Sex Ed in Texas

Via Melissa Pardue of the Heritage Foundation:

The Texas board of education has held two hearings to help it decide how to vote on Nov. 5, when board members will rule on whether to replace health textbooks now in circulation with updated texts, beginning in the 2005 school year.

The stakes are high. Texas is the country’s second-largest buyer of textbooks (after California), and publishing companies often market the books that Texas adopts to the other 49 states.

The updated texts could be required to include information on abstinence as well as medically accurate information on sex education. That means facts on the ineffectiveness of condoms and other forms of contraception in preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and pregnancy. The current textbooks fail to explain that abstinence is the only 100-percent effective method to prevent STDs and pregnancy.

Nationwide, 10 scientific studies prove that abstinence education reduces teen sexual activity and dramatically decreases out-of-wedlock childbearing.

Of course, my default position is that school choice would make all of this irrelevant (or at least would localize and privatize the controversy) but in absence of that, this is refreshing news. Common sense may yet prevail.

Melissa goes on to make two interesting points:

Of course, certain contraception-promotion advocates (such as Planned Parenthood) claim the texts don’t have enough information about condoms. They say abstinence education is dangerous and could lead to more pregnancies and STDs.

[...]

Most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before engaging in sexual activity. Nearly two-thirds of sexually active teens express regret about their initial sexual activity.

Unfortunately, nearly all government-funded comprehensive sex-ed courses -- many of which are misleadingly called “abstinence-plus” programs -- contain little, if any, reference to abstinence. They may mention it briefly, but it’s often presented as something that (wink, wink) kids in the “real world” will ignore.

OK, maybe that's more than two points, but I couldn't resist throwing that last paragraph in. It is always gratifying to be winked at by a pretty girl, however indirectly.

More Trouble in Darfur

Passion of the Present notes that the diplomatic progress reported recently is pretty much an illusion. The permalink is apparently not working, so here is the post in full:

Activists needed--only false progress diplomatically, more trouble on the ground in Darfur, Sudan, Africa..

We must become more active, make more noise! We must rally around each other and reach out for new help!

On the ground, conditions are worsening.

The World Food Program has cut back operations in light of recent shootings of drivers bringing aid cargo, as well as the landmine killing of two Save the Children staffers this week.

The United Nations is being forced to scale back food aid in Sudan's war-ravaged Darfur region due to growing violence after 20 months of rebellion, the U.N. World Food Programme said on Wednesday.

The WFP said about 50,000 people would be affected by its decision to call off operations near Ummbaru, in northern Darfur. Two aid workers from Save the Children were killed nearby on Sunday when their vehicle hit an anti-tank landmine.

Humanitarian operations in other areas have been temporarily suspended, the Rome-based organisation said.

Diplomacy is a sham.

The latest Eric Reeves summary is available, dated October 12 (yesterday).

Meanwhile, the EU has given the government two months to "improve the security situation" or face sanctions. Get real--two months? At a calculated loss of life of 10,000 persons per month, this is another twenty thousand people dead.

In any case the Sudanese FM Ismail rejected the threat. Ismail also bragged that the US effort against Sudan is "paralyzed"--which is of course true. As reported by the Chinese online news service, Sudan's ally.

Write a note to Colin Powell and tell him you want strong action--perhaps starting the day after the US presidential election, in three weeks.

Reviving the Dred Scott Debate

You thought talking about Kerry's Vietnam record and Bush's National Guard service in the '60s was dwelling on the past? How about going back to the '50s? The 1850s that is.

In response to a question about Supreme Court appointments in the second (10/8) debate, President Bush said that he would appoint strict constructionists who would not write decisions like Dred Scott. This apparently confused people who haven't followed the debate on judicial activism, including Andrew Sullivan (who consistently misses the point on this subject). But just as Brown v Board of Education is an example of judicial activism that is immensely popular (though it wasn't at the time), so Dred Scott v Sanford is one that is rightly held in disgust. And of course Roe v Wade is one that deeply divides the country. Bush's point, though obscure, is that what SCOTUS gives, SCOTUS can take away.

Black leftists have overwhelmingly been opposed to the idea of strict constructionism (most vocally and demagogically during the Bork confirmation hearings) but the rest of us need to keep in mind that activist decisions like Dred Scott and the later Plessy v Ferguson did immeasurable harm to our country by perpetuating discrimination. Both decisions could have been prevented by a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

La Shawn wants to keep this on the radar and I couldn't agree more. (Check out her comments for more insights from her highly intelligent readership.) Adjoran has more comments.

Gay Marriage and Hetero Divorce

I have made this link in verbal arguments with my fellow conservatives but haven't actually written anything about it. Don't have time to analyze, but this article makes most of the points I would have. And since it is published by a subsidiary of Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministry, it has more credibility than I do for people that think in such terms:

Divorce is in the background of the gay marriage debate in at least three ways. First, gay marriage is the end of the trend that no-fault divorce began. The legal innovation of unilateral divorce began to reduce marriage to nothing but a temporary association of individuals. If marriage is merely a free association of individuals, there is no principled reason to exclude gay couples, or even larger groupings of sexual partners. The permanence of marriage was one of the key features that distinguished it from an ordinary contract.

Second, the high divorce rate and the resulting non-permanence of marriage made the institution of marriage more attractive to same-sex couples than it otherwise would be. If marriage still meant one to a customer for life, I seriously doubt that we’d be hearing about same-sex marriage today. Gay couples evidently have a more relaxed concept of both permanence and fidelity than do heterosexual couples. Gay activists would be much less likely to invest time and energy working for the right to marry, if divorce were available only for adultery or cruelty.

Most importantly, the high divorce rate has made it difficult to articulate opposition to gay marriage. People who have been divorced may feel hypocritical if they voice opposition to a system they felt they had to use. People who secretly fear they may need a divorce someday are reluctant to bad-mouth the easy availability of divorce. People who are not confident in their own ability to keep their marriage together for a lifetime, won’t speak out against the culture of divorce. A significant subset of such people will be reluctant to voice their opposition to gay marriage. People who have lost confidence in marriage as an institution of exclusivity and permanence are simply not going to have the heart for a fight over gay marriage.

Just to emphasize my point: note that in the rest of the article Ms. Morse does not advocate a Constitutional ammendment forbidding unilateral divorce, but has some helpful cultural suggestions on how to confront it. Legal issues, of course, are important in this as in the gay marriage debate, but a mature and effective Christian response need not resort to demagoguery or panicked extremism.

More WMD Confusion

David Mobley at A Physicist's Perspective is trying to make sense of conflicting stories on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

I saw an interesting combination of news stories just now. The AP is reporting "Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction," while at the same time, USA Today is reporting that equipment which could be used to make components of nuclear weapons may have been looted from Iraq. The AP story says this:

Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer – that Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but he had no means of making any either – while Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.
The USA Today story says:
Among the missing equipment: "flow forming" machines for shaping metal tubes such as missile bodies or uranium centrifuge drums; milling and metal-turning machines; electron-beam welders useful for making centrifuges; and precision measuring devices.

Though no evidence has emerged that looted nuclear manufacturing equipment has been sold on the black market, the Bush administration said Tuesday that it is concerned about the possibility.
I wonder -- if it's really as clear cut as the AP story says (Saddam had no means of making nuclear weapons since 1991), why should we be concerned that the Bush administration may have let this equipment be stolen? Or maybe the Bush administration is at fault for letting people loot equipment that Saddam couldn't have used for nuclear weapons, but they could. How's that again?

The AP story does include this Cheney quote, somewhat buried:
"As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said.

I think it is going to be a long time before we get all of this sorted out.

David, of course, is on the League of Reformed Bloggers list, but I have been reading his posts on and off for a couple of weeks and I have decided to add him to the regular blogroll of sites I read daily. His perspective seems similar to my own: a Christian looking out at the world and trying to shed light on it, rather than looking merely talking amongst ourselves until the "Rapture" comes. A nice mixture of science, theology, politics and other interesting stuff.

UPDATE: Pastorius comments:

It would seem that Saddam Hussein was half-pregnant. It also appears that the main-stream media has, like an oh-so-chivalrous boyfriend, arranged for a quickie abortion for the saddled Saddam.

At the same time, the main-stream media seems to be trying to arrange an out-patient castration procedure for the Bush Administration.

Heh.

John Kerry: Stem-Cell Messiah!

The Kerry campaign just can't seem to stop making goofy statements. This one is from running mate John Edwards:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday over a comment the Democratic vice presidential candidate made regarding actor Christopher Reeve.

