Absolute Clarity

I was catching up on my reading today, and browsing through Don Surber's blog, where he posted a quote from British Prime Minister Tony Blair that displays his absolute clarity and resolve about the situation in Iraq:

We are not walking away from Iraq. We will stay for as long as the government needs us to stay. And the reason for that is that what is happening in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, as elsewhere in parts of the Middle East, is a struggle between the decent majority of people, who want to live in peace together, and those who have an extreme and perverted and warped view of Islam, who want to create war. In those circumstances, our task has got to be to stand up for the moderates and the democrats against the extremists and the sectarians. They are testing our will at the moment, and our will has not to be found wanting.

Farther down, Don posted a long comment from blogger Amy Proctor. Money quote:

There is no way a bunch of terrorists could ever defeat America if we were unified. The division is what is prolonging the engagment in Iraq. It's that simple. I hold Democrats personally responsible.

Her lengthy comment made me curious, so I followed the link to her blog Bottom Line Up Front and found wonderfully cogent posts on the war and related politics. Some recent headlines and ledes:

Kissinger Debunks Dem War Rhetoric

Bottom Line Up Front: In contrast with Democrats, Henry Kissinger says the conflict in Iraq cannot be won without a U.S. military presence.

Why the U.S. Cannot Timetable Iraq

Bottom Line Up Front: A timetable for withdrawal in Iraq would be a disaster.

Unlike Democrats, Romania Will Not Abandon Iraq

Bottom Line Up Front: Romania's honor is greater than the Democrats'.

I look forward to reading Amy's blog regularly! I've added her to my permanent blogroll under Military & Milblogs.

Changing the Conversation

President Bush has done a fair job of crafting a vision of hope for the Middle East. His stirring words have been a catalyst for remarkable changes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Here's a sample from his speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 19, 2006:

At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace.

Five years ago, I stood at this podium and called on the community of nations to defend civilization and build a more hopeful future. This is still the great challenge of our time; it is the calling of our generation. This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.

The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world." One of the authors of this document was a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik, who would go on to become President of this Assembly. Mr. Malik insisted that these principles apply equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world that was his home.

In the nearly six decades since that document was approved, we have seen the forces of freedom and moderation transform entire continents. Sixty years after a terrible war, Europe is now whole, free, and at peace -- and Asia has seen freedom progress and hundreds of millions of people lifted out of desperate poverty. The words of the Universal Declaration are as true today as they were when they were written. As liberty flourishes, nations grow in tolerance and hope and peace. And we're seeing that bright future begin to take root in the broader Middle East.

Some of the changes in the Middle East have been dramatic, and we see the results in this chamber. Five years ago, Afghanistan was ruled by the brutal Taliban regime, and its seat in this body was contested. Now this seat is held by the freely elected government of Afghanistan, which is represented today by President Karzai. Five years ago, Iraq's seat in this body was held by a dictator who killed his citizens, invaded his neighbors, and showed his contempt for the world by defying more than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions. Now Iraq's seat is held by a democratic government that embodies the aspirations of the Iraq people, who's represented today by President Talabani. With these changes, more than 50 million people have been given a voice in this chamber for the first time in decades.

Some of the changes in the Middle East are happening gradually, but they are real. Algeria has held its first competitive presidential election, and the military remained neutral. The United Arab Emirates recently announced that half of the seats in its Federal National Council will be chosen by elections. Kuwait held elections in which women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time. Citizens have voted in municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, in parliamentary elections in Jordan and Bahrain, and in multiparty presidential elections in Yemen and Egypt. These are important steps, and the governments should continue to move forward with other reforms that show they trust their people. Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions. But the destination is the same: A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world.

That rhetoric is important, but Americans seldom hear it. The media treats us to endless stories of mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq, but few of the compassion and caring our troops provide nor the incredible strides made since Saddam Hussein was evicted from power. In the recent campaign season, I heard no one proclaim a positive vision for America, reminding us of who we are and what we're about. The candidates and their supporters were too busy complaining about the enemy, whether the other political party, President Bush, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Israel, the UN, or Al-Qaeda. There was mud-throwing, and scolding, and general unpleasantness. But I heard none that sought to inspire us to greatness.

