development of an entire new city on the shores of the Red Sea north of Jeddah--the King Abdullah Economic City--which has been budgeted initially at $30 billion. Those prices, however, are built on the assumption of a virtually unending supply of cheap foreign labor of the type that's built Dubai. The kingdom even went so far as to eschew its own developers, including the powerful Bin Laden Group, in favor of Dubai-based Emaar.

The fact is that immigrants, also known as cheap foreign labor, have long been and continue to be the engine of growth for much of the developed world, and even more so in the Second World of regions like the Arabian Gulf. It's not surprising that President George W. Bush on Monday, in proposing his new immigration plan, pointed out that Google was "built by immigrants." For that matter, going back a bit further, New York City was built by cheap foreign labor from Ireland in the 19th century at the same time America's railroads were being stretched from coast to coast on the backs of cheap Chinese laborers.

The problem is that the world is now running out of cheap places to go for labor.

THE DEAD STAY THAT WAY:

Targeted Killings Only Work For A While (Oxford Analytica, 03.28.06)

The available data suggest that decapitation offers clear strategic advantages in the short-medium term. However, over time, the practice may undermine the perpetrator-state's objectives:

-- Benefits: Israel has been the most prominent and successful proponent of targeted killing. Although undoubtedly brutal, its policy has been effective.

-- Drawbacks and dangers: While targeted killing may help deter and disrupt attacks by terrorist or insurgent enemies, there is a strong case that it also alienates the "hearts and minds" of surrounding civilians. Winning over these individuals is a prerequisite for long-term success in any counter-terrorist campaign.

Targeted killing operations can have a significant short-medium term disruptive affect on terrorist organisations. Therefore, Washington is likely continue the practice, despite concerns that it may be counterproductive over the long term.

GALILEO DESERVED TO BURN (via Papaya SF):

'Galileo Was Wrong,' claims geocentrist writer (DRU SEFTON, 3/28/06, NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE)

Bible proves Earth is center of universe, author argues

The Earth is at the center of Robert Sungenis' universe. Literally.

Yours too, he says.

Sungenis is a geocentrist. He contends the sun orbits the Earth instead of vice versa. He says physics and the Bible show that the vastness of space revolves around us; that we're at the center of everything, on a planet that does not rotate.

He has just completed a 1,000-page tome, "Galileo Was Wrong," the first in a pair of books he hopes will persuade readers to "give Scripture its due place, and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be."

Geocentrism is a less-known cousin of the intelligent design, or anti-evolution, movement. Both question society's trust in science, instead using religion to explain how we got here - and, in geocentrism's case, just where "here" is.

CONFIDENT PEOPLE DON'T VOTE FOR THE LEFT:

Consumer Confidence Highest Since 2002 (ANNE D'INNOCENZIO, 3/28/06, AP)

Americans' optimism in the economy rebounded in March, sending a widely followed barometer of consumer sentiment to a near four-year high, a private research group said Tuesday.

The Conference Board said that its consumer index shot up 4.5 points to 107.2, the highest level since May 2002, when the reading was 110.3. Analysts had expected a reading of 102.

THE THREE DON'T USUALLY COME WITHIN HOURS OF EACH OTHER:

Caspar Weinberger, presidents' aide, dies (ELIZABETH WHITE, 3/28/06, Associated Press)

"He left the U.S. armed forces stronger, our country safer and the world more free," said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Determined to ensure U.S. strategic strength to counter the Soviet Union, Weinberger pushed Congress to fund such programs as the Strategic Defense Initiative, Midgetman and MX missiles, B-1B bombers and stealth aircraft.

Supporters contended the defense buildup helped cause the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"His legacy is a strong and free America, and for this and for a lifetime of selfless service, a grateful nation thanks him," former first lady Nancy Reagan said Tuesday.

Stanislaw Lem, a Polish science-fiction writer who, in novels like "Solaris" and "His Master's Voice," contemplated man's place in the universe in sardonic and sometimes bleak terms, died yesterday in Krakow, Poland. He was 84.

The cause was heart failure, his secretary, Wojciech Zemek, told The Associated Press.

Mr. Lem was a giant of mid-20th-century science fiction, in a league with Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov and Philip K. Dick. And he addressed many of the themes they did: the meaning of human life among superintelligent machines, the frustrations of communicating with aliens, the likelihood that mankind could understand a universe in which it was but a speck. His books have been translated into at least 35 languages and have sold 27 million copies.

What drew the admiration of many of his fellow writers was the intensity with which he studied the limitations of humanity, in ways that could be both awed and pessimistic.

In "Solaris," a densely ruminative novel first published in 1961 — and made into films by Andrei Tarkovsky (1972) and Steven Soderbergh (2002) — contact is made with a dangerous and unknowable alien intelligence in the form of a plasma ocean surrounding a distant planet. As they attempt to understand the organism, astronauts aboard a space ship are plagued by hallucinations drawn from their own memories.

FROM THE ARCHIVES:
THE RED PILL VS. THE BLUE

STRONG PERSUADER:

Mexico, A Sleeping Giant Next Door (Pedro G. Cavallero, Safe Democracy)

As America’s attention follows the expansion of democracy to far-off corners of the world, somehow it disconnects from political developments unfolding much closer to home. Highly-scrutinized elections in the Middle East are constantly visible and nonstop reporting exposes the Byzantine play of alliances, fast-evolving scenarios, and candidates’ shifting allegiances. In contrast, electoral processes in Latin America receive sporadic coverage. However, most of the region’s democracies are far from fully consolidated. It was not long ago that almost all Spanish-speaking Americas were ruled by non-elected governments. From Mexico to Argentina, a broad spectrum of regimes colored the hemisphere, including highly-repressive juntas, cleptocratic dynasties, Stalinist-oriented guerrilla-clad cliques, and fraudulent one-Party semi-Gods.

During 2006, several Latin American countries will go to the polls to elect presidents, including America’s closest neighbor to the south. Six years after passing a major political test by dumping the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s (PRI) regime, Mexican voters will chose President Fox’s successor. In 2000, Mexico joined the fold of emerging democracies when discarding a system that Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa labeled as the “perfect dictatorship.” This time a politically exhausted president will be relieved from the burdens imposed by a long sexenio in office. The July 2 election may also provide closure to the democratic process’ “opening-up” phase initiated in 2000. In fact, the outgoing administration highlights one of its (otherwise scarce) achievements as having led the nation through a major political transformation, namely power alternation. However, whomever succeeds Fox will need to exhibit other accomplishments. And building a realistic, inter-dependent relationship with the United States should be at the top of the agenda. For this to happen, Washington should start sending the right signals. [...]

Since the passage of the NAFTA agreement, Mexico positioned itself as America’s second-largest trading partner (Canada being the first), unquestionably a major leap forward in the bilateral context. However, opinion-makers and policymakers alike fail to place American-Mexican relationships on a higher platform. This partnership also proves wrong those alarming voices advocating the building of fences in the border. In fact, there is no other nation whose internal dynamics (political, social and economic) would have such a direct and lasting impact on America’s daily life. This long-standing disconnect seems to be a resilient and deeply-rooted factor in U.S. foreign policymaking. Persistently, it forces Washington to look across the Atlantic (and far beyond) in search of tomorrow’s opportunities. Meanwhile, it prevents the U.S. from looking south and engaging with the hemisphere’s largest Spanish-speaking nation, where both undeniable challenges and enormous opportunities lay. In the meantime, a sleeping giant lays next door.

STOP AT A BAKER'S DOZEN:

Fukuyama's Fantasy (Charles Krauthammer, March 28, 2006, Washington Post)

History will judge whether we can succeed in "establishing civilized, decent, nonbelligerent, pro-Western polities in Afghanistan and Iraq." My point then, as now, has never been that success was either inevitable or at hand, only that success was critically important to "change the strategic balance in the fight against Arab-Islamic radicalism."

I made the point of repeating the problematic nature of the enterprise: "The undertaking is enormous, ambitious and arrogant. It may yet fail."

For Fukuyama to assert that I characterized it as "a virtually unqualified success" is simply breathtaking. My argument then, as now, was the necessity of this undertaking, never its ensured success. And it was necessary because, as I said, there is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the root causes of Sept. 11: "The cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world -- oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism."

Fukuyama's book is proof of this proposition about the lack of the plausible alternative. The alternative he proposes for the challenges of Sept. 11 -- new international institutions, new forms of foreign aid and sundry other forms of "soft power" -- is a mush of bureaucratic make-work in the face of a raging fire.

It should always be rememberd that Wilson had 13 good Points but went down fighting for the awful fourteenth:

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

XII. The turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

[editor's note: Redefining Sovereignty contains both the Fourteen Points and an essay by Francis Fukuyama]

MORE:
-LECTURE: Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World (Charles Krauthammer, February 12, 2004, 2004 Irving Kristol Lecture, AEI Annual Dinner)

A COLUMN FOR NO ONE:

The French in Denial (Robert J. Samuelson, March 28, 2006, Washington Post)

To anyone who cares about Europe's future....

HITCHENS DEFENDING THE JEWS

Overstating Jewish Power: Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, 3/27/06)

There has been some disquiet expressed about Mearsheimer and Walt's over-fondness for Jewish name-dropping: their reiteration of the names Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc., as the neocon inner circle. Well, it would be stupid not to notice that a group of high-energy Jews has been playing a role in our foreign-policy debate for some time. The first occasion on which it had any significant influence (because, despite its tentacular influence, it lost the argument over removing Saddam Hussein in 1991) was in pressing the Clinton administration to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo. These are the territories of Europe's oldest and largest Muslim minorities; they are oil-free and they do not in the least involve the state interest of Israel. Indeed, Sharon publicly opposed the intervention. One could not explain any of this from Mearsheimer and Walt's rhetoric about "the lobby."

Mearsheimer and Walt belong to that vapid school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started. Their wish is father to the thought that there must be some way, short of a fight, to get around this confrontation. Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem and to produce an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly.

Our enemies are our enemies because they choose to be our enemies. There is no substitute for victory.

HOW WILL THEY GET TO NOT-WORK?:

France hit by nationwide protest strike (JAMEY KEATEN, 3/28/06, Associated Press)

Paris deployed police by the thousands Tuesday before the latest massive protest over a new youth employment law, and commuters across France struggled to get to work during a nationwide strike over the measure.

MORE:
Riots in France, Quiet Debates in Germany (Markus Dettmer and Stefan Simons, 3/28/06, Der Spiegel)

For many young workers, entering the job market means accepting temporary contacts, working multiple jobs and going through regular periods of unemployment. This is as true of manual workers as it is of people with a background in engineering or academic studies.

Often it takes as many as eight years to arrive at a permanent position. Almost a quarter of those under 25 are unemployed, one of the highest youth unemployment rates in Europe. But the problem isn't just limited to France -- youth unemployment has reached record levels all over Europe. For its part, Germany has fared somewhat better, with a total youth unemployment rate of 15 percent, putting it at 16th place worldwide.

With his legislation, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin wanted to cure the French malady all by himself while scoring points against Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, his main contender for the office of president. Now it looks as if the prime minister's proposed reform of the labor market will be vanquished by student resistance and the categorical "non" the trade unions have given the law.

AND THE MEEKS SHALL INHERIT TOPINKA::

Black leaders send gov ultimatum (DAVE MCKINNEY AND FRAN SPIELMAN, March 28, 2006, Chicago Sun-Times)

The Chicago City Council's black caucus met with state Sen. James Meeks on Monday and agreed to back Meeks' possible third-party gubernatorial bid unless Gov. Blagojevich commits as much as $4 billion during the next four years to African-American causes.

"If the governor doesn't meet the needs of the African-American community, then we're not going to support his candidacy, and we're going to move forward with supporting Rev. Meeks," said Ald. Anthony Beale (9th). [...]

Today marks the first day that Meeks (D-Chicago) could put nominating petitions on the street to gather the necessary 25,000 signatures required by late June to join Blagojevich and Republican Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka on the Nov. 7 ballot. There were no signs that effort materialized as of Monday night. Meeks did not return calls left at his Chicago answering service or Springfield legislative office.

Mayor Daley, meanwhile, weighed in on the potentially devastating threat Meeks poses to Blagojevich.

When asked if Meeks had the ability to torpedo Blagojevich and perhaps the rest of the Democratic ticket in the fall, the mayor said, "Sure. Sure, that's happened before. That's a reality."

In 1986, two supporters of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche scored stunning upsets for lieutenant governor and secretary of state in the statewide Democratic primary, wrecking the Democrats' efforts to unseat Republican Gov. James R. Thompson.

SHUFFLE:

Card Resigns as White House Chief of Staff, Administration Official Says (Terrence Hunt, March 28, 2006, The Associated Press)

White House chief of staff Andy Card has resigned and will be replaced by budget director Josh Bolten, an administration official said Tuesday.

President Bush was expected to announce the shake up during a meeting with reporters with reporters later Tuesday morning in the Oval Office of the White House.

THAT SHOULD SIDETRACK CAMPAIGNS PRETTY EFFECTIVELY:

FEC Rules Exempt Blogs From Internet Political Limits (Thomas B. Edsall, March 28, 2006, Washington Post)

In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Federal Election Commission left unregulated almost all political activity on the Internet except for paid political advertisements. Campaigns buying such ads will have to use money raised under the limits of current federal campaign law.