Edwards said Reeve, who died Sunday, "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him.

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.

Kerry is reported to have replied: "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

Oh, wait. That was a different John.

And a different Messiah.

UPDATE: Cranky Neocon fights sacrilege with sacrilege. With apologies to the real Messiah, of course. (Via Jane)

Meanwhile, Back in Taiwan

Tensions are continuing to mount as the legitimate Chinese government in Taiwan criticizes the military buildup of the rebels on the mainland:

The Chinese government has rejected a call by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian for peace talks and warned against moves towards formal independence.
Mr Chen used a speech on Sunday to urge Beijing to agree to talks to resolve tensions over the build-up of weapons between the two rivals.

[...]

In his speech, President Chen asserted the island of Taiwan was a sovereign nation.

Tensions have been high since Mr Chen was re-elected to a second term in March.

The US state department welcomed Mr Chen's speech as constructive, prompting Beijing to ask America to stop sending the island the wrong message.

China has more than 600 ballistic missiles pointed at the island and is adding 60 to 70 new missiles each year.

Taiwan, which broke with the new Communist state in 1949, is locked in a debate over whether to strengthen its defences even further with US military aid.

Another good reason the insurgency in Iraq shouldbe quelled as quickly as possible.

UPDATE: And speaking of connections between Iraq and mainland China, the Washington Times reports:

China illegally supplied Saddam Hussein's regime with missile technology and other weaponry and was a major beneficiary of the U.N. oil-for-food program, according to a CIA report.

The report by the Iraq Survey Group also stated that China, along with France and Russia, was bribed by Saddam with oil sales and weapons deals into working to end U.N. sanctions.

Supremes to Pass Judgement on 10 Commandments

Most people probably saw this coming:

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on government property, ending a 25-year silence on a church-state issue that has prompted bitter legal fights around the country.

Ten Commandments displays are common in town squares and courthouses and on other government-owned land, including the Supreme Court. A wall carving of Moses holding the tablets is in the courtroom where justices will hear arguments in the case.

Many people have remarked on the irony of that last point. But what bothers me about this whole campaign is, what happens if we win?

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas complained in 2001 when the court refused to rule on the constitutionality of a display in front of the Elkhart, Ind., Municipal Building. They said the city sought to reflect the cultural, historical and legal significance of the commandments.

If we are allowed to display the Ten Commandments, but only on the understanding that it represents a cultural and historical legacy and not a morally binding acknowledgment of God's sovereignty, what kind of message are we sending? Isn't that just further establishing the strangle-hold that secularism has over the American consciousness?

It is worth remembering that the Commandments were originally given as a seal of the covenant that had already been established with Israel after Moses led them out of Egypt. Their public display is a battle we really can't afford to lose, of course, but we will not win the war in the courts.

Four More Striking Days Till Ramadan

US Troops in Iraq are stepping up raids and air strikes in Sunni hot spots, including removing insurgents from mosques, in preparation for Ramadan which begins Friday or Saturday:

U.S. troops went on the offensive from the gates of Baghdad to the Syrian border Tuesday, pounding Sunni insurgent positions from the air and supporting Iraqi soldiers in raids on mosques suspected of harboring extremists.

American and Iraqi forces launched the operations ahead of Ramadan, expected to start at week's end, in an apparent attempt at preventing a repeat of the insurgent violence that took place at the start of last year's Muslim holy month.

[...]

Seventy miles west of Baghdad, Iraqi troops backed by U.S. soldiers and Marines raided seven mosques in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, arresting a locally prominent member of a clerical association and three other people. They also seized bomb-making materials and "insurgent propaganda" in the mosques, U.S. officials said.

[...]

"This cowboy behavior cannot be accepted," said cleric Abdullah Abu Omar. "The Americans seem to have lost their senses and have gone out of control."

However, the raids followed a surge in insurgent attacks in Ramadi, and the U.S. command accused the militants of violating the sanctity of the mosques by using them for military purposes. Marine spokesman Maj. Francis Piccoli said U.S. troops provided backup for the Iraqi soldiers but did not enter the mosques.

If we don't back off this time, there might be a chance that the insurgency will fall apart before the end of the year. Belmont Club's analysis of why we delayed attacking Fallujah in April is starting to look pretty plausible.

UPDATE: Wizbang has more comments:

Monday's widely read and quoted L.A. Times piece Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote, is now part of the Kerry campaign Kerry team accuses Bush officials of holding off Iraq action until election.

The problem? Not quite accurate.

U.S. Steps Up Attacks on Iraq Insurgents

From the nature of the joint operations, it's highly likely that the raids and attacks on militant positions had been in the works for several weeks.

Beating the insurgents and confusing the Kerry campaign. Gotta love that multitasking!

Wizbang also notes that the loose alliance between Baathist insurgents and foreign terrorists is coming apart. Maybe we are a bunch of out of control cowboys, but it seems to be working.

Pretty Lady, Ugly Comment

Michelle Malkin exults over the death of Jacques Derrida. I am no fan of Derrida. He has directly or indirectly done a great deal of damage to Western culture and the ideals of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. But this is not classy. I expect better from our side.

(Wizbang is on the same band-wagon.)

Taxing Masculinity

Another brilliant idea from the land of cradle to grave socialism:

A group of Swedish parliamentarians proposed levying a "man tax" to cover the social cost of violence against women.

"It must be obvious to all of us that society has a huge problem with male violence against women and that has a cost," Left Party deputy Gudrun Schyman told Swedish radio on Monday.

"We must have a discussion where men understand they as a group have a responsibility," said Schyman, one of the party members to sign the motion for debate on the new tax.

Someone asked me last night (in a completely unrelated discussion) what I meant when I said that the left is in a war against reality. This would have been a great example, had I known it at the time.

TANGENT ALERT: Here is another example of the war against reality principle:

Leftists, eh? You get the feeling that if this guy got hit by a bus, he'd spend his dying breath railing against the preposterous temerity of the laws of physics...

The Right Road, Not the Easy Road

The first free, democratic election in Afghanistan is not quite finished (it will evidently be several days before all of the votes are delivered, much less counted) but already there are charges of fraud and threats of a boycott:

Opposition candidates in Afghanistan have appeared to back away from demanding a new presidential election following a controversy over voting irregularities.

On Saturday most candidates running against U.S.-backed interim president Hamid Karzai threw the election into turmoil when they banded together to charge voter fraud.

They said they would boycott the results and demanded a new election, saying ink used on voters hands to prevent repeat voting could be washed off.

But observers monitoring the first election since a U.S.-backed coalition ousted the hardline Taliban regime in 2002, rejected calls for a new poll on Sunday.

They said there was no reason to nullify the results in the nation's first vote to directly elect their president.

At least two of the candidates had backed away from the boycott by Monday, the Associated Press reported.

The early spin on this was that it was a blemish on Bush's credibility, but the fact that the opposition candidates are backing off and that an independent commission is being formed to investigate seem to have diffused those charges:

Afghan law allows candidates to present any evidence of fraud.

Poll organizers said Sunday they would form an independent commission of about three foreign election experts to investigate the weekend balloting.

"There is going to be an independent commission made to investigate it," AP quoted electoral director Farooq Wardak as saying.

The expected violence by the Taliban hasn't materialized to any serious degree:

Millions of Afghan voters -- including veiled women -- braved threats of Taliban violence to cram polling stations throughout the ethnically diverse nation and observers talked of excitement in the air.

Proud to cast their first vote, men and women waited patiently in line for hours.

Officials said turnout looked extremely high. Around 10.5 million Afghans had registered to vote, around 41 percent of them women.

The voting went off without major bloodshed threatened by Taliban militants, a move welcomed by international and national authorities.

"We feared lots of attacks, lots of sabotage, lots of terrorist activities," Karzai said.

"We are very happy that this went on peacefully, we are very happy that the Afghan people came to participate so massively."

While the rebels carried out a smattering of deadly assaults, they took the biggest hit, losing 25 men in a clash with U.S. and Afghan forces in the south of the country, AP reported.

You know things are going well if even the Germans are optimistic:

Meanwhile German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed optimism about the vote during a visit to Kabul.

The international community is keen the election be widely accepted as legitimate.

So it looks like, for the present at least, the Afghanistan phase in the War on Terror passes the Global Test.

NOTE: Evidently Australia's John Howard (who just won his own election quite handily) agrees:

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who re-elected on Saturday, said that the war on terrorism had made the election in Afghanistan possible.