President Reagan was an aspirational leader, preaching hope and high ideals:

And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for the young people here -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here.

May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill.

President Reagan delivered this speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston.

Now that the election is behind us, it's time to change the conversation. Quit complaining and change the world!

Related posts:

• I want my country back!
• Inflection Point
• The Tale of a Teddy Bear
• Conversations

Litany for Liberal Christians

Dr. Sanity's Quote of the Day on Monday is from Tawfik Hamid. She says he "is furious at the West and their response to Islamic fundamentalism, which he also says is the dominant version (not the "minority") of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world."

Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want?

I couldn't agree more. So in light of that quote and my post below, I think it's high time to dig out my "Litany for Liberal Christians":

We have focused on our own short-comings as individuals and as a nation with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but failed to move forward and seek constructive ways to build a better world.

We have been fearful of change, clinging to failed policies and ideologies, unwilling to face realities that don't fit neatly into how we understand the world works.

We have learned the wrong lessons from history, focused on our mistakes and ignored our victories.

We have cheered when cartoon heroes fight evil doers, but declined to call evil by name in the real world. We have apologized to our enemies for our very existence while rebuking our leaders for fighting that evil.

We have been hypocrites, piously intoning our commitment to freedom and self-determination for all people, freedom of religion, economic justice, and women's rights, while castigating those who are working to achieve those lofty ideals in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and elsewhere.

We have been timid in our Christianity, instead making sacrifices at the altars of "multi-culturalism" and "political correctness" that have sapped our strength and undermined the Great Commission to proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Great God, forgive us.

Originally posted as part of Why I didn't go to Church today, 9/11/05.

Inflection Point

It seems to me that we're at an inflection point in history: the shape of the future is unsettled. Our civilization hangs on the decisions we make now. Do we move forward to win the peace? Or retreat and cower before the thugs of the world? Do we give up hope and doom millions to misery? Or should we dream large and work to achieve a bright shining future?

If we want to change the world, I say it's time to dream large. You think that's too hard? Consider the story of Alex Scott. A mortally ill little girl with a lemonade stand raised more than $1,000,000 for childhood cancer research before she died at age 8. How could a mere child accomplish so much?

A success coach would encourage you to practice visualization, being very specific about the sensory input associated with achieving a given goal, such as running a race. Then you have to add emotional overtones, imagining how you'd feel when you've achieved your goal. The third step is taking action to acheive your desires. The theory is that you are what you think about. Think depressing thoughts all day, and your life will be miserable. Think inspiring thoughts and you can achieve amazing things.

The jihadists have it all over Westerners in the visualization department. They know exactly what they are trying to achieve, and have oodles of religious fervor adding the emotional punch. They definitely believe "Where there's a will, there's a way." And they are willing to persist in their quest over decades, if not centuries.

Western leaders, on the other hand, tend to blather platitudinous goo. They do not enlighten, or encourage, or inspire. They speak of Iraq as a problem to be solved and prefer "realism" to idealism. However, Michael Rubin writes that, "Realism promotes short-term gain, often at the expense of long-term security." He continues,

Both realism and progressivism have become misnomers. Realists deny reality, and embrace an ideology where talk is productive and governments are sincere. While 9/11 showed the consequences of chardonnay diplomacy, deal-cutting with dictators and a band-aid approach to national security, realists continue to discount the importance of adversaries' ideologies and the need for long-term strategies. And by embracing such realism, progressives sacrifice their core liberalism. Both may celebrate Mr. Rumsfeld's departure and the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, but at some point, it is fair to ask what are the lessons of history and what is the cost of abandoning principle.