Perhaps most important, the commission effectively granted media exemptions to bloggers and other activists using the Web to allow them to praise and criticize politicians, just as newspapers can, without fear of federal interference.

The rules "totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws. The exemption for individual Internet activity in the final rules is categorical and unqualified," said FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner. The regulation "protects Internet activities by individuals in all forms, including e-mailing, linking, blogging, or hosting a Web site," he said.

UNILATERALISM SURVIVES HIM:

In Israel, an Unsettled Electorate: Today's Vote Will Test Old Loyalties (Scott Wilson, March 28, 2006, Washington Post)

Israelis will elect a new parliament, and by extension a new prime minister, on Tuesday after a campaign season marked by complacency, disappointment and a sense of betrayal among many voters now searching for new political leadership. The result is that a large number of voters remain undecided, a floating segment that could determine a quarter of the 120-seat parliament, the Knesset. More Israelis than in any past election are expected to sit out the vote.

Neither Likud nor Labor, the parties at the center of Israel's political life for decades, is projected to win the plurality of seats that would carry the right to form the next government. Although it has slipped in recent polls, the Kadima party that Sharon created last November is still running far ahead, even though he is now hospitalized in a coma.

The campaign has emerged as a referendum on Sharon's unfinished program to separate the Israeli and Palestinian populations through a series of unilateral withdrawals from the occupied territories. He argued that Israel must act alone, after years of largely fruitless negotiations, to draw its final borders in a way that would separate a Jewish majority from the Arab population.

IT'S NOT LIKE THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM THE TARGET AHEAD OF TIME:

Moussaoui Says He Was to Fly 5th Plane: White House Attack Planned for 9/11, Terrorist Testifies (Jerry Markon and Timothy Dwyer, March 28, 2006, Washington Post)

Zacarias Moussaoui took the stand at his death penalty trial yesterday and declared that he was supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and crash it into the White House in the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. [...]

His words were as stunning as the way in which he delivered them. When he pleaded guilty to conspiring with al-Qaeda last year, Moussaoui denied involvement in Sept. 11 and insisted that he was to be part of a second wave of attacks. He then launched into one of his rambling courtroom outbursts, ending it by screaming, "God curse America!"

The familiar Moussaoui was gone yesterday. In his place was a hardened terrorist operative who spoke calmly and methodically, looking straight at his questioners as he voiced his hatred for the nation that had put him on trial for his life. [...]

The extraordinary spectacle of an admitted al-Qaeda member testifying about the deadliest terrorist attack in American history was later matched by something equally unusual. Defense lawyers read into the record evidence gathered in the United States' secret and controversial detention system, telling jurors what Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a key planner of Sept. 11, would have said had he taken the stand.

And Mohammed's words, given to interrogators at the undisclosed location where he is being held, contradicted Moussaoui's testimony.

He said Moussaoui had been slated for a second wave of attacks that would have included targets not hit on Sept. 11, such as the White House and the Sears Tower in Chicago. Mohammed noted that the Sept. 11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon proceeded on schedule despite Moussaoui's arrest while taking flying lessons in Minnesota.

Even if Moussaoui's precise role is never certain, what was clear yesterday was the damage that his testimony, given over the strenuous objections of his lawyers, had done to his defense.

ONE FOR THE THUMB:

Slow ticket sales force freebie AG fund-raiser: $500 a head...or $0, whatever works for you (Maggie Mulvihill, March 28, 2006, Boston Herald)

Listless ticket sales forced Attorney General and aspiring governor Tom Reilly to send out complimentary invitations to his birthday party fund-raiser tonight, according to political sources and Reilly campaign documents.

The $500 VIP event at the posh State Room comes as Reilly has shown sluggish fund-raising numbers in 2006.

In the first two weeks of March, he reported receipts of $9,380 compared to Democratic rival Deval Patrick’s $57,787 and Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey’s $191,625, according to state campaign finance records.

THE VISIBLE HAND:

Trucks to face new fuel-economy rules (Jayne O'Donnell, 3/27/06, USA TODAY)

New fuel-economy rules for trucks to be announced this week would not only impose mileage standards for the first time on previously exempt heavy-duty models, such as the Hummer H2, but also would overhaul standards for other trucks, according to auto industry officials and others familiar with the plan. [...]

Federal officials wanted a new system that doesn't encourage selling more small trucks in order to meet mileage standards. Statistics show that bigger, heavier vehicles are safer to their occupants in crashes than smaller, lighter vehicles are.

If the new standards encourage larger vehicles, "from a safety perspective, that's good," says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

FAREWELL, LYNWOOD:

Lyn Nofziger, Reagan spokesman and adviser, dies (AP, 3/28/06)

Franklyn "Lyn" Nofziger, the rumpled and irreverent conservative who served Ronald Reagan as press secretary and political adviser, died of cancer Monday. He was 81. [...]

Nofziger, who joined Reagan's ranks early in the political career of the actor-turned-politician, headed the White House political office during the first year of the Reagan presidency and then quit to form a political consulting and lobbying firm.

"He was a great big garrulous guy who was very serious about his politics and very serious about Ronald Reagan," Michael Deaver, Reagan's deputy chief of staff, said Monday. "He was sort of the keeper of the flame."

"He was fun to be around," Deaver said. "Reagan would light up when he came into the room."

Nofziger's great-niece Carol Dahmen said Monday: "He transcended parties; he was loved on both sides of the aisle. You could love him or hate him but everybody respected him."

Conservative columnist George F. Will once described the non-conformist, cigar-chomping Nofziger as "Sancho Panza" to Reagan's Don Quixote.

Asked why he was leaving the White House, Nofziger replied, "I don't like government, it's just that simple." He denied as "99 percent untrue" a report he'd quit because of his exclusion from the president's innermost circle.

His determined irreverence extended to the Reagans.

"I'm not a social friend of the Reagans," he told an interviewer. "That's by their choice and by mine. They don't drink enough."

Bombay gin, outrageous puns and fierce loyalty to Reagan and conservative Republican principles were Nofziger hallmarks. His caustic wit made him a favorite among some reporters who covered Reagan as governor and president and on his various campaigns. [...]

As White House liaison, Nofziger had mixed success with militant conservatives who early in the Reagan administration began chafing at the number of moderate Republicans given key jobs.

"Every time we appoint someone they don't agree with to a job, they feel the victory trickling away," he said in an interview.

MORE:
Strategist, Reagan Adviser Lyn Nofziger (Martin Weil, 3/28/06, Washington Post)

An offbeat figure who wore Mickey Mouse ties with the knot pulled down, Mr. Nofziger won a reputation as a shrewd, two-fisted political battler, who blended loyalty, cantankerousness and pungent phrasemaking. He was known as one of the key staff members involved in Reagan's rise from the California governor's chair to the pinnacle of American power. [...]

After leaving the White House, Mr. Nofziger felt in a personal way what he considered to be governmental overreaching. He was found guilty in 1988 on three counts of illegal lobbying at the Reagan White House within a year after he left to set up his consulting firm.

But a federal court of appeals overturned the conviction in June 1989, asserting that prosecutors had failed to prove that Mr. Nofziger "knowingly" violated the law. The Supreme Court declined to consider reinstating the conviction.

Earlier, when he had appeared in court for his sentencing, Mr. Nofziger demonstrated what supporters viewed as his stubborn resolve to remain faithful to his principles.

Recognizing the value of declaring remorse before being sentenced, Mr. Nofziger said: "I cannot do that if I am to be true to myself and to those hundreds of people all over the country who have supported me . . . because they believe I am an honorable man.

"Your honor, I am an honorable man."

WRONG PARTY:

No Room in the Big Tent (Rose Aguilar, March 28, 2006, AlterNet)

Anti-abortion Republicans have a lot to celebrate. The confirmation of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, two anti-abortion Supreme Court justices, and the passage of the South Dakota law banning all abortion, have been seen as clear Republican victories. But for pro-choice Republicans, appalled and disgusted by the South Dakota law, the party ended a long time ago. While some say it's important to speak out and fight for change, others say they're tired of fighting a losing battle.

"I was a Republican. I did stand up. I got crucified for it and finally said, 'To hell with it,'" says Elisabeth "Jinx" Ecke, a longtime Planed Parenthood supporter and board member in San Diego, Calif. "I've tried to support Republican candidates in the California Assembly, and they swear on a stack of bibles that they'll vote pro- choice. Then they go to Sacramento and they vote anti-choice. I'm done."

Ecke, 74, cast her first vote for Dwight Eisenhower back in 1953. Four years ago, she reregistered by checking the "Decline to State" box. "I'm supporting mostly Democrats for one simple reason: choice," she says. "People say you can't be a one issue voter and I say, 'Yes I can.'"

DOESN'T FRANK FUKUYAMA KNOW A BIT BETTER THAN THEY DO?:

Imperial overreach is accelerating the global decline of America: The disastrous foreign policies of the US have left it more isolated than ever, and China is standing by to take over (Martin Jacques, March 28, 2006, The Guardian)

It is clear that the US occupation of Iraq has been a disaster from almost every angle one can think of, most of all for the Iraqi people, not least for American foreign policy.

The majority of Iraqis overall view the recent parliamentary elections as valid, are optimistic that their country is going in the right direction and feel that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been worth the costs. Sunnis, on the other hand, overwhelmingly reject the validity of the elections, see the country going in the wrong direction and regret the overthrow of Saddam. This pervasive pessimism challenges hopes that the alienated Sunni Arab minority, which boycotted Iraq’s first post-Saddam elections a year ago, would feel empowered by participating in last month’s elections.

The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Limited/D3 Systems, Inc. Polling was conducted January 2-5 with a nationwide sample of 1,150, which included an oversample of 150 Arab Sunnis (hereafter simply called Sunnis).

Overall, two out of three Iraqis (66%) believe that the recent parliamentary elections were free and fair. Approximately the same number (68%) say “that the government to be established by the newly elected Parliament will … be the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people.”

Even larger majorities feel this way among the Shia and Kurds. Eighty-nine percent of Shia and 77% of Kurds say the elections were free and fair, while 90% of Shia and 81% of Kurds say the new government will be the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people. [....]

Overall, 64% of Iraqis say that Iraq is heading in the right direction, while just 36% say it is heading in the wrong direction. [...]

Among the Shia and Kurds optimism is even higher. Seventy-six percent of Kurds and 84% of Shia say they think the country is headed in the right direction. [...]

Iraqis overall have a positive view of the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Asked, “Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?” 77% say it was worth it, while 22% say it was not.

Gallup asked the same question in April 2004. At that time, 61% said that it was worth it and 28% said that it was not.

MORE:
Iraqinomics (Nima Sanandaji, 28 Mar 2006, Tech Central Station)

Can Middle Eastern states put oil resources to better use? Is it possible for free enterprise to thrive in the Arab world? The experience in Iraq suggests that the answer to these questions might be yes. The democratization of Iraq has meant that both foreign and domestic businesses can operate in a freer economic environment. Although media seldom report about this, the Iraqi economy is rapidly growing. According to the report "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq October 2005," GDP per capita has more than doubled between 2003 and 2005. Compared to pre-war levels the increase was 31 percent. And the future looks bright. According to the Brookings Institution Iraq Index the Iraqi economy is expected to have a real GDP growth of 49 percent in the period 2006-2008. The oil sector has still not recovered to pre-war levels, partially due to the terrorist menace. Still, if Iraq continues on a path to democracy and economic progress, it is a fair assumption that its natural resources will be put to better use. Foreign investors and consumers would most likely appreciate the possibility to buy oil from a country that does not support terrorists or fundamentalist schools abroad.

Of course, Iraq still has a long way to go in order to recover from the war and the many years under Saddam's tyranny. But if the Iraqi economy can grow despite the ongoing attempts by radicals to undermine it, the same should be possible for the rest of the Arab world. Iraq could serve as a positive example in a region where policy makers have little knowledge about the benefits of free market reforms.

MAKIN' HEYDAYS:

Why U.S. Business Is Winning (Sebastian Mallaby, March 27, 2006, Washington Post)

The dawn of this heyday came in 1995. In the two preceding decades, the productivity of American workers had grown more slowly than that of Japanese and European competitors. But in the decade since 1995, U.S. labor productivity growth has outstripped foreign rivals'. Meanwhile U.S. firms' return on equity -- that is, the efficiency with which they manage the capital entrusted to them -- has pulled away from that of Japan, France and Germany, according to data provided by Standard & Poor's Compustat.

Other measures tell a similar story. Up until the 1990s, management books were crammed with Japanese buzzwords, and the early Clinton administration was in awe of Germany's apprenticeship system. But today the United States provides most of the business role models, from Starbucks to Procter & Gamble, from Apple to Cisco. The (British) Financial Times publishes an annual list of the world's most respected companies. In 2004 and again in 2005, no fewer than 12 of the top 15 slots were occupied by American firms.

Or consider the database on management quality constructed by Nick Bloom and John Van Reenen of Stanford University and the London School of Economics. This duo organized a survey of 732 medium-sized American and European companies and measured their management procedures against benchmarks of best practice. The result: American firms, including the subsidiaries of American firms in Europe, are simply better managed than European rivals. In fact, superior American management accounts for more than half of the productivity gap between American and European firms. [...]

Competition and meritocracy cannot explain all of America's superiority, however. The U.S. economy has always had these advantages but hasn't always trounced overseas rivals. Nor is it enough to say that Americans work harder than Europeans, since the productivity numbers show that Americans are boosting what they achieve per hour. And anyone who explains America's superiority by saying that the country is more "dynamic" or "creative" is merely relabeling the mystery we're trying to solve.