"That election has been made possible by reason of the fact that a number of countries, including Australia, were prepared to take a stand for democracy and to take a stand against terrorism," Howard said.

Democrats Taint Live Polls on Debate

Acording to Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit Democrats are sending out the following email:

So, help spin for John Kerry . . . Vote in Online Polls!
National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during
and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for online polls at
these news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them:
* CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/
* CNN: http://www.cnn.com/
* Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/
* MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
* Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/
* Akron Beacon-Journal: http://www.ohio.com/
* Atlanta Journal-Constitution: http://www.ajc.com/
* Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/
* Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/
* Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/
* Orlando Sentinel: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/
* Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/
* South Florida Sun-Sentinel: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/
* Tennessean: www.tennessean.com
* Knoxville News-Sentinel: www.knoxnews.com
* Commercial Appeal: www.commercialappeal.com

Evidently it is working. As of 10:00 PM PST all of the polls show Kerry overwhelmingly in the lead. The LA Times is particularly interesting. Fully 64.3% of respondents said they were Bush supporters who are now leaning toward Kerry.

Uh-huh.

Syria Retreats

Probably good news from the Syrian Front in the War on Terror:

Syrian President Bashar Assad is offering to make peace with Israel and says he is ready to cooperate with the United States in stabilizing Iraq, a former senior State Department official said Wednesday.

[...]

On peacemaking, Assad offered to hold talks with Israel without preconditions, Indyk said, and had made several overtures to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that the latter rebuffed.

[...]

On the domestic side, Indyk said, Assad spoke "about the need to reform the government."

[...]

On Iraq, Assad "figured out he was on the wrong side" and has switched to cooperation with the U.S. occupation forces in the country, Indyk said.

On support for terrorism, Assad was responding to U.S. demands by moving some leaders of militant Palestinian groups out of Damascus, Indyk said.

I say probably because Syria is not the first Islamic, terror-sponsoring country to make "peace" with Israel then revert to type when they were ready for the next advance. Egypt made peace with Israel in the late 70s but has been making some disturbing noises more recently.

I am also a bit concerned that Sharon has rebuffed Syria's diplomacy. I am more inclined to trust his instincts that Colin Powell's. And what exactly does it mean to "move" Palestinian groups out of Damascus? Is that anything like "moving" Arafat out of Beirut?

Still, if Syria follows through this will be a definite victory for the Bush Doctrine. And if we don't have to invade Syria, that will leave us that much freer to focus on Iran.

(Via Winds of Change)

New Thomas Covenant Book?

Evidently Stephen R. Donaldson has a new book in the Thomas Covenant tradition: The Runes of the Earth. I have to confess that I didn't think the second trilogy lived up to the first three books, although I enjoyed all of them. I am a little ambivalent about continuing a series after the main character has died as well. (I still haven't seen the 4th movie in the Alien trilogy for this very reason.) But this quote sounds rather intriguing:

"I probably shouldn't say so in public (as it were), but that experience [writing the Second Chronicles] taught me humility on a whole new order of magnitude." He had surpassed himself in the second series and doubted he could surpass himself again without some development. "So that's what I've been doing for the past 20 years: Trying to become a better writer," he says.

The first trilogy of Covenant books are one of the few fantasy series that can survive the inevitable comparison with Tolkien. Looks like I'll have to check this new series out.

Thanks to Brandywine Books for the tip.

October Offensive

And so it begins. The withdrawal of US forces from Fallujah has disappointed many who hoped for a decisive victory over the Baathist insurgents. But today's attack on Samarra seems to signal a renewal of effort to pacify the region:

U.S. and Iraqi forces battled their way into the heart of this Sunni stronghold Friday and moved house to house in search of militants in what appeared to be the first major offensive to regain control of areas lost to insurgents before the January elections.

More than 100 guerrillas were killed and 37 captured, according to an Iraqi official. The military said one American soldier was killed and four were wounded.

Backed by warplanes and tanks, some 5,000 troops swept in to seize the city hall, the main mosque and other important sites in Samarra, leaving only pockets of resistance after more than 12 hours of combat, according to the U.S. military and Iraqi authorities.

[...]

U.S. forces also clashed with insurgents in Baghdad, where warplanes and tanks attacked militants in the vast slum of Sadr City. A hospital director said 12 Iraqis were killed and 11 were wounded. The U.S. military, which maintains casualties are often exaggerated by Iraqi hospital sources, said only one armed insurgent was killed.

Late Friday, a U.S. airstrike flattened two houses in the insurgent-held city of Fallujah, according to Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, who said he saw a number of bodies, including those of women and children. A hospital doctor said the strike killed five Iraqi civilians and wounded 11 others. American military spokesmen in Baghdad said they had no information on the attack, but the U.S. command says it has been launching "precision strikes" against suspected terrorist hideouts in Fallujah.

[...]

The Americans said they conducted the operation in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, at the request of the Iraqi government. The attack appeared to trumpet the launch of major military operations to wrest other areas of the country from insurgents ahead of general elections.

U.S. military officials have signaled they plan to increase incursions into key Iraqi cities this fall - partly as a way for the United States to try to pressure insurgents into negotiations with Iraqi officials. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld alluded to this last week when he said insurgencies in Fallujah and the city of Ramadi can be solved either diplomatically through negotiations, or through force.

Cynics will claim this is just a ploy by Bush to secure his re-election. As long as he keeps it up until the insurgents are all gone, I really don't care why he is doing it. But it strikes me that this may prove to be a vindication for Wretchard at Belmont Club, who on Sept 30 all but predicted such a comeuppance for the Sunni insurgents:

During the April, 2004 fighting three things were critically different from today. There was the threat in April of a combined Sunni-Shi'ite uprising. The fear was that hitting Fallujah would stoke a Shi'ite insurgency. Since the Sunnis were considered secondary Fallujah was spared. This is not to justify the decision, but simply to point out the considerations at the time. Today, data provided the Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group Inc (used by the New York Times to argue that fighting is spreading in Iraq) seems to show that the Shi'ite insurgency is a spent force, the result of a military campaign against Sadr which culminated in August, 2004 combined with efforts to isolate Sadr politically. There were seven attacks in an Najaf province out of a total of 2,429 in the month studied.

Second, there were only 5,000 "trained" men in the Iraqi Army in April 2004. Today the numbers are moving towards and past 70,000. A link to General Sharp's briefing on September 20 has many of the details of the state of training and increased numbers. What is strategically different about the Sunni strongholds today is not only the loss of allied Shi'ite insurgent support but the growing availability of Iraqi troops to crush them. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers said in an interview today that Coalition forces are planning a 'solution' to the Sunni lawlessness in conjunction with the Iraqi government. To the legitimate question of 'why only now?' one can reply 'because there were no Iraqi forces then' -- barely a year after the fighting and on the heels of the capture of the principal Ba'athists. Fallujah could have been taken in an all-American assault and be occupied to this day by an all-American force; but rightly or wrongly, the President chose not to.

Update: Jeez that guy never sleeps! He has already posted commentary on the Samarra offensive here.

Semi-Anniversary

Today marks the 6-month point in my blogging career. In my first post, I promised to upload my review of Gibson's Passion of the Christ if Touchstone did not publish it first. Since I haven't heard back from them, this seems an appropriate time to make good on that promise, especially with the recent DVD release.

The Victory of the Christ
R. C. Smith

I theoretically have a policy with regard to reading reviews of movies I have already decided to see: I don’t read them until after I have seen the film and had time to decide what I think about it. I find that commentators on the left do not share enough of my values to be a reliable guide and those on the right are generally too artistically clueless to be particularly helpful. And, of course, one does value the feeling of making up one’s own mind, however ephemeral that feeling may be in a culture of spin and propaganda.

It is a helpful policy and I generally keep it as well as I do my Lenten fasts, which is to say, conscientiously but not perfectly. It is hardly surprising, then – though, in view of the Lenten character of the film, it may be just a touch ironic – that I was unable wholly to avoid the flurry of comment occasioned by Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. But, really, how could anyone who is intellectually engaged with our culture have avoided hearing at least something about it? Long before it was actually released, the entire chattering class had become a clamoring cohort, desperate to impart or impose their twist on the remaining few who had not formed an opinion.

And yet, despite all the bellowing, or perhaps because of it, I entered the theater remarkably unprepared for the actual tone and texture of Mr. Gibson’s magnum opus. I was prepared for violence, and it was indeed violent. I was prepared for blood, and it was indeed bloody. I was prepared for sorrow, and it was sorrowful as only Roman Catholic piety can be. But it was also gentle and haunting and thrilling and subtle and I was prepared for none of these.