The Christian church is not immune to fuzzy thinking about its identity and mission. When the newly ordained Episcopal presiding bishop is loathe to proclaim her own faith as the route to salvation, we have a problem. When Europeans wonder if the Catholic Church is committing slow suicide by enabling those that would destroy it, we have a problem. In their quest to avoid being judgmental, PC Christians forget the need for discernment. Discernment requires making distinctions, to recognize the difference between good and evil, truth and error. Discernment leads to clarity of thought and action.

Westerners need to create a clear and compelling vision of the future world we want to inhabit, one that we can fervently and enthusiastically join together to make a reality. Setting the agenda, not just reacting to world events, requires a well-developed sense of how we want to improve ourselves, our cities, our states, our nation, and our world. Presidents Reagan and Clinton both understood the need for aspirational leadership, conveying their visions with consummate story-telling.

The stories we tell ourselves say a lot about what we want to do, and what we think of ourselves. Stories help us tether abstract ideas to the real world, providing concrete examples of the principles the leader wants us to consider. The language we use is important, for it can inspire us or depress us, encourage us to find new answers or chastise us for trying to change the system. We can imagine the best of all possible worlds, or worry ourselves into a pit of despair.

Fortunately, we don't have to wait on our politicians or prelates to tell us what to aspire to. If a little girl with a lemonade stand can change the world, imagine what each of us can accomplish!

Food for thought:

• Bedford Falls or Pottersville? Paul Mirengoff, Weekly Standard
• Vision regeneration in Dallas, Paul Mirengoff, Power Line
• Alex's Lemonade Stand
• As a Man Thinketh
• Mother Teresa (Nobel Peace Prize bio) (Vatican bio)
• Elias Chacour bio at Answers.com, books
  
• Overcoming Evil with Good
• T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics

[Update 11/17/06] Follow-up post: Changing the Conversation

Encouraging the Enemy

Elections have consequences. The headlines at Lucianne.com this noon show just how quickly the Democrat victory in the congressional elections, coupled with the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, has Al-Qaeda cheering:

• 'Iraq al-Qaeda' welcomes US poll
• Khamenei calls elections a victory for Iran
• Al Qaeda crows over Rumsfeld
• Iran, Syria Relieved That Democrats Won
• An Iraqi congressional election?

I'm not encouraged by the news. There's more at Drudge:

• AL QAEDA IN IRAQ MOCKS 'LAME DUCK' BUSH
• VOWS TO 'BLOW UP WHITE HOUSE'...
• Claims It's Winning War...
• Internet audio clip boasts of 12,000 terror 'troops' in Iraq...

Amok Time

Now that the election is over, and the electorate has put the Congress in the hands of the Democrats, I think a quote from Star Trek is appropriate:

After a time you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting.
It is not logical, but it is often true.

(Spock to Stonn, T'Pring's preferred mate, after T'Pring tells Spock to pound sand.)

The Only Issue This Election Day

Orson Scott Card has an extraordinary article today at Real Clear Politics:

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

Go read the whole thing and Vote!

H/t Lucianne.com

Win the War! Vote Republican!

On the way home from church yesterday, I saw a man holding a large campaign sign that said: "Elect Menendez. Stop Bush." Nancy Pelosi said on '60 Minutes' that she'd be happy to make President Bush a lame duck for the next two years.

I'm sorry, "stopping Bush" is not a constructive agenda. That approach doesn't promote dialog. It does not encourage people across the political spectrum to figure out a good way forward together nor provide bright ideas that may not have been considered before.

Pulling out and declaring defeat álà Vietnam won't make the world a safer place. We know that ignoring Osama bin Laden and his ilk actually encouraged more terrorist attacks. They considered the US weak-willed and decadent. (If you need a reminder of the carnage, see the Army's Timeline of Terror).

Confronting the jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq has definitely helped drain the swamp, and brought hope to millions. General Casey notes that Iraq isn’t “awash in sectarian violence.” Most sectarian violence in Iraq is concentrated across a 30-mile radius around Baghdad, and, 90 percent of all violence in Iraq is taking place in five of the country’s 18 provinces.