The best guess about the "X factor" is that America's business culture is peculiarly well-suited to contemporary challenges. American business is not especially good at coaxing productivity out of factory workers: The era when this was all-important was the heyday of Germany and Japan. But American business excels at managing service workers and knowledge workers: at equipping these people with technology, empowering them with the right level of independence and paying for performance. So the era of decentralized "network" businesses is the American era.

Moreover, America's business culture is perfectly matched to globalization. American executive suites and MBA courses are full of talented immigrants, so American managers think nothing of working in multicultural firms. The immigrants have links to their home countries, so Americans have an advantage in establishing global supply chains. The elites of Asia and Latin America compete to attend U.S. universities; when they return to their countries, they are keener to join the local operation of a U.S. company than of a German or Japanese one.

So the shift from manufacturing to services; the gallop of globalization; and the rise of information technology that flattens corporate hierarchies: All these forces come together to create an American moment.

THE CORPSE AT EVERY FUNERAL

Clinton chauffeur an illegal immigrant (UPI, 3/27/06)

An embarrassing hole in security surrounding former U.S. President Bill Clinton turned up when one of his chauffeurs was found to be a wanted man.

Shahzad Qureshi, 42, was in one of three cars awaiting Clinton at Newark Airport last week when a Port Authority policeman happened to check license plate numbers.

The computer came back showing the Pakistani national had skipped a residency-status hearing in 2000, and a deportation order had been issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the New York Post reported.

THEY WERE ANTI-ANGLO AND ANTI-GOD LONG BEFORE THEY WERE ANTI-AMERICAN (via Gene Brown):

An Interview With Claire Berlinski, Author Of Menace In Europe (John Hawkins, Right Wing News)

John Hawkins: Why are Europeans so secular compared to Americans?

Claire Berlinski: American religiosity doesn't need to be explained; after all, throughout history, in every civilization, people have believed in the supernatural. What needs to be explained is European atheism, which is the aberration-unique in the world and in human history. It has its origins in politics, I think, not metaphysics. Voltaire was of the view that it is not so much the intrinsic power of the argument for atheism that caused people to reject faith, but rather the corruption of the Church, and largely I agree with him. Before the French Revolution, there were no atheists in Europe. Heretics, sure. But atheists? Unheard of. Political atheism-as opposed to philosophical atheism-emerged from revulsion with the corrupt Catholic Church and the detested Bourbon Monarchy; the two being intimately identified in peoples' minds, as indeed they were. Une foi, un loi, un roi, as they said, and with two down, a trifecta seemed inevitable. This in turn paved the way for intellectual atheism, represented by such figures as Nietzsche, Marx and Freud-all of whom, by the way, assumed atheism as the starting point rather than endeavoring to prove it. You could ask-why atheism, why then? Why not, say, an anticlerical form of religion? I suspect the answer lies in the linkages between atheism and the scientific revolution-linkages of loose association only; after all, no scientific discovery ever specifically disproved the existence of God. Atheism is the natural correlate to the doctrine of scientific materialism, and clearly atheism gained strength through its identification with the triumphs of science. But it needed a political context to take hold, and only in Europe did it find one. In this sense, the separation of Church and State in the US worked, paradoxically, to the advantage of the Church.

But in another sense, as I argue in my book, the popular view of Europe as a completely secular society is too facile. Anticlerical forms of religion have taken hold. Someone once sent me an article, perhaps in was in the Guardian, about three young women, imbeciles all, who had devoted themselves to radical beliefs: the first to the destruction of capitalism, the second to Islam, and the third to something like an old-fashioned Christian heresy, close in spirit to the Albigensian heresy. There is something going on in Europe, a flourishing of sects, all of which have something in common and that is an absolute, virtually pathological, refusal to profit from experience. Now, why should anyone devote herself to the destruction of capitalism when we know perfectly well, if we know anything at all, that the realistic alternatives are monstrous, inefficient, stupid, brutal and self-defeating? When it comes to anti-capitalism and fruity Christianity, it is quite interesting to think of both as Christian heresies. As official belief has waned in Europe, Christian heresies have come to flourish. Communism, after all, has its roots in certain apostolic teachings about poverty and property; and free love is just what the Church faced in the 12th century and effectively crushed. One can argue-and I do, in my book-that Europe remains what it has always been: a Christian society, one now tormented by heresies. [...]

John Hawkins: Do you think Americans should regard France as an enemy nation? Why or why not?

Claire Berlinski: Oh no, of course not. An enemy nation? Like North Korea?

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY'RE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? (via Gene Brown):

War in their future, Mids choose Marines (Bradley Olson, March 25, 2006, Baltimore Sun)

When it came time for Jake Dove, a senior at the U.S. Naval Academy, to decide how he would fulfill his required military duty after graduation, there was no question about it: Marine Corps all the way.

"In my eyes it's a perfect community," said Dove, an Annapolis High School graduate. "The idea of being a platoon leader in charge of guys that have done two, three tours in Iraq already, when I haven't been over there - that's an awesome responsibility. I'm eager to take it on."

Despite a war that has entered its fourth year with mounting casualties and waning public support, more and more midshipmen at the Annapolis military college are volunteering for the Marines when asked to choose how they will fulfill the five-year commitment required of all academy graduates.

JUST KEEP ADVANCING THE BALL:

Senate Panel Approves Immigration Bill (DAVID ESPO, 3/27/06, AP)

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved election-year immigration legislation Monday that clears the way for millions of undocumented workers to seek U.S. citizenship without having to first leave the country.

After days of street demonstrations that stretched from California to the gounds of the U.S. Capitol, the committee also voted to strip out proposed criminal penalties for residents found to be in this country illegally.

The panel's vote cleared the way for the full Senate to begin debate Tuesday on the emotional immigration issue.

MORE:
President Attends Naturalization Ceremony (George W. Bush, DAR Administration Building, Washington, D.C., 3/27/06)

Thank you all. Thank you very much. It's good to be with you. I am grateful for the chance to witness this joyous and uplifting ceremony. It is inspiring to see people of many different ages, many different countries raise their hands and swear an oath to become citizens of the United States of America.

For some of you, this day comes after a long and difficult journey. For all of you, this is a defining moment in your lives. America is now more than your home; America is your country. I welcome you to this free nation. I congratulate you and your families, and it's an honor to call you fellow Americans.

I appreciate the Attorney General. Dr. González, thank you, sir. And, Alfonso, it's good to be up here with you. I want to thank the President General of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Ms. Presley Wagoner, for letting us use this fantastic facility for this important ceremony. Thank you for singing the National Anthem so beautifully.

It is fitting that we hold this ceremony at the home of the Daughters of the American Revolution. The Daughters of the American Revolution were the daughters of immigrants, because the leaders of our revolution all had ancestors who came from abroad. As new citizens of the United States, you now walk in the footsteps of millions. And with the oath you've sworn, you're every bit as American as those who came before you.

Our immigrant heritage has enriched America's history. It continues to shape our society. Each generation of immigrants brings a renewal to our national character and adds vitality to our culture. Newcomers have a special way of appreciating the opportunities of America, and when they seize those opportunities, our whole nation benefits.

In the 1970s, an immigrant from Ireland -- or the 1790s, an immigrant from Ireland designed the White House, right where Laura and I live. And he helped build the Capitol. In the 1990s, an immigrant from Russia helped create the Internet search engine Google. In between, new citizens have made contributions in virtually every professional field, and millions of newcomers have strengthened their communities through quiet lives and hard work and family and faith.

America's welcoming society is more than a cultural tradition, it is a fundamental promise of our democracy. Our Constitution does not limit citizenship by background or birth. Instead, our nation is bound together by a shared love of liberty and a conviction that all people are created with dignity and value. Through the generations, Americans have upheld that vision by welcoming new citizens from across the globe -- and that has made us stand apart.

Naturalization ceremony participants raise their hands and hold American flags as they are sworn-in as new U.S. citizens Monday, March 27, 2006, during the Naturalization Ceremony at the Daughters of the American Revolution Administration Building in Washington. President George W.Bush addressed the audience, saying that each generation of immigrants brings a renewal to our national character and adds vitality to our culture. White House photo by Eric Draper One of my predecessors, President Ronald Reagan, used to say this, "You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Japan, but you cannot become Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in America and be an American."

The new Americans we welcome today include men and women from 20 countries on five continents. Their ages range from 18 to 59, and they work as teachers and small business managers, and nurses, and software engineers and other professions.

One new citizen is Veronica Pacheco. Veronica first came to the United States from Bolivia 15 years ago. In 2000, she moved here permanently and found a job at a catering company in Virginia. Every Friday and Saturday, she spent five hours studying English at the local community college. Over the years she saved enough money to buy her own townhouse. Here's what Veronica says about America: "This is a country of opportunity. If you want to be successful, you can do it. You can have your dreams come true here."

Another new citizen is Masoon Shaheen. Masoon grew up in Kuwait, and moved to the United States with her husband seven years ago. She enrolled in the community college to improve her English, took a job teaching Marines to speak Arabic. Here's what Masoon said: "The United States is a symbol of justice, freedom and liberty. I love that. Here they respect people because they are people. I feel I am honored, and I feel that I'm loved."

America is stronger and more dynamic when we welcome new citizens like Masoon and Veronica to our democracy. With that in mind, I've called on Congress to increase the number of green cards that can lead to citizenship. I support increasing the number of visas available for foreign-born workers in highly-skilled fields like science, medicine and technology. I've signed legislation creating a new Office of Citizenship at the Department of Homeland Security to promote knowledge of citizenship rights and procedures.

And after September the 11th, I signed an executive order making foreign-born members of our military immediately eligible for citizenship, because those willing to risk their lives for our democracy should be full participants in our democracy.

Over the past four years, more than 20,000 men and women in uniform have become citizens of the country they serve. They've taken the citizenship oath on the decks of aircraft carriers, on deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, and at military bases around the world. At Bethesda Naval Medical Center, I watched a brave Marine born in Mexico raise his right hand and become a citizen of the country he had defended in uniform for more than 26 years. It's a privilege to be the Commander-in-Chief of men and women like these, and I'm proud to call them fellow citizens.

All who swear the oath of citizenship are doing more than completing a legal process. They're making a lifelong pledge to support the values and the laws of America. The pledge comes with great privileges, and it also comes with great responsibilities. I believe every new citizen has an obligation to learn the customs and values that define our nation, including liberty and civic responsibility, equality under God, tolerance for others, and the English language.

Those of us who have been citizens for many years have responsibilities, as well. Helping new citizens assimilate is a mission that unites Americans by choice and by birth. I appreciate the work of patriotic organizations like the Daughters of the American Revolution. Some of the new Americans here today might have used DAR's Manual for Citizenship to prepare you for the citizenship test. They obviously did a pretty good job, since you passed. (Laughter.)

Many other organizations, from churches to businesses to civic organizations, are answering the call to help new citizens succeed in our country, and I am grateful for all those who reach out to people who are going to become citizens.

Government is doing its part to help new citizens succeed, as well. The Office of Citizenship has created a new official guide for immigrants. This free publication includes practical advice on tasks like finding housing and jobs, or enrolling your children in school, or paying taxes.

We're conducting outreach programs with faith-based and community groups to offer civics and English language courses. My administration will continue to pursue policies that open a path to education and jobs, promote ownership, and to give every citizen a chance to realize the American Dream.

Our nation is now in the midst of the debate on immigration policy, and it's good. Immigration is an important topic. Immigration is also an emotional topic. And we need to maintain our perspective as we conduct this debate. At its core, immigration is a sign of a confident and successful nation. It says something about our country that people around the world are willing to leave their homes and leave their families and risk everything to come to America. Their talent and hard work and love of freedom have helped make America the leader of the world. And our generation will ensure that America remains a beacon of liberty and the most hopeful society the world has ever known.

America is a nation of immigrants, and we're also a nation of laws. All of you are here because you followed the rules and you waited your turn in the citizenship line. Yet some violate our immigration laws and enter our country illegally, and that undermines the system for all of us. America should not have to choose between being a welcoming society and being a lawful society. We can be both at the same time. And so, to keep the promise of America, we must enforce the laws of America.

We must also reform those laws. No one is served by an immigration system that allows large numbers of people to sneak across the border illegally. Nobody benefits when illegal immigrants live in the shadows of society. Everyone suffers when people seeking to provide for their families are left at the mercy of criminals, or stuffed in the back of 18-wheelers, or abandoned in the desert to die. America needs comprehensive immigration reform.

I've laid out a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform that includes three critical elements: securing the border, strengthening the immigration enforcement inside our country, and creating a temporary worker program. These elements depend on and reinforce one another, and together they will give America an immigration system that meets the needs of the 21st century.

The first element is securing our border. Our immigration system cannot function if we cannot control the border. Illegal immigration puts a strain on law enforcement and public resources, especially in our border communities. Our nation is also fighting a war on terror, and terrorists crossing the border could create destruction on a massive scale. The responsibility of government is clear: We must enforce the border.