One of the things it decidedly was not, was pessimistic. This is an important point, but I think it has been largely missed. From the very beginning we are given clear though subtle clues that Jesus is not passive in his suffering, however paradoxical that may sound to those with an ear for etymology. I have identified four important such clues distributed at key points throughout the narrative. Understanding how this theme works in Gibson’s film is an important step toward understanding the work as a whole.

The first such clue occurs in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus is exhausted from weeping and praying and the disciples have long since fallen back asleep, after having been awakened by him with the well-known reproach, “Could you not watch one hour with me?” Satan appears in the moonlight, cold and darkly beautiful with very strong echoes of the character, Death, in Bergman’s The Seventh Seal. A serpent, suggesting both menace and temptation, slithers from under the enemy’s robe. Years of humanist renderings of the primal conflict have prepared us to interpret this scene. Here is confident and powerful evil confronting helpless, unrewarded virtue. There will be no victory for good without a long and painful struggle.

Then, without warning, Jesus stamps on the head of the serpent, crushing it with startling force. Clearly he could crush Satan just as easily, but instead he turns resolutely to follow his predestined path. A new element has been offered for our consideration: the Hero Born of Woman, the Christus Victor. And yet, though this moment sets the tone for the rest of the film, its very violence guarantees that it is over almost before we have noticed it.

Later, a similar decisiveness informs the unbearable and much debated scourging scene. Jesus has been beaten for the full count of thirty-nine strokes and the lictors survey their work with a grim satisfaction. The Virgin and Mary Magdalene are in the crowd, scarcely able to watch. Then Jesus catches the gaze of his mother and, slowly but purposefully, rises to his feet. Again, the message, though understated, is unmistakable. He is not defeated and his suffering is completely voluntary. Indeed, in a certain sense, he provokes the very extremity of violence into which his tormentors descend.

There is a long tradition in Roman Catholic mysticism of focus on the wounds of Jesus and on his suffering. As a protestant, I recognize that there are definite theological dangers to this approach. But what approach is without danger? It is certainly unfair to criticize a work of art for not being some other work. The criticism that the violence in this film is inappropriate because it is not emphasized in the Gospel narratives misses the very fabric of Roman Catholic piety that clearly informs this work.

That being said, I do feel that the violence was in many places excessive. At one point in the film I found myself thinking, “Five minutes ago they were thrashing Jesus and now – guess what? – they, are still thrashing him.” This is not good from an artistic point of view. A story, any story, succeeds only so far as it carries the viewer along as a participant within the action. If that momentum is lost, the work ceases, for however brief a period, to be art. This, combined with the often cited desensitizing effect of violence, causes the film to falter when it cannot really afford to. I am sympathetic with Mr. Gibson’s objective, but I must also admit that, in this one respect, he did not completely achieve it. Nevertheless, though it is a flaw, it is not a fatal flaw. But I will leave a full analysis of this issue to others who have more patience for the discussion, and return to the Christus Victor theme, which I feel is the neglected heart of the film.

We find a subtle change in our next instance of this theme. It occurs when Jesus has stumbled for the second time on the Via Dolorosa and his mother, reacting under the compulsion of a vision of Jesus falling as a child, rushes to his side to render maternal comfort. “I am here,” she says in both the contemporary scene and the flashback. This is precisely the sort of sentimental portrayal that we have all come to expect. But the next moment is anything but expected. Jesus raises his head and says, “Behold, I make all things new.” This is a reference to Revelation 21:5, the verse previous to which says “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

So here we have a whole complex of themes merged into one evocative scene: the gentle, maternal and filial love between Mary and Jesus, the Gospel displayed both visually and verbally, and the purely human desire we all feel at this point to relieve the Savior’s suffering. But over all rises the assurance that Jesus is the lord of his own suffering. It is he that comforts us, as he offers comfort to his mother.

Incidentally, although this scene, like most of the extra-biblical material, is borrowed from the vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the reference to Revelation does not occur in that work. It is evidently original to this film, though whether the invention of screenwriter Benedict Fitzgerald or Mr. Gibson is unclear.

The theme of the Christus Victor persists throughout the film, culminating in the brief, but powerful, final scene. From most of the commentary on this film, one easily gathers the impression that it ends with the descent from the cross and burial. The official trailer describes the movie as a “vivid depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life”. Indeed, if Gibson were following the traditional Stations of the Cross, that is exactly where the story would end, with the resurrection being left to another season. But the resurrection does occur, and its handling is perhaps the most subtle element in the film. A golden light washes the ancient stone surface of the tomb as the camera slowly pans to the empty shroud. Next to it stands Jesus with an expression of quiet but firm purpose. There is serenity in his eye, but there is steel as well. The final victory of the Christ has been achieved. He takes a few steps forward in absolute silence and the credits roll.

It is difficult to describe the effect this has upon one’s perception of the entire film. As has been said so often, it must be experienced. But one important effect is to elevate our understanding from a merely sentimental to a theological plane. Through the torturous depiction of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the rosary, shines the first, brief hint of the Glorious Mysteries. The combined impact of all of these small directorial decisions (and there are more than I have recounted – probably more than I noticed) is to suggest the sovereignty of God in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross.

The number of ways this could have been done badly, and has been by other film-makers, is breathtaking. Somehow, Mel Gibson has managed to convey both the humanity of the suffering Christ and the power of the Son of God in imagery that would be the envy of many of Western Civilization’s great masters.

My original intent in writing this was to counteract some of the misleading commentary that surrounded the film's release. If anyone has not seen this movie because of the bad press it received, I hope this review may in some small way assist in correcting that error.

Bias in Debate Questions?

I didn't see the debate, but N. Z. Bear makes a good case that the questions were biased against Bush:

So: 17 questions in all, 1 one of which I (generously) call as biased against Kerry, 10 neutral ones, and six biased against Bush. That's not a neutral playing field, folks, that's what we call in the biz, "statistically significant."

A few suggestions on how it could have been better:

- Why were there no questions about the benefits of a free Iraq? Suggestion: "Senator Kerry, you've focused on disarming Saddam Hussein, and have argued that there were ways to do that other than war. But would simply disarming Iraq yield the same benefits as deposing Saddam entirely?"

- Why no questions on Senator Kerry's record? There is an argument that it makes sense to focus on the incumbents' record in a debate like this, but I don't buy that. This isn't a referendum on Bush. It is a choice between two men applying for the job, and the questions should have focused equally on each man's qualifications and record.

- Why no questions on any foreign policy items except Iraq and terrorism? This isn't really a bias issue, but even as a single-issue voter, I would have liked to have at least had a question or two on everything else going on in the world. (Okay, there was Darfur, but that was about it).

The entire post is worth reading for his question-by-question analysis. Knowing Jim Lehrer, I can't see how anyone would suppose that the questions wouldn't have been biased.

Too Many Jews Spoil the Soup

Or is that "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Couscous"? Whatever:

An international couscous festival billed as a bridge-building event among "cooks for peace" degenerated into recriminations when Palestinian chefs accused their Israeli counterparts of using chicanery to obtain a prestigious prize.

"The Israelis stole my land and my country, now they are even stealing our recipes," Palestinian delegate Mohammed Kebal complained to reporters. "The hand of Mossad is at work here. We will never take part in the contest again."

[...]

Mr. Najeeb, a chef at Jerusalem's famed American Colony Hotel, said it was "an insult" to the Arab origins of couscous to declare an Israeli dish the most original.

Sorry, Mohammed. He was going to make some of those special purim pastries but I guess they were just out of Arab children's blood at the grocery store. So much for "bridge-building", eh?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but a sober discussion of Anti-Semitism just doesn't seem to do justice to this sort of vileness.

(Via Damien)

Al Qaeda Getting Nervous?

Jane at Armies of Liberation remarks that Zawahri thinks Bush won the debate:

The voice sounded like past recordings of al-Zawahri, but it also made an unusual reference to the possibility al-Qaida's top leaders are not invincible. There is a $25 million U.S. bounty for information leading to his death or capture.

"You, youth of Islam, this is our message," the speaker said. "If we die or are detained, continue the path after us, and don't betray God and his prophet, and don't knowingly betray the trust."

Rashwan played down the significance of such remarks.

"According to his belief, being killed is normal and expected, especially in his case," Rashwan said. "This is not the first time he has said this. It doesn't mean they are close to being captured or killed."