In today's Washington Post, there's a story about what the troops in Iraq think about their situation. Ed Morrissey comments:

The mission has had its failures, but it has had tremendous successes as well. If the US turns its back on the Iraqis now, Somalia will pale into insignificance in comparison to the disaster, both militarily and strategically, we will have brought upon ourselves. Native populations will never -- never -- trust us to stand by and protect them after risking everything to assist us. Tyrants and terrorists will laugh at our threats, knowing they can outlast us, especially if they can create enough propaganda to distract American voters.

The soldiers and Marines understand that victory cannot be replaced by "phased redeployment". If the tactics need changing or adjustment, then bring in better ideas -- but we cannot allow retreat and capitulation become the only other option for Iraq.

We can't afford an obstructionist Congress. Vote Republican!

*******************
For more perspective, historian Victor Davis Hanson has written several articles recently to remind people about what we've accomplished, e.g. "The Wonders of Hindsight," and "Before Iraq."

And The Anchoress has an excellent post tonight, "Believe the troops who are there or the pols who are not?"

My Related posts:

• T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics
• T-7 Days and Counting: History Lessons
• T-15 Days and Counting: The Propaganda War
• T-20 Days and Counting: Naming the Enemy
• T-21 Days and Counting: Rick Santorum

T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics

My sister sent me the following column by Jim Wallis at Sojourners, discussing the need for Christians to vote their values and priorities. While the premise is honorable, the specifics got my dander up!

Friday, November 03, 2006

Jim Wallis: Voting God's Politics

For years, we have watched the proliferation of voter'’s guides from the Religious Right that did all but actually endorse only right-wing Republican candidates. Before the 2004 election, their narrow list of "“non-negotiables"” included abortion, stem-cell harvesting, homosexual marriage, human cloning, and euthanasia. All the wider issues that the scriptures speak to were simply ignored. Never have we seen such a partisan use, abuse, and manipulation of religion. Well, those days are over, as many Christians, including a new generation of evangelicals, are demanding a broader and more biblical agenda - one that could challenge candidates on both sides of the aisle.

Oh, where to start! As I posted previously, politics is about a hierachy of values, and it behooves us to identify which candidate and party best represent us. If the Religious Right considered that Republican candidates were more representative of their beliefs, values, and concerns, I would certainly expect that those candidates would be endorsed.

He complains that the Religious Right had a narrow agenda. Maybe it was narrow because it was a list of their highest priorities, where they were most concerned with the direction our society was heading. To have a short list to focus people's energies and resources upon increases leverage and improves the chances for real change. A too-long list of "priorities" means that none are, and little is likely to be accomplished because efforts become diluted. When was the last time you were truly inspired by an over-long legislative laundry list included in, say, the President's State of the Union Address?

Please note, that for Conservatives, the narrow list of "“non-negotiables"” includ[ing] abortion, stem-cell harvesting, homosexual marriage, human cloning, and euthanasia falls into two categories of major concern: the sanctity of life and values that support strong families. Rev. Willis claims below that he cares about these issues too.

We have insisted that God is not a Republican or a Democrat, but we do believe there are principles and guidelines that should inform how we vote. This year, we have distributed more than 300,000 "“Issues Guides,"” which cover a broad range of Christian ethics and values that should inform our political decisions. You can still get a copy of the "Voting God's Politics Issues Guide."

We have highlighted the following principles and policies as a critical framework to shape our perspective on public policy and political leadership, and the questions by which all candidates should be evaluated.

Good. Rather than just complaining about the influence of the "Religious Right", he's entering the public debate. The down sides are that a) he implies that good Christians must necessarily agree with his interpretation of the Bible, b) that we must worry about everything rather than focusing our energies, and c) his framing of the issues is at times contrary to the way I and many others interpret the world around us.

Compassion and Economic Justice

They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands (Isaiah 65:21-23).

God shows a special concern for those in poverty and acts in history to lift them up. The Bible teaches that societies should organize so that all members have genuine access to the resources needed to live a decent life and provide for those who are unable to care for themselves.