Since I took office, we've increased funding for border security by 66 percent. We've expanded the Border Patrol to more than 12,000 agents, an increase of more than 2,700 agents. And the budget next year funds another 1,500 new agents. We're helping these dedicated men and women do their jobs by providing them with cutting-edge technology, like infrared cameras, advanced motion sensors, and unmanned aerial vehicles. We're installing protective infrastructure, such as vehicle barriers and fencing in urban areas, to prevent people from crossing the border illegally. And we're integrating manpower and technology and infrastructure in more unified ways than ever. Our objective is to keep the border open to trade and tourism, and closed to criminals and drug dealers and terrorists.

Our strategy to secure the border is getting results. Since I took office, our agents have apprehended and sent home more than 6 million people entering this country illegally, including more than 400,000 with criminal records. Federal, state and local and travel enforcement officials are working side-by-side. Through the Arizona Border Control Initiative we apprehended more than 600,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona last year. The men and women of our Border Patrol have made good progress, but we have much more work ahead and we cannot be satisfied until we're in full control of the border.

We're also changing the way we process those we catch crossing the border illegally. More than 85 percent of the illegal immigrants we apprehend are from Mexico, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. We face a different challenge with non-Mexicans. For decades, government detention facilities did not have enough beds for the non-Mexican illegal immigrants caught at the border and so most were released back into society. They were each assigned a court date, but virtually nobody showed up. This practice, catch-and-release, is unwise, and my administration is going to end it.

To end catch-and-release, we're increasing the number of beds and detention facilities by 12 percent this year, and by another 32 percent next year. We're also expanding our use of a process called expedited removal, which allows us to send non-Mexican illegal immigrants home more quickly.

Last year, it took an average of 66 days to process one of these illegal immigrants. Now, we're doing it in 21 days. The goal is to increase the process faster. It's helped us end the catch-and-release for illegal immigrants from Brazil and Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua caught crossing our Southwest border. And since last summer, we've cut the number of non-Mexican illegal immigrants released in society by more than a third. We've set a goal to end catch-and-release over the next year. I look forward to working with Congress to close loop holes that makes it difficult for us to process illegal immigrants from certain countries. And we will continue to press foreign governments, like China, to take back their citizens who have entered our country illegally.

When illegal immigrants know they're going to be caught and sent home, they will be less likely to break the rules in the first place. And the system will be more orderly and secure for those who follow the law.

The second part of a comprehensive immigration reform is strengthening enforcement of our laws in the interior of our country. Since I took office, we've increased funding for immigration enforcement by 42 percent, and these resources have helped our agents bring to justice some very dangerous people: smugglers, terrorists, gang members, and human traffickers. For example, through Operation Community Shield, federal agents have arrested nearly 2,300 gang members who were here illegally, including violent criminals like the members of MS-13.

Better interior enforcement also requires better work site enforcement. Businesses have an obligation to abide by the law. The government has the responsibility to help them do so. Last year, I signed legislation to more than double the resources dedicated to work site enforcement. We'll continue to confront the problem of document fraud, because hard-working business owners should not have to act as detectives to verify the status of their workers.

Next month, we're going to launch law enforcement task forces in 11 major cities to dismantle document fraud rings. We're working to shut down the forgers who create the phony documents to stop the smugglers who traffic in human beings, and to ensure that American businesses are compliant with American law.

The third part of comprehensive immigration reform is to make the system more rational, orderly, and secure by creating a new temporary worker program. This program would provide a legal way to match willing foreign workers with willing American employers to fill the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do. Workers should be able to register for legal status on a temporary basis. If they decide to apply for citizenship, they would have to get in line. This program would help meet the demands of a growing economy and would allow honest workers to provide for their families while respecting the law.

A temporary worker program is vital to securing our border. By creating a separate legal channel for those entering America to do an honest day's labor, we would dramatically reduce the number of people trying to sneak back and forth across the border. That would help take the pressure off the border and free up law enforcement to focus on the greatest threats to our security, which are criminals and drug dealers and terrorists.

The program would also improve security by creating tamper-proof identification cards that would allow us to keep track of every temporary worker who is here on a legal basis and help us identify those who are here illegally.

One thing the temporary worker program should not do is provide amnesty for people who are in our country illegally. I believe granting amnesty would be unfair, because it would allow those who break the law to jump ahead of people like you all, people who play by the rules and have waited in the line for citizenship.

Amnesty would also be unwise, because it would encourage future waves of illegal immigration, it would increase pressure on the border and make it difficult for law enforcement to focus on those who mean us harm. For the sake of justice and border security, I firmly oppose amnesty.

This week, the Senate plans to consider legislation on immigration reform. Congress needs to pass a comprehensive bill that secures the border, improves interior enforcement, and creates a temporary worker program to strengthen our security and our economy. Completing a comprehensive bill is not going to be easy. It will require all of us in Washington to make tough choices and make compromises. And that is exactly what the American people sent us here to do.

As we move toward the process, we also have a chance to move beyond tired choices and the harsh attitudes of the past. The immigration debate should be conducted in a civil and dignified way. No one should play on people's fears, or try to pit neighbors against each other. No one should pretend that immigrants are threats to American identity, because immigrants have shaped America's identity.

No one should claim that immigrants are a burden on our economy because the work and enterprise of immigrants helps sustain our economy. We should not give into pessimism. If we work together, I'm confident we can meet our duty to fix our immigration system and deliver a bill that protects our people, upholds our laws, and makes our people proud.

It's a joyful day for all of you, and it's one you'll always remember. When you came here this morning, I was the President of another country. Now I'm the President of your country, and I'm grateful for that honor. I wish you good luck as citizens of the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.

May God bless you and your families, and may God continue to bless America. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

SINKING ISLANDS:

Panel: If no spending cuts are taken, how about 22% sales tax by 2015? (Japan Times, 3/28/06)

The consumption tax will have to rise to 22 percent from the current 5 percent by fiscal 2015 if the government is to achieve a sound balance between tax revenues and outlays, unless major spending cuts are made, an advisory panel to the finance minister said Monday.

For the government to put its fiscal house in order without any tax hike, it would have to slash its general-account expenditures by 26.9 trillion yen by fiscal 2015, the Fiscal System Council said in a report on the nation's long-term financial outlook.

Financial assets and home equity held by households averaged 39 million yen as of the end of November 2004, a drop of 11.1 percent from 1999, when the last survey was conducted, according to a survey by the Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry released Monday.

The assets include savings, securities and personal pensions, home equity including land for housing, and durable goods, including automobiles and furniture.

BABBLING GURU THROUGH:

Asahara death sentence appeal foiled: Insanity motion fails; top court still an option (MAYUMI NEGISHI, 3/28/06, Japan Times)

The Tokyo High Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Aum Shinrikyo founder Shoko Asahara, increasing the likelihood the guru's death sentence for masterminding the deadly 1995 gassing of the Tokyo subway system and other murders will stand without further sessions.

After effectively giving Asahara's counsel extra time to submit appeal documents after they "missed" last August's deadline because of what they claimed was an inability to communicate with the babbling guru, the court decided Monday the foot-dragging had to come to an end and said there was no excuse for the delay.

---

IF YOU DENY SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH HOW CAN YOU BE A GOOD CITIZEN OF THE REPUBLIC?:

THE CHRISTIANIZING OF AMERICA: Without a Doubt: a review of Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth By Richard John Neuhaus (Damon Linker, 03.24.06, New Republic)

Following Pope Benedict XVI, Neuhaus maintains that, far from restricting or abolishing freedom, the surrender of the mind to the absolute authority of the Church is the "foundation of freedom." But this is sophistry. Matthew Arnold, who was himself deeply exercised by the cultural consequences of the crisis of traditional religion, beautifully and accurately defined free thinking as "the free play of the mind on all subjects which it touches." Neuhaus appears to want no part of such serious play, such open-ended inquiry. Denouncing it as pointless "complexification" and yearning for what Paul Ricouer called a "second naïveté" on the far side of reflection, he gives every sign of preferring a comprehensive and hermetically sealed religious ideology that will definitively insulate him from doubt. Those less inclined to recoil from the joys and the trials, the frustrations and the rewards, of critical thinking will look on such longings with a mixture of perplexity and alarm.

And then there is politics. In his insistent emphasis on the need for order, authority, and tradition, as well as in his warnings about the psychological and social ravages of modern skepticism, Neuhaus echoes such luminaries of the European (and Catholic) right as Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortés, and (once again) Carl Schmitt, all of whom were staunch opponents of liberalism and modernity. Yet Neuhaus would have us believe that his own anti-liberal and anti-modern views are perfectly compatible with--no, synonymous with--the principles underlying modern American democracy.

We have considerable reason to doubt this. Take the crucially important issue of authority. Setting aside the question of whether an authoritarian outlook is harmful in religion, and there is a considerable religious and philosophical literature on the subject, an authoritarian outlook can certainly be destructive in politics. A nation in which such an outlook is explicitly encouraged and esteemed will be tempted to support political leaders who promise to shield us from the inherent complexity and difficulty of truth itself. This temptation is especially dangerous in liberal democratic nations, which depend on citizens informing themselves about exceedingly complicated issues, making use of alternative sources of information, doubting the assertions of public authorities, and thrashing out an inevitably tentative truth in open-ended argument and debate. This is the unavoidable price of citizenship in a free society. It is our citizenly duty to be suspicious, and to cultivate suspicion, of any and all who would rescue us from the rigors of our own freedom.

The offense that Neuhaus's political theology gives to American pluralism and civility is no less great. Since 1984, he has maintained that "only a transcendent, a religious, vision can turn this society from disaster and toward the fulfillment of its destiny" as a "sacred enterprise." Since 1987, he has further stipulated that this vision must be supplied by the Roman Catholic Church. The legitimacy of this ideological project--its potential to unify rather than to polarize the nation--stands or falls on its ability to avoid the social dynamic that Neuhaus himself once identified with Protestant evangelicalism. The Moral Majority was incapable of providing the nation with a unifying religious ideology, he argued in The Naked Public Square, because non-evangelical Americans would inevitably view the attempt as one group's illegitimate effort to impose its private theological convictions on the nation as a whole. Conservative Protestants thus negated their claim to speak for the whole of society in the very act of presuming to do so.

Over the years, Neuhaus has gone out of his way to show that unlike evangelicalism, with which he has often made common cause, Catholicism is capable of speaking with moral force to all Americans, regardless of their religious attachments (or lack of attachments). In the Church's natural-law tradition and its social encyclicals can be found the rudiments of a spiritual and moral outlook that is perfectly compatible with pluralism and democracy in the United States. Whether or not individual American citizens are conservative Catholics--or even liberal Catholics, or even Judeo-Christians, or even believers in a personal God, or even believers in any spiritual reality at all--they can and should accept the universal validity of traditionalist Catholic moral arguments and employ them as an ideological framework through which to understand the nation and its role in the world.

It is a beautiful story, but it is a fairy tale--at least when viewed in the light of the narrow and sectarian form of Catholicism that Neuhaus defends in Catholic Matters. Consider his delight in repeatedly claiming that the Catholic Church provides "the true story of the world," of which all the other stories are merely a part, "including the story of America." Neuhaus helpfully elaborated on the point in a recent issue of First Things, where he likewise asserted that "it is time to think again--to think deeply, to think theologically--about the story of America and its place in the story of the world." The Catholic story of the world, that is. These statements make it quite clear that Neuhaus longs for an omnivorous Catholic Church to devour and to absorb American culture and public life. Short of universal conversion to traditionalist Catholicism on the part of the American people, this effort to Catholicize the nation and its public philosophy would surely generate much more division and do far more to heighten sectarian tensions than the rise of the Moral Majority ever did. (One wonders, for example, how even Neuhaus's traditionalist Protestant allies will respond to his ecclesiological boast that the Catholic Church is "the gravitational center of the Christian reality, the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time.")

And what would the Catholicizing of the United States portend for the country's millions of non-traditionalist Christians and Jews, let alone its many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics? To judge from a troubling essay that Neuhaus wrote in 1991, they would likely have to be excluded from the category of good citizenship. Focusing on unbelievers, he declared that while "an atheist can be a citizen" of the United States, it is on principle impossible for an atheist to be "a good citizen." The godless, he maintained, are simply incapable of giving a "morally convincing account" of the nation--a necessary condition for fruitful participation in its experiment in "ordered liberty." To be morally convincing, such an account must make reference to "reasons that draw authority from that which is higher than the self, from that which is external to the self, from that to which the self is ultimately obligated." No wonder, then, that it is "those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus [who] turn out to be the best citizens."

To his credit, Neuhaus fully acknowledged the blatant circularity of his argument--the way it excluded atheists from the category of good citizenship by appealing exclusively to the assumptions of those religious traditionalists who believe that good citizenship requires the affirmation of divine authority. Yet in his effort to defend this circularity, Neuhaus made a startling admission. Establishing standards of good citizenship on the basis of exclusionary theistic assumptions is thoroughly justified, he claimed, not because such assumptions can plausibly be found in the Constitution or in its supporting documents or in established American practice or tradition, but because such assumptions are supposedly made by "a majority" in contemporary American society.

This is an appeal to raw majoritarian power, and its implications are plain. Neuhaus has often portrayed himself as a defender of a "civil public square." He has frequently insisted, against evangelicals and others, that public debate should take place using reason and that it should employ categories and concepts that are equally accessible to all citizens. But in his remarks on atheism Neuhaus made it very clear that the country's moral and religious consensus is actually the imposition of the beliefs of one part of a highly diverse community onto its other parts. In Catholic-Christian America, dominated by a traditionalist Christian majority, might would by definition be synonymous with right.