House Defeats Gay Marriage Ban

I don't have time to comment, but this should come as no surprise:

The House followed the Senate in decisively rejecting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, ending for this year debate on what has become the dominant issue for the Republican Party's conservative base.
The 227-186 vote in the House Thursday was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment, but fulfilled a promise by backers to get lawmakers on the record on the highly sensitive issue in the run-up to Election Day.

Coup Foiled in Sudan?

The BBC reports that the Sudanese government claims to have supressed a coup from a splinter Islamist group that helped put the current regime in power:

At least 28 people, mostly members of the security forces, have been charged with trying to overthrow Sudan's government in a coup.
State prosecutors accused them of declaring war on the state, planning to assassinate political leaders and cut communication links.
AFP news agency reports that they are members of the Islamist Popular National Congress of Hassan al-Turabi.

[...]

Mr Turabi who was jailed in March in connection with a previous alleged coup, denies any involvement with the coups, or links to the rebels.

However, he says he sympathises with some of their demands, such as decentralisation of power from the capital, Khartoum, to impoverished regions such as Darfur.

Mr Turabi was once a close ally of President Omar al-Bashir but he lost out in a power-struggle between the two in 1999.

On the one hand, I am glad to see the Islamists fighting among themselves. But it isn't clear that either faction should be governing Sudan. I have slightly better hopes for the Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) which at least pays lip service to the idea of a democratic Sudan. Of course Chad doesn't like either group because they mess up the peace process. But I can't really cheer for a peace that doesn't include liberty and justice.

NOTE: Here is a link to another BBC story that outlines the different rebel groups.

Drugs, Crime and Christianity

Evidently there is a movement afoot to legalize psychadelics for medical use. According to Wired News:

Psychedelic drugs are inching their way slowly but surely toward prescription status in the United States, thanks to a group of persistent scientists who believe drugs like ecstasy and psilocybin can help people with terminal cancer, obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, to name just a few.

The Heffter Research Institute, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies and others have managed to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to approve a handful of clinical trials using psychedelics. The movement seems to be gaining ground in recent years. Since 2001, the FDA and the Drug Enforcement Administration have given the go-ahead to three clinical trials testing psychedelics on symptomatic patients, and several more are on deck.

Doctors who saw their patients benefit from psychedelic drugs back when they were legal are dedicated to jumping through bureaucratic hoops and diminishing the drugs' party stigma to get psychedelics in patients' hands, and brains.

[...]

At first blush, it seems like an uphill battle more challenging than the one medical-marijuana advocates have been facing. MDMA has been vilified by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and in news stories, making it seem unlikely that federal agencies will ever allow the legal use of psychedelics.

But it might actually be easier to get psychedelics through the approval process than marijuana, according to Rick Doblin, founder and president of MAPS. The roadblock with marijuana has centered on supply. A government-controlled crop in Mississippi is the only marijuana the government will allow in clinical trials. But the supply of psychedelics is decentralized, and the researchers have control of much of it.

[...]

"I'm very optimistic for the future," Grob said. "I think these compounds have tremendous untapped potential to be utilized within medicine and psychology. I think they need to be demystified, and safety parameters need to be established and studied. But with good controls, I think they can be used safely and effectively."

I usually don't have much patience for the "medical use" arguments for currently illegal drugs because I don't acknowledge that regulating such things is a proper governmental function in the first place. The market can do a much better job of determining what risks people are willing to assume and the moral aspects of drug abuse are better left to churches and/or secular advocacy groups. (Although I think the latter are mostly full of crap.) The relation of criminal activity to drug use is a valid concern, but punishing criminals, regardless of their motivations or influences, is a more reasonable approach than preventatively criminalizing drug use.

My conservative friends often ask me, when this subject comes up, whether I would also be in favor of legalizing prostitution. The idea in their minds seems to be that if one immoral activity should be legal, why not all of them? But this argument doesn't wash because there is simply no biblical reason to suppose that drug use is immoral. The nearest analogy in the bible is with alcohol and, while drunkenness is certainly condemned, drinking as such is not. In fact, Deuteronomy 14:26 positively commands it: "and thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee; and thou shalt eat there before Jehovah thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household." The whole episode of Prohibition ought to have taught us what happens when we try to be more righteous than God in condemning what he has made.

Of course, I realize that with public opinion focused (rightly) on the War on Terror there is not much chance of such laws being repealed any time soon. I could actually make a case that, since some of the money that finances terror comes from drug sales (think of the opium fields in Afghanistan) that undercutting the market would actually be helpful to winning the war. But I am realistic enough to understand that this meme isn't going to get much attention. So, in the meantime, I look at developments such as the article cited above as minor steps in the right direction, even if their fundamental logic is still flawed.

Liberal Churches and Human Rights

A fascinating, but unsurprising, study of human rights criticisms made by the top four "mainline" denominations at the Volokh Conspiracy:

We analyzed human rights criticisms made by four mainline Protestant denominations (the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) and two ecumenical bodies (the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches) over a period of four years (2000-2003) to determine which nations were criticized for human rights violations and why.

[...]

Overall, criticisms of Israel amounted to 37 percent of the 197 human rights criticisms offered by the churches during those years, only slightly higher than the 32 percent of criticisms leveled at the United States. The remaining 31 percent of criticisms were shared by twenty other nations. For every one criticism of any other foreign nation, one criticism was made of the United States and one of Israel. Nearly all churches demonstrated this focus on the United States and Israel in their legislative actions, their statements, their news sources, or all three.

As a result, nearly three out of four human rights criticisms were made of nations designated as free (mostly the United States and Israel) by the Freedom House assessments. Those rated not free totaled 19 percent of criticisms, while partly free nations totalled only 8 percent of criticisms. Of the fifteen worst human rights offenders in the world, only five were criticized by the churches during the four year period studied.

Regions like the Middle East (apart from Israel) and Central Asia (former Soviet republics) were the most notable areas ignored by the churches in their human rights advocacy. Partly free nations, where church influence might be most effective in widening the limited civic space already open to indigenous Christians and other citizens, received the least attention.

Conclusions

The mainline churches are not adequately addressing the wide range of human rights abuses taking place in the world. Denominations are focusing on the United States and Israel as the primary perpetrators of human rights violations. Great attention to the United States may be expected from churches that find their homes there. But the dramatic focus on Israel as opposed to many more repressive regimes, including other U.S. allies known for human rights abuses (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt), must be challenged.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the churches made the mistake of supporting oppressive Soviet-sponsored liberation movements around the world. They largely ignored human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and its satellite states, instead focusing on U.S. policy as the primary source of abuse. It appears that mainline denominations may be making the same mistake today with the Arab and Muslim worlds, ignoring many of the most serious abuses while apparently laying heavy blame upon the United States and Israel not only for their own lesser abuses, but also for the abuses of others. . . .

One of the original reasons these sorts of churches called themselves liberal was that they wanted to focus on liberty and justice in this world. Their criticism of traditional Christianity was that, by teaching people to place all of their hope in the next world, it made them complacent with tyranny and corruption. Seems that criticism has come full circle. Would anyone think it was too obvious or too snarky if I quoted Matthew 6:33?

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Don't Break Your Arm Patting Yourself on the Back

Ironbear at Who Tends the Fire has some useful commentary on the role of Blogging in taking down big media:

I do hope that I'm not the only one that can hear the long knives on the whetstones between the lines of every congratulatory "Bloggers get the credit!!!" major mainstream media story.

Some of the celebration is probably even genuine... but in every "Bloggers help take down CBS!" expose, every journalist has that other voice whispering in his/her ear: "Next time, that might be me." Old Media's going to be watching "Pajama Media" a *lot* more closely from here on in. We were instrumental in knocking a hole in not just the credibility of CBS and Rather, but potentially also wrecking the long term credibility of every other old media organ. It's more than a bit of human nature to not place all the blame for Rather's embarassment on Rather's sloppiness and willingness to lunge at a story - but to place a lot of it on the "upstart medium" that was instrumental in shooting him down. Everyone felt the toxic splash, the amount and degree of distancing and damage control attests to that.

There's a probable perception here and there that we're easier to "fix" than the problems that led to Rather's denouement. The attempts to "fix" the problem that new media represents should be interesting, and vastly entertaining.

This is worth noting, but it occurs to me that the blogosphere is already fairly self-correcting so I am not all that concerned that Big Media might be watching. Of course, no system can be completely self-correcting, especially when dealing with the interface between truth and the perceptions of fallen humans, but some systems work better than others and a decentralized, spontaneous system like the blogosphere is probably about as good as it gets. But pride goeth before a fall and it certainly isn't advisable to start thinking that we've ushered in a new era of Truth, Justice and the American Way.