Does the candidate support measures that provide for family economic success and security by "“making work work",” that promote fair and decent wages, that show a serious commitment to lifting children out of poverty, and support policies on aid, debt, and trade that would bring extreme global poverty to an end?

That passage from Isaiah can also be read as a rebuke of wealth redistribution through taxation, government subversion of property rights (Kelo, for instance), windfall profits taxes, or other policies that separate productive citizens from the fruits of their labors. Is it economic justice when the "top one percent of tax filers paid 34.27 percent of federal personal income taxes in 2003, while the top ten percent accounted for 65.84 percent of these taxes"? (Source: Joint Economic Committee, "FEDERAL INCOME TAX SYSTEM IS HIGHLY PROGRESSIVE AFTER RECENT TAX CUTS". H/t TaxProf Blog)

The policies that Rev. Wallis thinks candidates should endorse sound good, because they show how much we care for those less fortunate. But the real test is whether the policies work in the real world. To take sub-Saharan Africa as an example, billions of dollars in public and private aid have been sent there over decades with little to show for it. One critic states, "Aid has destroyed the concept of civil society in Africa."

The term "fair and decent wages" sounds like code words for raising the Federal minimum wage, which is arguably part of the Democrat's non-agenda if they win control of Congress this election. But raising the minimum wage isn't necessary (and may be counter-productive, reducing availability of entry-level jobs). Real inflation-adjusted after-tax wages are rising because labor markets are tightening as the economy keeps adding jobs. The national unemployment rate just dropped again to 4.4%.

Peace and Restraint of Violence

They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isaiah 2:4). Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God (Matthew 5:9).

We face a major challenge of how to resolve conflicts, reduce violence, and defeat terrorism without endless war. War has become a first resort instead of the last resort. In a world full of terrorists, terrorist states, unilateralist superpowers, and weapons of mass destruction, we need practical alternatives to an endless cycle of violence.

Is the candidate committed to a serious plan for ending the war in Iraq, to joining a real national debate on how to remove American forces while seeking both security and peace for Iraq, to the elimination of nuclear weapons, to supporting security and freedom in the Middle East, and to strengthening international law to fight terrorism?

Claiming that "[w]ar has become a first resort instead of the last resort" is a serious distortion of the Administration's policies. Iraq was invaded after 12 years of diplomacy and sanctions failed to induce Saddam Hussein to abide by numerous UN Security Council resolutions and prove that he had destroyed his WMD. The President has been criticized for the "rush to war" in Iraq, and for "unilateralism", yet the same critics complain that he insists on multi-party talks with North Korea and letting European nations lead on diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran.

The recent decision by North Korea to return to the six-party talks has been attributed, not to US saber-rattling, but to consistent pressure to cut off Kim Jong Il's cash flow and access to the international banking system. Additionally, the US has spear-headed a coalition effort called the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), to interdict shipments of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) . (Info on 2006 exercises in Baltic, Persian Gulf, and Australia.) The Administration appears committed to finding practical alternatives to all-out war.

I totally disagree with Rev. Wallis' candidate checklist on this issue. What's wrong with winning the war in Iraq? Why is absenting ourselves from Iraq considered more important than promoting justice (especially for women!) and helping the oppressed? Removing American forces before the job is done will only reinforce the enemy's impression that Americans have no stomach for long conflicts.

President Bush was absolutely correct when he said, "They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw." He also reminds us that "We're in an ideological struggle between people who hate and people who have hope. We've been through ideological struggles before. Freedom wins every time if we -- if we don't lose our nerve." (See my posts here and here.)

Consistent Ethic of Life

Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (Genesis 2:7).

We believe that all life is a sacred gift from God, and that public policies should reflect a consistent ethic of life - and address all the places where human life is threatened. We believe abortion is always a moral tragedy, but how do we find real solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies and supporting women caught in very difficult and desperate circumstances?

Does the candidate support policies that will dramatically reduce the number of abortions, end capital punishment, and stop genocide, especially in Darfur?