Neuhaus would no doubt insist that this exclusionary logic applies only to atheists (as if that weren't bad enough!), though it is hard to see why we should believe him. In the Catholic-Christian story of America and the world, non-traditionalist Christians and Jews, as well as adherents of other faiths, are at best peripheral players--and at worst antagonists. The most vivid and ominous example of what politics might be like in an America marked by such theologically motivated antagonisms can be found in the November 1996 issue of First Things, in which Neuhaus and his closest ideological compatriots, repulsed by a series of Supreme Court decisions on abortion, euthanasia, and gay rights, let out a cry of religiously inspired fury, and suggested (in terms identical to those Neuhaus employed during his period of leftist radicalism) that a morally corrupt "regime" was usurping democracy in America--and that a justified insurrection on the part of the country's most religious citizens might very well be in order.

All of the participants in the First Things symposium--it was called "The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics"--permitted themselves radical rhetoric. Robert H. Bork denounced the nation's "judicial oligarchy" for spreading "moral chaos" throughout the land. The Catholic theologian Russell Hittinger asserted that the country now lived "under an altered constitutional regime" whose laws were "unworthy of loyalty." Charles W. Colson maintained that America may have reached the point where "the only political action believers can take is some kind of direct, extra-political confrontation" with the "judicially controlled regime." And in a contribution titled "The Tyrant State," Robert P. George asserted that "the courts ... have imposed upon the nation immoral policies that pro-life Americans cannot, in conscience, accept."

But it was Neuhaus himself who did more than anyone else to push the tone of the symposium beyond the limits of responsible discourse. In the unsigned editorial with which he introduced the special issue of the magazine, Neuhaus adopted the revolutionary language of the Declaration of Independence to lament the judiciary's "long train of abuses and usurpations" and to warn darkly about "the prospect--some might say the present reality--of despotism" in America. In Neuhaus's view, what was happening in the United States could only be described as "the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people." Hence the stark and radical options confronting the country, ranging "from noncompliance to resistance to civil disobedience to morally justified revolution."

MODERATING THEMSELVES TO OBLIVION:

The West in an Afghan mirror (Spengler, 3/28/06, Asia Times)

Death everywhere and always is the penalty for apostasy, in Islam and every other faith. It cannot be otherwise, for faith is life and its abandonment is death. Americans should remove the beam from their own eye as they contemplate the gallows in the eye of the Muslims. Philistine hypocrisy pervades Western denunciations of the Afghan courts, which were threatening to hang Christian convert Abdul Rahman until the case was dropped on Monday. [...]

The practice of killing heretics has nothing to do with what differentiates Islam from Christianity or Judaism. St Thomas Aquinas defended not just the execution of individual heretics but also the mass extermination of heretical populations in the 12th-century Albigensian Crusades. For this he was defended by the Catholic philosopher Michael Novak, author of learned books about the faith of the United States of America's founding fathers (see Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy, November 23, 2004).

Western religions today inflict symbolic rather than physical death. One's local priest does not like to preach such things from his post-modern pulpit, but the Catholic Church prescribes eternal hellfire for those who come into communion with Christ and then reject him. Observant Jews hold a funeral for an apostate child who is spiritually dead to them (retroactive abortions not being permitted).

The last heretic hanged by the Catholic Church was a Spanish schoolteacher accused of Deist (shall we call that "moderate Christian"?) views in Valencia as recently as 1826. Without Napoleon Bonaparte and the humiliation of the Church by the German and Italian nationalist movements, who knows when the killing of heretics would have stopped?

"Where are the moderate Muslims?" sigh the self-appointed Sybils of the Western media. Faith is life. What does it mean to be moderately alive? Find the "moderate Christians" and the "moderate Jews", and you will have the answer. "Moderate Christians" such as Episcopalian priests or Anglican vicars are becoming redundant as their congregations migrate to red-blooded evangelical denominations or give up religion altogether. "Moderate Jews" are mainly secular and tend to intermarry. There really is no such thing as a "moderate" Christian; there simply are Christians, and soon-to-be-ex-Christians. The secular establishment has awoken with sheer panic to this fact at last. In response we have such diatribes such as Kevin Phillips' new book American Theocracy, an amalgam of misunderstandings, myths and calumnies about the so-called religious right.

THE POSTER CHIILD FOR THE WELFARE STATE

'Marriage Is for White People' (Joy Jones, Washington Post, 3/26/06)

And that's when the other boy chimed in, speaking as if the words left a nasty taste in his mouth: "Marriage is for white people."

He's right. At least statistically. The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States. In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43.3 percent of black men and 41.9 percent of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27.4 percent and 20.7 percent respectively for whites. African American women are the least likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17 percent; but for blacks, it fell by 34 percent. Such statistics have caused Howard University relationship therapist Audrey Chapman to point out that African Americans are the most uncoupled people in the country....

Although slavery was an atrocious social system, men and women back then nonetheless often succeeded in establishing working families. In his account of slave life and culture, "Roll, Jordan, Roll," historian Eugene D. Genovese wrote: "A slave in Georgia prevailed on his master to sell him to Jamaica so that he could find his wife, despite warnings that his chances of finding her on so large an island were remote. . . . Another slave in Virginia chopped his left hand off with a hatchet to prevent being sold away from his son." I was stunned to learn that a black child was more likely to grow up living with both parents during slavery days than he or she is today, according to sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin. [Emphasis added]

IF THEY WEREN'T LOSING THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO LIE (via Brian Boys):

Field Museum exhibit tells evolution story (TARA BURGHART, 3/27/06, AP)

A new exhibit at The Field Museum examines life in everything from the Precambrian to the Quaternary periods, but it's opening during a period when the theory of evolution is under attack by supporters of so-called "intelligent design."

Museum officials say that the timeliness is a coincidence - work began on "Evolving Planet" four years ago, and it replaces an exhibit that touched on many of the same themes.

But if there is any doubt about where the exhibit falls in the debate, it closes with a quote from Charles Darwin, who concluded that species evolve over time.

The "intelligent design" movement challenges Darwin's theory, contending that organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher authority.

ONE SUSPECTS THE GERMANS KNOW WE DIDN'T GIVE POWS TRIALS IN WWII:

Scalia: Foreign detainees have no U.S. rights (AP, March 27, 2006)

Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly told an overseas audience this month that the U.S. Constitution does not protect foreigners held at America's military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [...]

''War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,'' Newsweek quoted Scalia as saying in the speech. ''Give me a break.''

SO DIES ANOTHER OF THE LEFT'S ARTICLES OF FAITH:

Now Troops Have Body Armor And They Shun It as 'Too Heavy' (ANTONIO CASTANEDA, 3/27/06, Associated Press)

Extra body armor - the lack of which caused a political storm in America - has flooded into Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say.

Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.

DOESN'T THIS JUST SHOW HOW VAST THE CONSPIRACY IS?:

Blessed America loving Jews (Bruce Walker, March 27, 2006, Enter Stage Right)

Jews voted in elections in colonial America as early as 1702. The first Jews elected to office in functioning democracies were Jews elected by non-Jewish voters in pre-Revolutionary America. Jews also attended and graduated from Christian universities in colonial America. Francis Salvador was a Jewish member of the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War. David Emanuel was elected Governor of Georgia in 1800 and after him many Jews were elected or appointed governors, senators, congressmen, speakers of state legislatures and appointed chief justice of supreme courts throughout the South.

What about "intolerant" New England Puritans? These Puritans learned Hebrew, Puritan girls as well as Puritan boys. They created a religious structure consciously modeled after the synagogue. Puritans deliberately took Old Testament, rather than New Testament, names. These were not ignorant Puritans unconscious of what they were doing. New England Puritans were the best educated immigrant population in human history, with significant percentages of the population having degrees from great universities in Britain.

Washington's famous letter to the Jews of Newport speaks for itself: "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more than toleration that is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that any other enjoyed the exercise of their inherent rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, giving it on all occasions their effectual support…May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy of their other inhabitants, while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

John Adams wrote to Mordecai Noah, a Jewish leader in America : "I wish your nation be admitted to all the privileges of citizenship in every country of the world." Thomas Jefferson was just as sympathetic when he wrote that he was: "…happy in the restoration of the Jews, particularly, to their social rights, and hopes they will be seen taking their seats on the branches of science as preparatory to their doing the same at the board of government." The Founding Fathers seriously considered making Hebrew the national language of America.

Two centuries ago Christians founded the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of Jews, which helped and protected Jews, whether or not they embraced Christianity. This society, sometimes known as " Israel's Advocate," had two hundred branches within the Christian community in the United States. Nothing comparable existed anywhere on earth.

The young American government repeatedly intervened on behalf of Jews across the Atlantic. When Jews approached Martin Van Buren for help in ending a ghastly persecution at the hands of Ottoman Turks in the 1830s, they found that he had already taken action so on his own. Abraham Lincoln pointedly chose a Jewish consul to the Swiss Confederation, although it offended the Swiss government. American policy was to protect persecuted Jews since the earliest days of the Republic.

Twenty years before the Balfour Declaration, a cynical effort to gain Jewish support during the First World, a petition was signed by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and 413 of the most important American writers, clergymen and journalists calling for "an international conference to consider the condition of the Israelites and their claims to Palestine as their ancient home."

STUPID WOGS:

Fukuyama's John Kerry moment: a review of America at the Crossroads Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy By Francis Fukuyama (Steven Martinovich, March 27, 2006, Enter Stage Right)

[A]merica at the Crossroads is one of the better arguments against the war and its aftermath, both on philosophical grounds and real-world politics. In it Fukuyama argues that the current strain of neoconservatism, one he no longer considers himself a part of, responsible for the war in Iraq is far different from the one pioneered by the alumnus of the City College of New York in the 1930s and 40s. While the movement's founding fathers were convinced that American power could be used for good in the world -- as World War II proved -- today's neoconservatives have departed from several key principles.

Those principles include an aversion to preemptive wars and recognition that social engineering -- which Fukuyama uses as a euphemism for nation building -- was extraordinarily difficult. If Saddam Hussein was indeed a danger to global security, Fukuyama argues, then the war was too preemptive considering the failure to actually find the weapons of mass destruction the world was led to believe he possessed. And the post-war difficulty the coalition is experiencing is certainly proof that building a democracy is impossible without the internal demand for liberty and the institutions necessary to sustain it.

IMPORTING THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT:

Groundswell of Protests Back Illegal Immigrants (NINA BERNSTEIN, 3/27/06, NY Times)

When members of the Senate Judiciary Committee meet today to wrestle with the fate of more than 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, they can expect to do so against a backdrop of thousands of demonstrators, including clergy members wearing handcuffs and immigrant leaders in T-shirts that declare, "We Are America."

But if events of recent days hold true, they will be facing much more than that.

Rallies in support of immigrants around the country have attracted crowds that have astonished even their organizers. More than a half-million demonstrators marched in Los Angeles on Saturday, as many as 300,000 in Chicago on March 10, and — in between — tens of thousands in Denver, Phoenix, Milwaukee and elsewhere.

One of the most powerful institutions behind the wave of public protests has been the Roman Catholic Church, lending organizational muscle to a spreading network of grass-roots coalitions. In recent weeks, the church has unleashed an army of priests and parishioners to push for the legalization of the nation's illegal immigrants, sending thousands of postcards to members of Congress and thousands of parishioners into the streets.

The demonstrations embody a surging constituency demanding that illegal immigrants be given a path to citizenship rather than be punished with prison terms.

MORE:
African churches bloom in U.S.: A new, dynamic wave of Nigerian-based churches is establishing itself in America, evangelizing with fervor in hundreds of communities. (RACHEL ZOLL, 3/27/06, Associated Press)

On the 25th floor of a luxury office tower, a church most people have never heard of is planning to save America.

Its leaders believe Jesus has sent them to spread a difficult truth in the United States: Demonic forces are corrupting society and only spiritual warfare can stop them.

Call it the message.

The messenger comes from Nigeria.

The Redeemed Christian Church of God was founded in Lagos by men and women who were once the target of missionary work themselves. Now their church has become one of the most aggressive evangelizers to emerge from the advance of Christianity across Africa.

The Redeemed Church is part of a boom in African churches establishing American outposts. Jacob Olupona, a professor at the University of California, Davis, has found hundreds of examples in cities large and small.

''Anyone who writes about Christianity in America in the 21st century,'' Olupona said, ``will have to write about African churches.''

At the core of the shift are pastors from Nigeria. Over the last century, Christians there have swelled from a tiny minority to nearly half the population, and its pastors have shown an exceptional talent for winning believers abroad.

In the United States, the Redeemed Church is ahead of them all.

WE'RE GOING--YOU COMING?:

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says (DON VAN NATTA Jr., 3/27/06, NY Times)

In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin." [...]

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."

The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.

The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE MADE IN HIS IMAGE, CLONE AWAY:

Scientists bring home the bacon with healthy pig fat (Anita Srikameswaran, March 27, 2006, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

Someday you could eat bacon and ham instead of fish and nuts to get heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids into your diet.

Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, the University of Missouri-Columbia's National Swine Resource and Research Center, and Massachusetts General Hospital have made pigs that produce the beneficial nutrients.

Omega-3 fatty acids cut triglyceride levels, the risk of irregular heartbeat, and the growth of artery-clogging atherosclerotic plaques, according to the American Heart Association. The association recommends eating fish, preferably fatty ones such as salmon, at least twice a week because it is rich in omega-3.