I think the best result of the exposure of Memogate would be that journalism ceases to be thought of as a profession of oracles and becomes what it always should have been: a useful division of labor in a free information market. Journalists provide a valuable service by doing the research and correlation that most of us don't have time or resources to accomplish on our own. If they stick to that vision of themselves they are no less likely to become corrupt than the average butcher, baker or candelstick maker. The problem comes when, like the priesthood at the start of the Middle Ages, they begin to see their profession as somehow loftier or more central (depending on the governing metaphor) than any other laborer. Then a Nietzchean sort of master morality kicks in and they begin to see that they need not live by the same rules as the little people -- with wholly predictable results.
(Via: You Know Who)

NASA's World Wind

NASA has a nifty application that allows you to zoom in on a 3-D representation of the globe from Satelite to Local Landmark level:

World Wind allows any user to zoom from satellite altitude into any place on Earth, leveraging high resolution LandSat imagery and SRTM elevation data to experience Earth in visually rich 3D, just as if they were really there.

Particular focus was put into the ease of usability so people of all ages can enjoy World Wind. All one needs to control World Wind is a two button mouse. Additional guides and features can be accessed though a simplified menu. Navigation is automated with single clicks of a mouse as well as the ability to type in any location and automatically zoom into it.

My wife loves this kind of thing.
(Via: Cerebrum)

Who the Heck is Paying for All This Part 2

Over the weekend I was researching RSS feeds in order to accomodate the aggregator for the League of Reformed Bloggers (LORB). Blogger directed me to FeedBurner but that evidently doesn't work on the LORB server. Expecting to do some more research this evening, I discovered that my task was completed for me by David at JollyBlogger, who signed me and several other LORBers up with BlogStreet.

So now I have two new feeds, in addition to the Atom feed that Blogger supplies, all completely free of charge. As a confirmed capitalist, this makes me somewhat nervous. I understand, and even share, the motivations of someone like JollyBlogger: Chrisitian charity, desire to advance the Kingdom, etc. But how do sites that offer such useful services for free support themselves?

UPDATE: While I am on the topic of Christian charity, I wanted to thank Adrian Warnock, Tim Challies and, of course, David Wayne for putting the LORB together.

Paypal Censorship

Hmm. William Quick at Daily Pundit received a discouraging note from his Paypal account:

Dear William Quick,

We appreciate the fact that you chose PayPal to send and receive payments for your transactions.

However, your account has been limited for violating PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy regarding Offensive Material. The Policy prohibits the use of PayPal in the sale of items or in support of organizations that promote hate, violence, or racial intolerance; items which graphically portray violence or victims of violence; or items closely associated with individuals notorious for committing murderous acts within the last 100 years. Further, PayPal prohibits a person convicted of a violent felony, or his relatives or associates, from using PayPal to benefit financially from the convict's criminal notoriety. The complete Acceptable Use Policy addressing Offensive Material can be found at the following URL:

http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/
ua/use/index_frame-outside&ed=offensive

To appeal the limitation on your account, you will need to:

1. Remove those items from your website that violate PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy. For example, any link to images or videos of terrorsit executions; and

2. Submit the online Acceptable Use Policy affidavit. This is not intended to be an all-inclusive review or list of your Internet sites in violation. Furthermore, the violations of the Policy described above are not intended to be an all-inclusive list. It is the responsibility of the user to ensure that all transactions comply with the Acceptable Use Policy.

For more information about the status of your account and for instructions on how to restore full use of your account, please log in to your PayPal account. We encourage you to login and restore full access as soon as possible. Should access to your account remain limited for an extended period of time, it may result in account closure. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact the PayPal Compliance Department at aup@paypal.com.

Sincerely, PayPal Compliance Department PayPal, an eBay Company

Emphasis mine.

I can understand a policy that disallows advocating violence, but I fail to see how linking to videos of terroris executions qualifies. This sounds like the sort of zero tolerance nonsense that gets kids thrown out of kindergarten for drawing pictures of guns.

Bill comments:

What do you think? My initial inclination is to tell these little tin gods to take their attempts to dictate the nature of my content elsewhere.

My second is to wonder if anybody has any free legal advice.

My third is to give these would-be control freaks as much bad publicity as I can.

Anybody want to help me spread the word?

Consider it done.

Madonna's Flight to Egypt Cancelled

From al Bawaba:

Egyptian Parliament members have submitted an order to Government demanding that American singer Madonna be prohibited from entering Egyptian soil. Parliament members also included a number of other international singers on their list of people forbidden from entering Egypt and called on all their embassies abroad to not grant any of them visas into Egypt or be allowed to shoot any of their music videos on Egyptian soil.

The demand came after Madonna announced that she will celebrate the Jewish New Years in Israel and that she had converted to Judaism....

Nothing terribly new here. We already knew that you couldn't enter Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE or Yemen with an Israeli-stamped passport. Now Egypt jumps on the band wagon (at least for high-profile jews). Big surprise.
(Via: Damian who notes, "The Egyptians have done the impossible: they've made me feel sorry for Madonna. (Or whatever she calls herself this week.)"

UPDATE: Pastorius at Christians United Against the New Anti-Semitism (CUANAS) has some further comments on this:

It might not be a big surprise to many of us, but it should come as a moral shock to our souls that there are entire countries, here in the 21st century, who are hanging a sign on their front door that says,

NO JEWS ALLOWED

I've always disliked Madonna's courting of controversial subject matter for the sake of publicity. It seems to me that Madonna has never really cared about the issues on which she speaks, but instead merely uses them like pawns in her game of world media domination.

Finally now, I can see a use for Madonna. I would imagine she's angry and disgusted by this situation. I'm guessing that maybe, even though Jack isn't surprised by the reality on the ground in the Arab world, Madonna might be almost wholly unaware of what's going on. Madonna probably thinks the Burkhas is a marvellous fashion statement.

Now that Madonna is a Jew, or whatever ever she is, she might recognize that this puts her in a real line of fire for the first time in her blessed life. All these years Madonna has ground her hips in protest against the oppression of women and minorities here in the United States, she's done so in complete freedom, with fabulous wealth and accolades for her efforts. In other parts of the world, Madonna would be showered with stones for her behavior, not riches.

Maybe this Jew thing will finally bring it home to her and her fame and fortune can be used by God to do what a thousand screaming blogger and the ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Holocaust Museum, etc. have not been able to do. That is, make people aware of the plain fact that the Arab world is possesed by the terrible evil of anti-Semitism and the situation is frightening.

FURTHER UPDATE: Jane at Armies of Liberation points out this article that was censored from the print edition of the Middle East Times (The link won't take you directly to the article. Look for the title Madonna draws recruits to the Kabbalah):

The American pop singer Madonna’s much-publicized visit to Israel drew to a close on Monday with Israeli tourism minister Gideon Ezra thanking her for helping to boost the country’s flagging tourism industry.

But rather than a flood of new tourist arrivals to Israel, the singer’s five-day break has prompted a stream of new recruits to the Los Angeles-based Kabbalah Center, which organized the festival that drew her to Tel Aviv.

The Kabbalah Center has 24 branches across the globe and is one of the most controversial branches for the study of the Kabbalah – an ancient Jewish spiritual practice that has attracted a whole host of celebrity followers. Alongside Madonna, Britney Spears, Elizabeth Taylor, Demi Moore, Mick Jagger and, most recently, the Beckhams have all been spotted sporting the $26 red string bracelets sold by the Kabbalah Center to ward off the ‘evil eye.’

[...]

Given the current tendency in the West to jump on any new spiritual bandwagon, it is perhaps little wonder that the Kabbalah Center has seen a dramatic leap in membership, with high-profile celebrities abandoning Tibetan Buddhism and Scientology to join forces with Rabbi Berg.

I am not sure if this exactly confirms Pastorius' point above, but it seems like a related issue. Both the fadism of Pop music and the fadism of Alternative Religions are distractions from the true source of meaning:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Zarqawi's Cleric Killed

According to the Boston Globe, Zarqawi's "spiritual leader", has been killed in a US airstrike:

The spiritual leader of the group believed to have beheaded two American hostages in Iraq this week has been killed in a U.S. airstrike, his family and Islamic clerics said Wednesday.

The death of Sheik Abu Anas al-Shami is a blow to Iraq's most active militant group, Tawhid and Jihad, which is led by Jordanian-born militant Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, experts said. But they add that such groups manage to survive, with other militants replacing the slain ones.