MORE:
And for dessert, New chocolate marketed as heart healthy (Hilary E. MacGregor, March 22, 2006, Los Angeles Times)

After working below the radar on a cocoa farm deep in Brazil, and toiling for years over test tubes in food labs, scientists say they have developed a top-secret formula for an undisciplined candy lover's dream: a healthful chocolate bar.

Eating a couple of tiny slabs a day of this dark chocolate could lower cholesterol, relax your blood vessels and help ward off heart disease, they say.

Loaded with potent chemicals such as cocoa flavanols, plant sterols and soy -- and stamped with an icon that reads, "promotes a healthy heart" -- the CocoaVia line of chocolates has been available in select locations since October 2005. By April they'll be in mainstream grocery stores.

NEAR RECORD TIME ANYWAY:

In Iran, Even Some On Right Warning Against Extremes: Conservative Faction Fears Radicalism (Karl Vick, 3/27/06, Washington Post)

Nine months after the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, Iranian politics has shifted so sharply to the right that some traditional conservatives are warning of the dangers of radicalism. [...]

"Ayatollah Mesbah is an extremist," said one Iranian official close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the soft-spoken cleric who has been Iran's supreme leader since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989.

"Ayatollah Khomeini warned the people lots of times not to allow these people, the Shia Talibans, to come to power in Iran and have space," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, noting that Khamenei has judged it prudent to accommodate even extremists within the system and accord them respect. "Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei feel these people can do a lot of damage. They can damage Iran. They can damage Islam. They are like the Taliban. They are like al-Qaeda. They say they know what Allah expects from us -- that we should do what he wants from us without paying attention to the consequences.

"And it's a very dangerous belief."

The tension highlights significant divisions within Iran's conservative camp, often viewed from outside the country as a turbaned monolith. In reality, 27 years after the 1979 revolution that brought Shiite clerics to power, Iranian politics is a nuanced landscape defined largely by the lessons taken from the previous quarter-century.

Traditional conservatives describe themselves as firm but flexible. While remaining committed to the precept that clerics should hold ultimate authority, they were chastened in the 1990s when reformists -- determined to lessen the intrusion of the state into private lives and show greater tolerance for dissent -- won landslide electoral victories.

WHAT WAS OIL, DADDY?:

Wind power 'ahead of predictions' (BBC, 3/27/06)

Onshore wind farms will provide about 5% of Britain's electricity by 2010, according to the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA).

In a new report, it says turbines are being installed faster than predicted.

If this is correct, onshore wind farms will take the government halfway to its target of generating 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

SEE NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL, HEAR EVIL:

Musical brings Korean horrors home (Charles Scanlon, 3/27/06, BBC)

It is probably the least cheerful musical since Les Miserables - a three-hour song and dance extravaganza set in one of North Korea's notorious labour camps.

Yoduk Story opens with goose-stepping communist soldiers and rousing revolutionary arias. Before long the action shifts to the hell of Yoduk - a North Korean prison camp that is believed to hold 20,000 political prisoners and their families.

It is the harrowing story of a celebrated state actress, who is sent to the camp with the rest of her family after her father is arrested as a spy - common practice in the North, where families down to the third generation are held accountable for the crimes of relatives. [...]

South Korean officials says privately that the North is holding some 200,000 political prisoners - but they argue that engagement rather than direct confrontation is the best way to bring about change.

Almost the entire musical is set at the Yoduk camp - it is portrayed as a nightmare world of public executions, rape and starvation.

The heroine is raped by the camp commander and bears him a child - but later survives to forgive him.

The theme may be too dark for some, especially younger South Koreans, many of whom find it hard to conceive of the horrors taking place just across the border.

"I'd heard of the camps but never took much interest. Seeing it has really shocked me - it's helped me to care more about what's happening," said Park Bang-hee, a student in her 20s, after the curtain went down.

The production can count on the enthusiasm of conservative and Christian groups - and is likely to spur debate on North Korean human rights, which have been overlooked in the rush to reconciliation.

LOOKIN' TO GET DUFFYED?:

Beckett turns up volume -- Hurler fires words, Ks (Jeff Horrigan, March 27, 2006, Boston Herald)

The Red Sox were hoping to get a younger version of Curt Schilling when they acquired Josh Beckett from the Florida Marlins, and yesterday Beckett gave a strong indication that he is every bit as intense as his new mentor.

The 25-year-old right-hander showed that he is not one to be messed with by nearly sparking a brawl with Ryan Howard when he mouthed off to the mammoth Philadelphia Phillies slugger and accused Howard of hot-dogging after hitting a deep fly ball to center field in the sixth inning of the Sox’ 3-2 win at Brighthouse Networks Field. [...]

“It’s not like I wanted to fight the guy. I just wanted to make the point that you look like a jackass whenever you hit a ball like that and you’re pimping it and you’re out. " [...]

With Beckett still chirping, Howard walked toward the dugout, finally throwing his glove down to prepare for a fight. Beckett attempted to ascend the stairs to meet him, only to be intercepted by teammates as a scrum formed in foul territory and bullpens emptied. Rudy Seanez, who participates in ultimate fighting during the offseason, led the relievers’ charge.

“I told him he was a little slow,” Francona said of Seanez’ arrival.

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!:

Judicial intemperance: Scalia flips message to doubting Thomases (Laurel J. Sweet, March 27, 2006, Boston Herald)

Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.

“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.

“That’s Sicilian,” the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the “Sopranos” challenged.

“It’s none of their business,” continued Scalia, who was the keynote speaker at yesterday’s Catholic Lawyers’ Guild luncheon. “This is my spiritual life. I shall lead it the way I like.”

THE CHINA THAT MATTERS:

Taiwan towers as an innovator (John Boudreau, 3/27/06, Knight Ridder Newspapers)

Think of most tech gadgets, from the iPod to the PlayStation, and an engineer on this island of 23 million probably has had a hand in its creation.

While India and China share the spotlight as emerging giants, Taiwan is already a huge behind-the-scenes maker of tech products.

Taiwanese companies produce three-quarters of the world's notebook computers, two-thirds of its personal digital assistants and nearly 70 percent of its liquid crystal display monitors, according to Taiwan government statistics.

The island is home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, the world's largest made-to-order chip manufacturer. Civic leaders like to point to the jade-green Taipei 101, the world's tallest skyscraper that towers over the densely packed city, as a sign of Taiwan's economic prowess.

Now Taiwan is making strides in moving to a more visible role as tech innovator. As China muscles its way into more and more sophisticated manufacturing, Taiwanese companies are elevating their research-and-design skills and creating their own brands that can be marketed globally to stay a few steps ahead of its intimidating neighbor.

WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS:

Boston's breakthrough schools (Neal Peirce, 3/26/06 Seattle Times)

Could this city's "pilot schools" — a cross between charter schools and regular city system schools — signal a "tipping point" in the long struggle to reshape urban America's embattled public-education systems?

Paul Grogan, author of the 2001 book "Comeback Cities" and now president of the Boston Foundation, believes so. He predicts that pilot schools, part of the formal school system but granted charter-like powers over budgets, hiring and curriculum, may prove the missing key to overcoming stifling bureaucracy and conquering "the final frontier of inner-city revitalization."

For a flavor of pilot-school culture, I visited the four-year-old Boston Community Leadership Academy (BCLA), formerly a problem-plagued district high school with low academic scores. But when headquarters moved to close the school, the recently appointed principal, Nicole Bahnam, her teachers and parents protested vehemently and asked for pilot-school status.

Headquarters agreed. With help from the Boston-based Center for Collaborative Education, Bahnam and her staff rewrote their entire school mission to focus on a rigorous academic experience and personalized attention — in Bahnam's words, "a program driven by kids' needs, not by any bureaucracy."

BATTLE OF THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS:

Invasive Species Threaten Galapagos's Diversity (Juliet Eilperin, February 27, 2006, Washington Post)

Introduced species are the greatest threat to native plants and animals, including some that were brought deliberately by humans and others that slipped in, several scientific experts said.

"If we don't manage in an efficient way the arrival of new invasive species, the consequences could be disastrous," said Felipe Cruz, a Galapagos National Park official who focuses on eliminating the invaders from Santiago and Isabela islands.

Gilda Gonzalez, a naturalist for the U.S.-based tour operation Lindblad Expeditions who also monitors the park for Ecuadorian authorities, said the archipelago's isolation from the mainland 600 miles to the east makes it especially vulnerable to new arrivals: "This is a big, big problem. For a long time the animals, the plants, the insects in this area, they didn't have competition."

The invasive species range from large mammals, such as donkeys and goats, to tiny fire ants that kill tortoise and bird hatchlings.

On some of the 10 islands, alien species have already driven native ones extinct. [...]

At this point, the 720 introduced plants growing in the Galapagos outnumber the islands' 500 original plant species.

THE FUTURE HAPPENS FAST THESE DAYS:

Cablevision tests 'remote storage' DVR use (David Lieberman, 3/27/06, USA TODAY)

In a move that could ignite a major debate about consumer "fair use" of TV programming, Cablevision Systems will unveil plans to test a service that gives cable subscribers the ability to record and time-shift shows using existing digital set-top boxes.

Although it works just like TiVo and other digital video recorders (DVRs) — consumers choose in advance which shows to capture and can fast-forward through ads — the recording itself will be stored at the cable system, not on a hard drive in the consumer's home.

The technology for what Cablevision calls its "remote storage digital video recorder" (RS-DVR) "is here today, and in Cablevision's case, we can use it to put DVR functionality in more than 2 million digital cable homes instantaneously, without ever rolling a truck or swapping out a set-top box," COO Tom Rutledge says in a statement.

THE REST IS SOYLENT:

Richard Fleischer (Daily Telegraph, 27/03/2006)

Richard Fleischer, who died on Saturday aged 89, was the Hollywood director responsible for films such as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Boston Strangler and Fantastic Voyage.

The film that marked his breakthrough, The Narrow Margin (1952), a low-budget thriller filmed almost entirely in a railroad car, is considered by some critics to be one of the best B movies ever made.

His autobiography, published in 1993, Just Tell Me When to Cry - subtitled "Encounters with the Greats, Near-Greats and Ingrates of Hollywood" - is one of the most absorbing of its kind.

Richard Fleischer was born on December 8 1916. His father was the animator Max Fleischer who, with his brothers Dave and Louis, conceived the Popeye and Betty Boop cartoons and was a rival of Walt Disney's. [...]

A better film, in which Orson Welles gives a bravura court-room performance as a lawyer, was Compulsion, a version of the Loeb-Leopold murder case. Fleischer found Welles easy to work with - and also that "he knew more about directing than you did or anybody did". [...]

Fleischer was undaunted by Dino de Laurentis's proposal for the biblical epic, Barabas, and the result was better than most of that genre, owing something to the surprising presence of Silvana Mangano.

Fleischer's next venture was the memorable Fantastic Voyage, in which a team of scientists are put into a submarine which is reduced to the size of a microbe and injected into the human bloodstream.

Among the intrepid party is Raquel Welch, who dons a diving suit to venture outside the vessel - only to return covered in antibodies that have to be removed.

"No one wanted to be the first to make a grab for one of Raquel's splendid boobs," Fleischer remembered, "so they grabbed everywhere else.

"The result was, when I finally called 'Cut!', a de-antibodied Raquel except for her bosom, which was thickly encrusted with them and looked like a Las Vegas showgirl's rhinestone-bedecked brassiere." [...]

After the thriller The New Centurions (1972) came Soylent Green, with Edward G Robinson, then mortally ill. Set in a hellish, futuristic Manhattan, the film is notable for the scene in which Robinson's character elects to die; it was the last scene he ever shot.

SELF-LAMED DUCK:

I was wrong to say I'd quit, admits Blair (Neil Tweedie, 27/03/2006, Daily Telegraph)

Tony Blair appeared to admit that his decision to announce his intention to resign as Prime Minister was an error that has left him weaker and allowed his opponents to push for his early removal from No 10.

He was speaking on Australian radio after a 19-hour non-stop flight to Melbourne as Downing Street insiders conceded that uncertainty over his departure was causing disquiet among MPs.

Their admission followed six weeks of relentless pressure during which controversy over the family finances of Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, followed by the "loans for peerages" controversy, has reignited debate over the Labour succession. Sources close to the Prime Minister, who is touring Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia, say he has decided when to go but has not told even his closest friends.

Does sort of squander one of the chief advantages of the parliamentary system.

---

A Word a Day (WordSmith, 3/27/06)

Parthian shot (PAR-thee-uhn shot) noun

A hostile remark made in departing.

[After the natives of Parthia, an ancient country in southwest Asia.]

Parthians were expert archers. Their specialty was firing arrows while in (or pretending to be in) retreat which disrupted the enemy forces.

The more descriptive term "parting shot" is a synonym.

FOLD ON DOTTED LINE:

Incoming Hamas PM says ready for talks with mediators (SARAH EL DEEB, 3/27/06, Associated Press)

The Palestinian Authority's incoming premier said Monday his Hamas-led government was ready to hold talks with international Mideast mediators, though he reiterated that Hamas would not cave in to economic pressures to soften its hard-line agenda.

The so-called Quartet of mediators -- the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia -- is demanding that Hamas disarm, recognize Israel and accept past Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements. Hamas has so far rejected these conditions.