Al-Shami, a Palestinian who holds Jordanian citizenship, was killed Sept. 17 when a missile hit the car in which he was traveling in a western Baghdad suburb, said the clerics, who have close ties to the family and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Al-Shami's father, Youssef Jumah, said he learned of the death Monday from his eldest son Jumah, who lives in the United Arab Emirates. He declined to say how his son was informed.

That last line is interesting in light of these two posts by Belmont Club on the importance for taking down terrorist cells of understanding social networks:

While U.S. forces up to then had been preoccupied with finding "high value targets" from the Bush administration's list of the top 55 most-wanted Iraqis, Odierno said those family diagrams led his forces to lower-level, but nonetheless highly trusted, relatives and clan members harboring Hussein and helping him move around the countryside.

I am not sure if the targeting of Al-Shami is a step toward the larger goal of taking out Zarqawi, or if Al-Shami's death is a terminal of this particular line of inquiry. But it seems like a hopeful sign in either case.

UPDATE: Similar thoughts at PowerLine:

Reader Mark Sebald draws our attention to this article from today's Washington Times: "Zarqawi's mentor said to be killed by a U.S. hit." The Times reports:

The Muslim cleric responsible for the practice of beheading hostages in Iraq — including two Americans this week — has been killed in a U.S. air strike, a newspaper and Islamic clerics said yesterday. The Muslim cleric, Sheik Abu Anas Shami, 35, was killed when a missile hit the car he was traveling in on Friday in the western Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib.

Mr. Sebald observes:

Notice any similarities to the way Israel takes out terrorists? To me this is good news. It implies that U.S. forces are developing intelligence sources and making progress fighting the insurgents. I had thought there would be some reaction to this by now, but so far I haven't seen any.

Homeschool Terrorists

Michelle Malkin reports that a public school in Michigan has instituted a drill to prepare for terrorist attacks. Not a bad idea, you say? Except for the fact that the attackers are from a fictitious homeschool group called "Wackos Against Schools and Education":

"The exercise will simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled. Under the scenario, a bomb is placed on the bus and is detonated while the bus is traveling on Durham, causing the bus to land on its side and fill with smoke."

My guess is this started as a joke somewhere in the bureaucracy and -- as is typical in such groupthink situations -- no one ever came to their senses and considered the broader moral implications of equating homeschoolers with terrorists. I am not sure if that makes the story more depressing or less.

Carnival of the Reformation?

Jollyblogger is floating the idea of a carnival for Reformed bloggers. The inaugural posting would tentatively be on October 31 to coincide with the anniversary of Martin Luther tacking the 95 theses to the church door in Wittenburg. The scheme would be to have a monthly collection of posts, initially on the topics of the 5 Solas starting with Sola Scriptura.

Stay tuned for more details.

Media Midway

I know I'm way behind the curve on the forged Killian documents story. I didn't think it was going anywhere when I first read about it and by the time I started taking it seriously (about 24 hours later) it had gotten so big that I didn't have time to write anything coherent that hadn't already been said multiple times.

But it looks like I am still ahead of Dan Rather. Having given his personal apology for airing the discredited documents (after stonewalling for over a week) Rather is now qualifying that statement:

Do I think they're forged? No," Rather said. "But it's not good enough to use the documents on the air if we can't vouch for them, and we can't vouch for them."

Rather said he had no regrets for his defense of the story.

"I believed in it," he said. "I wouldn't have put it on the air if I hadn't of believed in it. And what kind of reporter would I be if I put something on the air in which I believed, and as soon as it's attacked and under pressure, you run, you fold, you fade, you side-wind? That's not the kind of person I am, and it's not the kind of reporter I am."

(Memo to Dan: If you still think you are in front of this story, try facing the other way!)

Tony Snow once characterized the Clinton administration's approach to scandal as, "We didn't do it, it wasn't wrong, and we'll never do it again." Most people realized at the time that this sort of micro confession -- admitting error a little bit at a time in order to diffuse the full impact of the admission -- wouldn't have worked in an environment in which the press was doing its job. It is disturbing to see a member of that very press adopting the same tactics to diffuse his own scandal.

I look at this moment as analogous to the battle of Midway in World War II. After that battle, the Japanese never regained their domination of the Pacific theater, but the war was far from over. In the same way, I think this scandal has been a decisive defeat for the elite press, but I don't look for the consequences to be immediately apparent. Dan Rather should resign or be fired, but I don't expect that to happen. Like Pharaoh in the book of Exodus, he is too attached to his own power to let it go over a question of integrity. I predict that he -- and the Old Media that he represents -- will weather the current storm but that history will show that this was the point at which their lack of credibility began to be generally recognized.

(Via Allah, who has been particularly akbar on this story and hasn't really gotten the credit he deserves.)

UPDATE: If I am behind the curve, where the heck is Newsday?

The Republican National Committee operates its own 24/7 anti-news network to monitor coverage and orchestrate a rapid response. Salon reports that the story casting doubt on the documents was first pushed into the news stream by Creative Response Concepts, a Republican public relations firm. Then, selected bloggers went to work led by an Atlanta lawyer who helped get President Bill Clinton disbarred and was the first who called the memos fakes. His charges spread like a prairie fire through the rabid conservative grapevine and amen corner. The goal: Focus the media on Rather, not Bush. CBS initially stood by the documents, then hedged, saying that even if they were flawed, the story that Bush had disobeyed his commander's order to have a physical was accurate in essence. But it finally had to concede it was a mistake to run the story.

780 words and not one mention of the fact that CBS aired forged documents in support of its case. And I love the line about "selected bloggers". Sheesh!
(Also via Allah.)

UPDATE: OK, that last piece wasn't by Newsday's editorial staff, it was an op-ed by Danny Schechter. Protein Wisdom gives the column a fisking.

The Accidental Patriot

Michael Moore's hatchet piece on Bush is having some unintended consequences in Iran. Fahrenheit 9/11 was passed by the censors because it criticizes Bush, but Iranian viewers admire the freedom of Americans to criticize their government:

"It sure is a great country, where someone like Moore trashes the president and gets away with it -- and makes so much money!" he laughed.

Another woman said she was impressed with the scene where Moore chases US congressmen to ask them if they would send their children to Iraq.

"How many top officials here sent their offspring to fight in the Iran-Iraq war?" asked the woman, one of several who directed their frustrations at Iranian authorities -- and not President Bush.

(Via Damien who notes: "Moore says he made Fahrenheit 9/11 to facilitate 'regime change' in America, but the film may instead help to bring down the theocratic government of Iran. Which makes me wonder which one Moore would prefer."

Law Students Say the Darnedest Things

Will at Crescat Sententia makes the surprising assertion that ... legislatures can make laws!

To the extent we're worried about what I'll call the O'Connor objection (that's Beth O'Connor, not Sandra Day)-- this objection is that people might threaten to do illegal acts just so that people will pay them to go away-- we can eliminate those contracts by individual legislative decision. It's important to remember that in our system the courts do not stand alone as the makers of law: Unlike courts, legislatures are not obligated to follow their logic to its endpoints, and are free to make judgment calls. In this case, if legislatures decide that letting people contract to not-assault one another is a bad idea, they can criminalize it, and the court needn't try to craft a too-loose solution of its own. [Emphasis mine.]

I realize this was probably intended as irony, but isn't it telling that such a reversal can be tossed off as a commonplace? Anyone who still doubts that the courts have become altogether too intrusive just isn't paying attention.

(Regarding the substance of his point, doesn't this argument cut both ways? If a legislature can specify limits to a judicial ruling that contracts can enjoin forbearance from illegal action, why can't the legislature simply specify that such contracts are valuable in the first place? This would remove the role of interpretation entirely. But the fact that legislatures have generally not done so is indicative of the consensus that such contracts are not popularly desired, whether or not they are desirable in the abstract.)

UPDATE
Will Baude replies:

1: The statement was meant ironically. But remember, time was when courts *did* make law, and nobody thought this was a problem. That was the common law. And it's still the reality in many states, and in all of contract law (which was the focus of my post). There is much to be said for the view that the court should keep its nose out of things except where it is authorized-- it is a view that I share. But it's worth remembering that judicial activism is illegitimate only when it is unauthorized, not *per se*.

2: Surely you recognize the importance of default rules. There is little lobby or energy to make refraining from illegal acts into valid consideration, but there is also little energy to do the opposite (except perhaps in the limited protection racket case). This only shows that the stakes are lowish-- not that the status quo is correct.

I think I am in essential agreement with both points. But common law assumes a body of shared precepts which I think are lacking in our current society. This is why (or at least partly why) the objection to judicial activism is so strong -- the decisions of the courts are no longer reliably consistent with the common understanding of justice. I think it may also be why society has become simultaneously more litigious and more insistent that minor details be spelled out in positive law. Interpretation of loopholes is a dangerous business when there is no agreed upon standard.

Furthermore, in such a climate, it is not unreasonable to urge caution in making any change, even if the stakes are low. The status quo may not be correct, but it is the devil we know.

But having said that, I think Will's case that refraining from illegal acts can form a valid consideration is a reasonable one. My objection is procedural rather than substantive.

Liberty as a Form of Oppression

I have always known that Andrew Sullivan and I had substantive disagreements on the parameters of liberty, but I had thought we shared the same basic view of its nature. This post, however, gives me pause:

NOW, THE PILL: The increasing popularity of laws that allow doctors and pharmacists to opt out of certain practices or even certain kinds of patient is a worrying trend. It was designed in part by the religious right to prevent gay people from having access to good medical care, and also to protect doctors from being forced to perform abortions. Now, its effects are being extended to the birth control pill, which some believe can be a form of abortion. The slow and fitful attempt of the far right to control others' sex lives continues. If you approve, vote Republican.

So, like much of the left whom he generally repudiates, Mr. Sullivan is now asserting that laws giving people options are actually inhibiting the liberty of those that want to enforce conformity. This is not a new theory, of course. All anti-discrimination laws operate on similar presuppositions. The notion is that if a proprietor of, say, a bar has the liberty to refuse service to anyone, that entails his ability to refuse service to Blacks, Jews, Women, Gays, Non-Smokers, or whatever peculiar prejudice he happens to hold and therefore his liberty must be curtailed.

Now reasonable people can disagree as to whether such curtailment of the liberty to discriminate is a proper function of government. It is perfectly within the conservative tradition to argue that, in certain cases as noted above, the limitation on liberty serves a greater social good. I happen to disagree -- preferring to let the market punish such idiocy -- but I can appreciate the argument. If I came upon a bar that did not allow Blacks I would quite happily take my business elsewhere and encourage others to do likewise, but I can sympathize with the impatience of those who want a quicker, more definitive solution. But it is surely a little rich to characterize the libertarian position as an "attempt ... to control others' ... lives." Especially when the discrimination in question is based on demonstrably ancient and presumably sincerely held moral precepts.

To illustrate why this latter point makes a difference, suppose the bartender in my example was discriminating not against Blacks or Gays but against ... Alcoholics. The Civil Rights crowd might (although it tends not to) argue that such discrimination is unfair and that even drunks have a right to be served by a place of public accommodation. But would the bartender necessarily be trying to control the drinking habits of his clientele? Might he not simply wish to refrain from participating in self-destructive behavior? It seems that in such a case, the benefit of the doubt belongs with the bartender.

Now my analogy will not be as compelling if, as Mr. Sullivan asserts, such opt-out laws were "designed in part by the religious right to prevent gay people from having access to good medical care". I am not aware of such motivations and he offers no support for this assertion. But even if this is a factor, surely the predominant impetus has been in the abortion arena where doctors, nurses and pharmacists have been under pressure by the extreme left to provide abortions against their moral and religious convictions.

I do not hold the Roman Catholic position on birth control (nor the modified version of it presented in the BBC article), but it doesn't take much imagination to see how someone who did would want the same ability to opt-out. Charity, if nothing else, should dictate that such a person not be forced to choose between losing his job and violating his religion. But even a failure of such charity would not warrant that his scruples be mischaracterized as malice.

In a culture war, as in any other, the best way to avoid unintended casualties is to use the most precise weaponry available. It is regrettable that a warrior with the obvious marksmanship of Mr. Sullivan should choose to explode such indiscriminate ordnance in the midst of the marketplace of ideas.

UPDATE (In reference to Sullivan's post immediately prior to this one): If he has Blogger Block, what the hell do I have?

False Boos Reported at Bush Rally

The AP reported a story that Bush supporters booed his call for prayers regarding Clinton's hospitalization for heart surgery:

President Bush on Friday wished Bill Clinton "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery."
"He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally.
Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.

The trouble is, the boos never showed up on the audio tape and multiple witnesses claim there was no booing at all. The story has since been changed twice without a formal retraction. And several AP feed sites still contain the original version.
(Food Chain: Instapundit -> Swimming Through The Spin)

UPDATE: Left-blogger Atrios still links to the original story, despite multiple comments that point out the retraction. I guess the Eschaton is not all that immanent, hmm?

UPDATE: Just for the record, the stories about cheers at the announcement of Reagan's Alzheimers were for real. Tammy Bruce is on our side now, but she confesses to having cheered back when she was a leftist.

UPDATE: Hindrocket at Powerline is also on this story.

Note that the AP didn't say "there were scattered boos" (there weren't) or even "one guy booed." The AP reported, falsely, that "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed." That isn't spin; it's a flat-out lie. And the AP writer added the malicious embellishment that Bush did nothing to stop the (nonexistent) booing.

And note his update. Evidently the lie is spreading:

The AP's lie is spreading rapidly around the globe. Salon says: "Audience boos as Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery." WSTM television in New York has a slightly different version of the story, with an AP copyright, which says: "Many in Bush's audience booed when Clinton's name was mentioned. The president made no comment on that and continued with his rally speech." WRIC television in northern Virginia has the same "many booed" story. In Iowa, KWWL television reports that "Many in Bush's audience booed when Clinton's name was mentioned. The president made no comment on that and continued with his rally speech." The same misinformation is being promulgated in Georgia, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, California, Tennessee, Indiana, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and New York again.

I'll stop there, but there are many more. Do you suppose that all of these news outlets will offer corrections? What proportion of the people who hear this story will ever find out that it was a complete lie, fabricated, apparently, by a Democrat who works for the AP?
[...]
This, folks, is a scandal. The blogosphere should not rest until the AP is brought to account.

Amen.

Civil Discourse in NY

A young liberal woman sitting on a street corner with the following sign:

Young liberal idealist looking for conservative or Republican person to discuss hopes and plans for the future of our society

I am slimly informed, a good listener and believe people can make sense to each other.

If you share an interest in conversation between the right and the left please sit down with me.

A woman after my own heart. And she is probably not as slimly informed as she thinks. At least she knows what makes this country work.

This is the only time during this campaign season I have wished I had gone to the convention.

(Peter Northrup has pictures.)

Lebanese Sovereignty

The US is pushing for a resolution to stop Syria from interfering with Lebanon's constitution:

A senior State Department official said Washington hoped to table the resolution in the coming days, before Lebanon's Parliament is expected to vote on Cabinet's Syrian-orchestrated proposal to extend President Emile Lahoud's term by three years.

The official said it was unlikely the draft resolution would contain provisions that could lead to UN sanctions against Syria but would rather reaffirm the Security Council's longstanding position that Lebanon's sovereignty be respected.

[...]

An official with the French delegation to the Security Council told The Daily Star Tuesday afternoon that one of the points already written and agreed on by Washington and Paris was the disarmaments of all militias in Lebanon. He said he could not remember if the term used was "radical organizations" as mentioned in one of the local newspapers here. Another point was the restoration of Lebanese control over all Lebanese territories, he said.

[...]

Lebanese Foreign Minister Jean Obeid told reporters that relations between Lebanon and Syria "are resolved by the Lebanese and Syrians."

The minister said bilateral relations between the two neighboring states were "not an international affair."

He criticized France and the United States without naming them, saying: "Those states that are interfering now are unable to even give an advice to Israeli policies and other oppressive practices in the West Bank and Iraq."

[...]

Boucher said, however, it was not clear whether Obeid's protests were representative of the Lebanese people and all members of its government.

"Obviously, we want to consider the position of the Lebanese government, but we want to consider the position of the Lebanese take without undue outside influence and I don't think it's clear what that position is," he said.

He noted that there appeared to be considerable opposition to the amendment within Lebanon as well as criticism "of the kind of pressure that's being applied and the kind of decisions that are being made."

Jane at Armies of Liberation finds it shocking that France is a co-sponsor of the resolution, but since it has no real teeth, it is hard to see what risk France would be taking. It is interesting, though, that they are cooperating with the evil US on a Mid-East policy issue.

I am thinking this signals that Syria, rather than Iran, will be next in the crosshairs in the War on Terror. But nothing is particularly clear at the moment.