“The government is ready for dialogue with the Quartet,” incoming Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh told parliament. “The European Union has provided a lot of aid to our people, and supported our right for freedom. ... We are interested in a strong relation with Europe.”

WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN WHY REPTILES ARE EXTINCT (via Tom Morin):

'Lack of deep sleep led to dinosaurs' demise' (RHIANNON EDWARD, 3/22/06, The Scotsman)

DINOSAURS were most likely killed off because they never got a good night's sleep, scientists have claimed.

Giant meteorites from outer space, fire storms, tidal waves and an ice age have all been suggested by experts to explain the demise of T-Rex and other giant dinosaurs.

However, the latest theory to explain their extinction claims they did not survive because their reptilian sleeping patterns meant their brains did not learn new skills properly.

Unlike mammals and birds, reptiles are unable to experience slow wave sleep, the type of sleep believed to be responsible for boosting memories, especially those connected to performing new tasks.

WHY SHOULD DAWKINS SUFFER JUST BECAUSE HE'S HONEST?:

Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins: Anti-religious Darwinists are promulgating a false dichotomy between faith and science that gives succour to creationists (Madeleine Bunting, March 27, 2006, The Guardian)

The curious thing is that among those celebrating the prominence of these two Darwinians[, Richard Dawkins & Daniel Dennett,] on both sides of the Atlantic is an unexpected constituency - the American creationist/intelligent-design lobby. Huh? Dawkins, in particular, has become their top pin-up.

How so? William Dembski (one of the leading lights of the US intelligent-design lobby) put it like this in an email to Dawkins: "I know that you personally don't believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!"

But while Dembski, Dawkins and Dennett are sipping the champagne for their very different reasons, there is a party pooper. Michael Ruse, a prominent Darwinian philosopher (and an agnostic) based in the US, with a string of books on the subject, is exasperated: "Dawkins and Dennett are really dangerous, both at a moral and a legal level." The nub of Ruse's argument is that Darwinism does not lead ineluctably to atheism, and to claim that it does (as Dawkins does) provides the intelligent-design lobby with a legal loophole: "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."

THEY'RE CALLED CLASSICS FOR A REASON...DON'T MESS WITH THEM:

A 'Rheingold' That Stands on Its Principals (Tim Page, 3/27/06, Washington Post)

The best way to approach Washington National Opera's new production of Richard Wagner's "Das Rheingold," which opened Saturday night at the Kennedy Center, is as a solid, abstract and sometimes very attractive updating of a classic.

In short, forget most of what you might have read about this being the first installment of an "American 'Ring' " -- that is, a staging of Wagner's four-evening "Ring" cycle based on what WNO calls the "rich history of the United States." It isn't, unless you count as pointed political commentary, dressing up the earth goddess Erda like the lady on the Land O' Lakes box, casting African Americans in the roles of the captive Nibelungs, and having the giants Fafner and Fasolt bop and swagger like wild 'n' crazy guy construction workers.

Perhaps the next three operas in the series -- a new "Die Walkure" will enter the repertoire next season, with "Siegfried" and "Gotterdammerung" promised for later -- will deepen the American subtext. For now, just enjoy Francesca Zambello's "Roaring Twenties" staging for its general usefulness, its evocative projections (mist, sun, water and some creepy snakes), its occasional moments of majesty and whimsy.

I am grateful, I suppose, that none of the characters wear antlers on their heads, but I am less happy that the production, for the most part, lacks the luminous beauty of the best traditional stagings...

CRYIN' TIME:

Buck Owens; Singer and 'Hee Haw' Star (Matt Schudel, 3/26/06, Washington Post)

By blending rock-and-roll rhythms with country harmonies, Mr. Owens created the distinctive "Bakersfield sound," which propelled him to enormous success. Between 1959 and 1974, he had 45 songs in the country Top 10 and 20 No. 1 hits, including "Act Naturally" (1963), "Love's Gonna Live Here" (1963), "Together Again" (1964), "I've Got a Tiger by the Tail" (1964) and "Waitin' in Your Welfare Line" (1966).

He was unquestionably the leading country music star of the 1960s, annually selling more than 1 million records. He performed more than 300 nights a year and appeared at Carnegie Hall and the White House. In the mid-1960s, he had 15 consecutive No. 1 country hits. As a patriotic gesture in the late 1960s, he began to perform with a red-white-and-blue guitar, which became a signature.

From 1969 to 1986, Mr. Owens and Roy Clark were the hosts of "Hee Haw," a comedy and country music program that was hugely popular in rural America. He had a syndicated television series, "Buck Owens' Ranch Show," from 1966 to 1972.

Except for his weekly "Hee Haw" appearances, Mr. Owens stopped performing in 1979 to focus on his varied business enterprises, which were concentrated in Bakersfield and Arizona, the state where he spent an impoverished childhood.

His career had a late resurgence after a Bakersfield country star of a younger generation, Dwight Yoakam, walked into Mr. Owens's office on Sept. 23, 1987, and asked him to join him onstage that night at a county fair. The response was enthusiastic, and he collaborated with Yoakam the following year on "Streets of Bakersfield," which became Mr. Owens's 21st No. 1 hit. [...]

Alvis Edgar Owens Jr. was born Aug. 12, 1929, in Sherman, Tex., where his father was a sharecropper. To escape the Dust Bowl, 10 family members piled into a Ford sedan in 1937 and headed west, stopping in Mesa, Ariz., where their car broke down.

Mr. Owens quit school at 13 to work in cotton and potato fields and later was a truck driver and ditch digger.

"That was where my dream began to take hold," he said, "of not having to pick cotton and potatoes and not having to be uncomfortable, too hot or too cold."

He learned to play the mandolin and quickly moved on to the guitar and other instruments.

By 16, he was performing in clubs and on radio in Arizona. He married his first wife, singer Connie Campbell Owens, when he was 17 and performing with a group called Mac's Skillet Lickers. In 1951, he moved to Bakersfield after hearing that the oil-rich city held opportunities for musicians.

He played trumpet, saxophone, harmonica, piano and drums but was best known for the ringing, jangling sound of his Telecaster electric guitar. He gained most of his musical training from the radio, listening to the Texas swing of Bob Wills and to bluegrass and rhythm-and-blues music played on Mexican "border stations." He absorbed the sounds of early rock-and-roll and in 1956 released a rockabilly record under the name Corky Jones.

"Out of all that came my music, country mixing with the early rock-and-roll sound," he said. "I always wanted to hear music drive with a lot of beat. If I'd wanted to go to sleep, I'd have taken a nap."

He worked nights at a Bakersfield club called the Blackboard and commuted during the day to studios in Los Angeles, where he was a backup musician for Tennessee Ernie Ford, Kay Starr, Gene Vincent, Wanda Jackson, Faron Young and other performers.

After signing a contract with Capitol Records in 1957, Mr. Owens formed a band, the Buckaroos, named by a fellow Bakersfield singer and musician, Merle Haggard. (Haggard later married Mr. Owens's ex-wife.)

From 1958 to 1960, Mr. Owens lived in Puyallup, Wash., where he had a radio show and played in clubs. While there, he met a 16-year-old fiddler, Don Rich, who later switched to guitar and became a key part of the Buckaroos' success.

Disdaining the packaged, syrupy sound associated with Nashville, Mr. Owens recorded his music in California, layering it with jangling guitars, driving drums, pedal steel guitar and tight vocal harmonies designed to sound good on radio.

He wrote many of his hits and composed several songs popularized by other artists, such as "Cryin' Time," which was a hit for Ray Charles in 1966.

MORE:
Buck Owens shaped sound of country (Ken Barnes, 3/25/06, USA TODAY)

Powered by the crisp guitar licks of the late Don Rich and the driving rhythms of backing band The Buckaroos, Owens' hits jumped out of the radio, contrasting with the strings-laden Nashville productions of the era. Owens was the driving force in establishing his home base, Bakersfield, as the only serious modern rival to Nashville's grip on country music, as he, protégé Merle Haggard, Wynn Stewart and Tommy Collins saturated radio airwaves.

Although Owens cooled off on the charts by 1974, cutting such novelties as On the Cover of the Music City News, Monsters' Holiday and You Ain't Gonna Have Ol' Buck to Kick Around No More, a parallel career made him even more widely known to the American public at large: He co-hosted the country comedy series Hee Haw from 1969 to 1986.

That bucolic role unfairly pigeonholed him in many people's eyes, but his musical reputation was restored in 1988 when a duet with then-hot new star Dwight Yoakam, Streets of Bakersfield, became Owens' first No. 1 hit in 16 years.

Yoakam was an avid Owens booster ("I will cherish forever the musical moments he graciously shared with me during his life," Yoakam told the Associated Press) and helped fire him up to take one last whack at the country charts in 1989, when he had minor hits with Hot Dog, a rockabilly tune he had cut as Corky Jones in the '50s, and a duet on Act Naturally with, fittingly, Ringo Starr.

RICHARD MELLON SCAIFE BOARDS THE EXPRESS:

Leveraging McCain (Salena Zito, 3/26/06, Pittsburgh TRIBUNE-REVIEW)

The first thing that strikes you about John McCain is that he's comfortable in his own skin, a trait possessed by too few of his colleagues.

Capitol Hill is about being "on message." McCain is who he is. [...]

McCain, the Republicans' frontman for the midterm elections, says the GOP has benchmarks it should build upon, the economy being "the biggest success story ... and we are not doing an effective job communicating it."

He's equally candid about the failures -- namely Social Security -- and agitated by the behavior of Democrat colleagues.

"Did you see when the Democrats stood up and cheered at the president's remarks about (failing to reform) Social Security?" McCain asks, shaking his head. "Stood up and cheered? How can you do that? What is that all about?"

Getting a job done is the only option for McCain and he is adamant when it comes to fixing Social Security.

MORE:
Meanwhile, the Democratic base will drag their 2008 candidate ever further from the mainstream and into the partisan fever swamps that Americans despise, Feingold's Standing Boosted Among Voters (FREDERIC J. FROMMER, 3/26/06, Associated Press)

While only two Democrats in the Senate have embraced Sen. Russ Feingold's call for censuring President Bush, the idea is increasing his standing among many Democratic voters as he ponders a bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.

Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, insists his proposal has nothing to do with his political ambitions. But he does challenge Democrats who argue it will help energize Republicans.

"Those Democrats said that within two minutes of my announcing my idea," Feingold said in a telephone interview last week. "I don't see any serious evidence of that."

A Newsweek poll taken March 16-17 found that 50 percent of those surveyed opposed censuring Bush while 42 percent supported it, but among Democrats, 60 percent favored the effort.

HOW LONG 'TIL HE MOVES HERE?:

Case Dropped Against Afghan Christian (AP, 3/26/06)

An Afghan court has dismissed case against a man who converted from Islam to Christianity for lack of evidence, an official said Sunday.

IF ONLY HE WERE A DEMOCRAT, THEY'D LOVE HIM:

Neo No More: a review of America at the Crossroads by Francis Fukuyama (PAUL BERMAN, 3/26/06, NY Times)

The neoconservatives, he suggests, are people who, having witnessed the collapse of Communism long ago, ought to look back on those gigantic events as a one-in-a-zillion lucky break, like winning the lottery. Instead, the neoconservatives, victims of their own success, came to believe that Communism's implosion reflected the deepest laws of history, which were operating in their own and America's favor — a formula for hubris. This is a shrewd observation, and might seem peculiar only because Fukuyama's own "End of History" articulated the world's most eloquent argument for detecting within the collapse of Communism the deepest laws of history. He insists in his new book that "The End of History" ought never to have led anyone to adopt such a view, but this makes me think only that Fukuyama is an utterly unreliable interpreter of his own writings.

He wonders why Bush never proposed a more convincing justification for invading Iraq — based not just on a fear of Saddam Hussein's weapons (which could have been expressed in a non-alarmist fashion), nor just on the argument for human rights and humanitarianism, which Bush did raise, after a while. A genuinely cogent argument, as Fukuyama sees it, would have drawn attention to the problems that arose from America's prewar standoff with Hussein. The American-led sanctions against Iraq were the only factor that kept him from building his weapons. The sanctions were crumbling, though. Meanwhile, they were arousing anti-American furies across the Middle East on the grounds (entirely correct, I might add) that America was helping to inflict horrible damage on the Iraqi people. American troops took up positions in the region to help contain Hussein — and the presence of those troops succeeded in infuriating Osama bin Laden. In short, the prewar standoff with Hussein was untenable morally and even politically. But there was no way to end the standoff apart from ending Hussein's dictatorship.

Now, I notice that in stressing this strategic argument, together with the humanitarian and human rights issue, and in pointing out lessons from the Balkans, Fukuyama has willy-nilly outlined some main elements of the liberal interventionist position of three years ago, at least in one of its versions. In the Iraq war, liberal interventionism was the road not taken, to be sure. Nor was liberal interventionism his own position. However, I have to say that, having read his book, I'm not entirely sure what position he did adopt, apart from wisely admonishing everyone to tread carefully. He does make plain that, having launched wars hither and yon, the United States had better ensure that, in Afghanistan and Iraq alike, stable antiterrorist governments finally emerge.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

MORE:
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show (ELI LAKE, March 24, 2006, NY Sun)

A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.

COOL POSE, COLD FACTS:

A Poverty of the Mind (ORLANDO PATTERSON, 3/26/06, NY Times)

So what are some of the cultural factors that explain the sorry state of young black men? They aren't always obvious. Sociological investigation has found, in fact, that one popular explanation — that black children who do well are derided by fellow blacks for "acting white" — turns out to be largely false, except for those attending a minority of mixed-race schools.

An anecdote helps explain why: Several years ago, one of my students went back to her high school to find out why it was that almost all the black girls graduated and went to college whereas nearly all the black boys either failed to graduate or did not go on to college. Distressingly, she found that all the black boys knew the consequences of not graduating and going on to college ("We're not stupid!" they told her indignantly).

SO why were they flunking out? Their candid answer was that what sociologists call the "cool-pose culture" of young black men was simply too gratifying to give up. For these young men, it was almost like a drug, hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture, the fact that almost all the superstar athletes and a great many of the nation's best entertainers were black.

Not only was living this subculture immensely fulfilling, the boys said, it also brought them a great deal of respect from white youths. This also explains the otherwise puzzling finding by social psychologists that young black men and women tend to have the highest levels of self-esteem of all ethnic groups, and that their self-image is independent of how badly they were doing in school.

I call this the Dionysian trap for young black men. The important thing to note about the subculture that ensnares them is that it is not disconnected from the mainstream culture. To the contrary, it has powerful support from some of America's largest corporations. Hip-hop, professional basketball and homeboy fashions are as American as cherry pie. Young white Americans are very much into these things, but selectively; they know when it is time to turn off Fifty Cent and get out the SAT prep book.

For young black men, however, that culture is all there is — or so they think. Sadly, their complete engagement in this part of the American cultural mainstream, which they created and which feeds their pride and self-respect, is a major factor in their disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream.

HEY, JIMMY CARTER DID SOMETHING GOOD, FOR ONCE:

Dose of Tenacity Wears Down a Horrific Disease (DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., 3/26/06, NY Times)

For untold generations here, yardlong, spaghetti-thin worms erupted from the legs or feet — or even eye sockets — of victims, forcing their way out by exuding acid under the skin until it bubbled and burst. The searing pain drove them to plunge the blisters into the nearest pool of water, whereupon the worm would squirt out a milky cloud of larvae, starting the cycle anew.

"The pain is like if you stab somebody," said Hyacinth Igelle, a farmer with a worm coming out of a hand so swollen and tender that he could not hold a hoe. He indicated how the pain moved slowly up his arm. "It is like fire — it comes late, but you feel it even unto your heart."

Now, thanks to a relentless 20-year campaign led by former President Jimmy Carter, Guinea worm is poised to become the first disease since smallpox to be pushed into oblivion. Fewer than 12,000 cases were found last year, down from 3 million in 1986.

Mr. Carter persuaded world leaders, philanthropists and companies to care about an obscure and revolting disease and help him fight it. His foundation mobilized volunteers in tens of thousands of villages to treat the drinking water the worms live in.

ST. TIMMY:

Timbit nation (KENNETH KIDD, 3/26/06, Toronto Star)

Conversation with 19-year-old daughter Parental unit: "Do you ever go to Tim Hortons?" Daughter: "Well, obviously. What's your point?" Parental: "Well, I'm meant to be writing about Tim Hortons and Canadian culture." Daughter: "Isn't that obvious?" [...]

Every couple of years, the marketing people go out into the field to interview customers. They call it a "brand character" study. The words they hear back about the chain have been pretty consistent: unpretentious, caring, friendly, dependable, and (wait for it) Canadian.

It is, in other words, one of us.

We even call it "Timmy's," the kind of nickname that comes freighted with other Canadian associations. In hockey dressing rooms, from pick-up to pro, just about everyone's name similarly grows a "y" or "ie" appendage. (Think "Dougie" Gilmour.) It's the great leveller, a way of checking everyone's outside-world status at the arena door.

You can see a species of that in any Tim Hortons, especially downtown, where the line-ups are apt to be both longer and more diverse than those at the neighbouring Starbucks.

"Every kind of vocational level is represented in one line and not the other," says Paul Wales, president of Enterprise Advertising, the people who produce the Tim Hortons television ads.

But we also give similar nicknames to neighbourhood pubs, a practice that dates at least from the time Toronto taverns still had separate entrances for "ladies and escorts." A bar like The Benlamond invariably becomes "The Benny" in neighbourhood parlance, just as The Wallace House becomes "The Wally." It's as if, in order to sanction a local meeting place, we have to strip away any hint of pretension.

So has Tim Hortons replaced, or at least joined, local bars as the informal town halls of neighbourhoods?

Pollster Michael Adams, whose book Fire and Ice explores the growing differences between Canadian and American values, thinks there might be some truth to that theory.

"Americans aspire to independence," he says. "Their model is to drive out of town, Gary Cooper with Grace Kelly, and get on their ranch and she's in the kitchen and having babies and he's standing at the ranch gate with a gun, saying, `no trespassing.'"

Canadians, by contrast, are far less fearful. Yes, we're mostly autonomous (from institutions and the state) but also interdependent (with each other as individuals).

That's partly because, despite the vastness of Canada, our population is much more urban: Roughly 40 per cent of us live in the three biggest cities, compared with 15 per cent of Americans.

This, in turn, colours our respective views of "community." Americans now increasingly use churches as their replacement for a sense of community lost to long working hours and lengthy commutes. Not us. "We don't go to church as much on Sundays," says Adams. "We go shopping and we go to Tim's."

THE PLAN (via Patricia Moo Garnaas):

A Plan to Replace the Welfare State: The government should give every American $10,000--and nothing more. (CHARLES MURRAY, March 26, 2006, Opinion Journal)

This much is certain: The welfare state as we know it cannot survive. No serious student of entitlements thinks that we can let federal spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid rise from its current 9% of gross domestic product to the 28% of GDP that it will consume in 2050 if past growth rates continue. The problems facing transfer programs for the poor are less dramatic but, in the long term, no less daunting; the falling value of a strong back and the rising value of brains will eventually create a class society making a mockery of America's ideals unless we come up with something more creative than anything that the current welfare system has to offer.

So major change is inevitable--and Congress seems utterly unwilling to face up to it. Witness the Social Security debate of last year, a case study in political timidity. Like it or not, we have several years to think before Congress can no longer postpone action. Let's use it to start thinking outside the narrow proposals for benefit cuts and tax increases that will be Congress's path of least resistance.

The place to start is a blindingly obvious economic reality that no one seems to notice: This country is awash in money. America is so wealthy that enabling everyone to have a decent standard of living is easy. We cannot do it by fiddling with the entitlement and welfare systems--they constitute a Gordian Knot that cannot be untied. But we can cut the knot. We can scrap the structure of the welfare state.

Instead of sending taxes to Washington, straining them through bureaucracies and converting what remains into a muddle of services, subsidies, in-kind support and cash hedged with restrictions and exceptions, just collect the taxes, divide them up, and send the money back in cash grants to all American adults. Make the grant large enough so that the poor won't be poor, everyone will have enough for a comfortable retirement, and everyone will be able to afford health care. We're rich enough to do it. [...]

The Plan returns the stuff of life to all of us in many ways, but chiefly through its effects on the core institutions of family and community. One key to thinking about how the Plan does so is the universality of the grant. What matters is not just that a lone individual has $10,000 a year, but that everyone has $10,000 a year and everyone knows that everyone else has that resource. Strategies that are not open to an individual are open to a couple; strategies that are not open to a couple are open to an extended family or, for that matter, to half a dozen friends who pool resources; strategies not open to a small group are open to a neighborhood. The aggregate shift in resources from government to people under the Plan is massive, and possibilities for dealing with human needs through family and community are multiplied exponentially.

The Plan confers personal accountability whether the recipient wants it or not, producing cascading secondary and tertiary effects. A person who asks for help because he has frittered away his monthly check will find people and organizations who will help (America has a history of producing such people and organizations in abundance), but that help can come with expectations and demands that are hard to make of a person who has no income stream. Or contemplate the effects of a known income stream on the young man who impregnates his girlfriend. The first-order effect is that he cannot evade child support--the judge knows where his bank account is. The second-order effect is to create expectations that formerly didn't exist. I call it the Doolittle Effect, after Alfred Doolittle in "My Fair Lady." Recall why he had to get to the church on time.

The Plan confers responsibility for dealing with human needs on all of us, whether we want it or not. Some will see this as a step backward, thinking that it is better to pay one's taxes, give responsibility to the government and be done with it. I think an alternative outlook is wiser: The Plan does not require us all to become part-time social workers. The nation can afford lots of free riders. But Aristotle was right. Virtue is a habit. Virtue does not flourish in the next generation because we tell our children to be honest, compassionate and generous in the abstract. It flourishes because our children practice honesty, compassion and generosity in the same way that they practice a musical instrument or a sport. That happens best when children grow up in a society in which human needs are not consigned to bureaucracies downtown but are part of life around us, met by people around us.

Simply put, the Plan gives us back the action.

HOW TO SQUANDER THE RANGERS OFFENSE:

The book of glove may put Rangers on defensive: Management using 'Fielding Bible' as evaluation tool (EVAN GRANT, 3/26/06, The Dallas Morning News)

[The Fielding Bible] aims to take the next step in baseball's never-ending thirst for statistical evaluation. It tries to break down the nebulous world of defense into cold, hard stats.

And in the case of the Rangers, some of those stats are particularly cold and harsh. Among the book's assertions:

• Two-time All-Star Michael Young ranks as the worst defensive shortstop in the majors, one spot behind Derek Jeter.

• Only two years after ranking first among all third baseman, Hank Blalock had fallen to 26th among the 27 players rated.

• The middle of the Rangers' defense was as porous as mesh.

• Gary Matthews Jr. is the Rangers' best defensive option in center field. Laynce Nix is average. Brad Wilkerson ranks 29th of 35.

• Mark Teixeira, who won a Gold Glove last year, is the best first baseman in the majors.

• Ian Kinsler, though not ranked, almost certainly will be an improvement over Alfonso Soriano at second. Soriano ranked 34th of 36 second baseman last year.

REFORMING FROM THE RIM IN:

The changing face of Malaysian politics: Recently the daughter of a former prime minister of Malaysia compared the fate of Muslim women to black South Africans under apartheid. And senior police officers received a public dressing-down by their chief for a lack of awareness of human rights. But Jonathan Kent is keen to put on record that, behind the headlines, lurks another, different, Malaysia. (Jonathan Kent, 3/26/06, BBC)

This kopitiam is the favourite of Lim Kean Chye. The doyen of Penang lawyers, 86-years-old and sharp as a pin.

I ask him what has changed here during his lifetime.

"Nothing," he says. And of course it has not.

The noodles are the same, the local coffee, the chatter as people meet friends and eat.

But then he tells me of the old days when doors were left unlocked, bullock carts were parked on Northam Road and there was always a free cup of tea for the rickshaw pullers.

There is a nation of quiet Malaysians out there.

Recently I recorded five from very different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds debating police reform, something I think they may have been too scared to do under the old premier, Mahathir Mohamad.

But these last two years the quiet Malaysians have started to speak up.

And though the braying benches of parliamentarians who call one another monkeys or racists warn that public debate will lead to race war, disorder and strife, the Malaysians I meet can thrash out the issues and get along with one another just fine.

And with a quiet Malaysian like Abdullah Badawi at the helm perhaps their time has come.

And with a quiet Malaysian like Abdullah Badawi at the helm perhaps their time has come.
MP3

CAMERON DERANGEMENT SYNDROME:

This time it's personal (BRIAN BRADY, 3/26/06, Scotland on Sunday)

WHEN David Cameron condemns the old-fashioned "Punch and Judy" knockabout that he insists he wants to drive out of British politics he speaks from bitter personal experience.

Ever since the youthful MP for Witney emerged as the great white hope of the Conservative Party whenever he has stood up to speak in the arena of the House of Commons he has been confronted with the full destructive power of the hardest puncher in the building. Dennis "the Beast of Bolsover" Skinner immediately pulls himself to his feet, leans as far as he can across the floor of the House and bellows: "Cameron! You put black lead on yer 'air!"

Cameron's aides, and the Tory leader himself, cheerfully admit that they have little idea what Skinner's repeated intervention actually means - although they suspect he's casting aspersions on how Cameron maintains the impressive head of dark hair that is part of his "housewives' favourite" appeal. What they know with absolute certainty, however, is that the Beast is not trying to be complimentary.

Cameron should not feel too victimised by Skinner, who spreads his contempt around the opposition benches like great dollops of mud. The Tory leader's greatest political friend, shadow chancellor George Osborne, regularly runs the gauntlet, having to deliver speeches with "you changed yer name from Gideon" echoing in his ear. The rather blunt accusation is that Osborne - like Cameron - is a toff who is attempting to dumb down in order to appeal to a wider section of the electorate. And Skinner doesn't like toffs.

Until now, the Bolsover MP's approbation has simply been a minor irritant, but the veteran's aggressive approach looks increasingly in line with the mood of his party - and its leader-in-waiting.

Meanwhile, the Tories go all Ownership Society, Tories demand action on housing (BBC, 3/26/06)

Conservative leader David Cameron has demanded urgent action to tackle what he calls the growing gap between rich and poor due to high property prices.

He warned of "a growing inequality at the heart of British life" because the property ladder was beyond young people from less well-off families.

He called for more housebuilding to provide an adequate provision.