I can't fathom why Rev. Wallis maligns the "Religious Right" when the issues list he ascribes to them is primarily concerned with promoting a "culture of life" instead of a culture of death. In March 2005, Brendan Miniter of OpinionJournal.com wrote :

A flashpoint has long been abortion, but it's wrong to think this battle is entirely about "a woman's right to choose" or about protecting only unborn life. A large segment of the population feels that there has been a coarsening of our culture, that as a society we no longer view life as precious and valuable in all its forms. Abortion on demand is a sign of that coarsening, but so is euthanasia and the push to use stem cells from frozen embryos and tissue from aborted babies. Like Terri Schiavo's family, many Americans have decided they aren't going to remain silent as lives are discarded as "worthless."

As for Darfur, no one has figured out what to do. Even the UN can't make headway: its chief envoy was recently kicked out of Sudan for suggesting UN peacekeepers be employed.

Racial Justice

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Full humanity and dignity are denied when people are discriminated against for ethnic or racial reasons, whether intentionally or due to systemic structures. Racism is a sin and undermines the integrity of a society.

Is the candidate committed to reversing and ending racial discrimination in all aspects of our society, especially in the criminal justice and education systems?

Is Rev. Wallis willing to consider promoting a color-blind society by abandoning Affirmative Action in all its insidious guises? Over at Powerline, Scott Johnson writes:

The great victory of the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of moral persuasion: King persuaded Americans that it was wrong and deeply unAmerican to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. That victory of moral persuasion was translated into the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex in employment, public accommodations, and federally funded programs (including colleges and universities).

As Professor Edward Erler has commented, "No more powerful expression of a commitment to equal opportunity can be found in the annals of modern legislation anywhere in the world."

Despite the legal mandate of equal treatment, for the past 30 years many of America's educational institutions have blatantly violated the law in the name of "affirmative action" and "diversity." In reality these terms are extremely misleading euphemisms for the practice of gross racial discrimination.

Equal opportunity and equal protection under the law are important precepts in American government. However, many confuse equal opportunity with equal outcomes and presume that unequal outcomes are always the result of illegal discrimination. But Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that "Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law."

Human Rights, Dignity, and Gender Justice

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27).

We recognize each human being as created in God'’s image. We urge policies that both protect life and promote human dignity. On the issue of torture, for example, it really isn'’t the terrorists and what they stand for; it is about us, and what we stand for. On immigration, how do we welcome the stranger, respect the law, and insure national security? And how do we combat the growing epidemic of sexual trafficking and virtual slavery?

Does the candidate support humane and holistic immigration policies and comprehensive immigration reform? Do they insist on policies that end torture, stop human trafficking, promote religious freedom, and protect women?

The US Department of Justice hosted the second National Conference on Human Trafficking in New Orleans, LA from October 3-5, 2006. Numerous articles are available on the conference Resources page. More information on US efforts are at the USINFO Human Trafficking website.

Immigration policy is an absolute mess. 'Nuff said.

Strengthen Families and Renew Culture

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God (Romans 12:2).

Strong families are the essential foundation of a good society. A culture that promotes healthy families is necessary to raise our children with strong values. And parenting has become a countercultural activity in America. How do we find real solutions, and not just scapegoats?

Does the candidate support policies that strengthen marriage and families, restore integrity to our civic and business practices, and act to prevent violence in our society - especially the alarming incidence of domestic violence against women and children.

Many argue that social policies of the past 40+ years have undermined marriage and families, especially welfare policies. Thomas Sowell enumerated the failures of the War on Poverty. Rick Santorum pointed out that violence comes from neighborhoods where common denominators are lots of violence, broken homes, and absentee dads. He sees promoting marriage and reconnecting fathers with their kids as part of the solution.

Societal norms play a large role. Bill Cosby and Juan Williams argue that blacks embrace victimhood rather than empowerment. Says Williams, "I think it's a terrible signal to our young people about who black people are to have us constantly wrapped in the cloak of victimhood, and to have black leadership that in a knee-jerk fashion defends negative, dysfunctional behavior."

Good Stewardship of God'’s Creation

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good (Genesis 1:31). The earth is the Lord'’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it (Psalm 24:1).

The earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God'’s good creation for the sustenance and enjoyment of all things. We support policies that protect creation from interests and activities that damage it. We believe global warming is a religious issue.

Does a candidate support protections to clean air and water, to reduce the dangerous emissions that cause global warming, to shift from our addiction to oil and fossil fuels to cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy sources? Do they support the transformation to conservation and new energy sources that could provide jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help solve the Middle East crisis, and even reduce the threats of terrorism?

Two of the most memorable images I remember from the Apollo program were the "Big Blue Marble" and "Earthrise at Christmas." They drove home the concept of our planet being unique in the universe. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, we've made tremendous strides in cleaning up pollution. Even the once heavily-polluted Cuyahoga River has fish in it!

And yet, it's prudent to ask if spending large sums of money for small marginal improvements is necessarily the best use of resources. In a recent Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal, Bjorn Lomborg wrote:

Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

He makes the case more authoritatively than I: we have more pressing problems than trying to counteract the presumed human contributions to global warming. If nothing else, the fact that the Stern report he dissects is full of errors and exagerations should encourage caution in making costly decisions based on questionable science. (Related post here.)

Next Tuesday, we will not establish the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is not on the ballot. But you can vote to strengthen the common good. There are important things at stake in this election, including many lives in the ongoing war in Iraq. This is an important election for our country, and I urge all Christians to take time this weekend to think and pray about their choices, evaluate candidates on all these issues, then go to the polls on Tuesday and vote.

And after we vote, no matter who wins, we must be at the doorstep of politicians the next day to hold them accountable to the issues that arise from a broad biblical agenda.

As individuals, we need to identify our priorities and pick our battles accordingly. Politicians aren't the only ones who need to be held accountable. Our community and religious leaders need to be held accountable too, Reverend Wallis.

[Update: 11/5, 8:35 pm] Welcome Beliefnet readers! Sacred Frenzy tracked back and rectifies "The Great Omission". I also cleaned up some typos and formatting.

T-7 Days and Counting: History Lessons

Once upon a time, there was a newly-independent country. It had some growing pains as it figured out the best way to govern itself. From the time it declared independence from a tyrannical sovereign until its present Constitution was ratified was 12 years. The country? The United States of America.

• July 4, 1776 – Declaration of Independence
• November 15, 1777 – Articles of Confederation passed by Congress
• March 1, 1781 – Articles of Confederation in force after ratification by Maryland
• September 17, 1787 – US Constitution signed and sent to the states for ratification
  
• July 2, 1788 – Confederation Congress learns New Hampshire is 9th state to ratify
  
• December 15, 1791 – Bill of Rights ratified
• May 7, 1992 – Amendment XXVII ratified

I stuck in that last item to point out that the process of perfecting our constitutional government has taken more than 200 years. Pacifying Germany and Japan after their surrenders and nurturing their new governments took years. The efforts to develop constitutional governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are only a few years old.

President Bush puts it in perspective:

But I wanted to tell an interesting story. It's a story about a Navy fighter pilot who, at the age of 18, volunteered, and he said, I want to serve my country because the Japanese have just attacked us. You've got relatives who did the same thing. You've got a grandfather or a father, like I got, who said, I want to fight the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy. Thousands of people lost their lives. This country went to war against an enemy which attacked us.

You know, what's interesting, on the way down from Washington to Memphis, Tennessee, right there on Air Force One, Prime Minister Koizumi -- the Prime Minister of the former enemy of the United States of America -- and I discussed the peace. We talked about the fact that this country had a thousand troops in Iraq to defend the young democracy. He knows what I know. We're in an ideological struggle between people who hate and people who have hope. We've been through ideological struggles before. Freedom wins every time if we -- if we don't lose our nerve. (emphasis added - ed.)

And that's the lesson I learned from my friend, Prime Minister Koizumi. It's amazing what has happened between when 18-year-old fighter pilot George H.W. Bush fought this -- fought the enemy, and his son is talking about keeping the peace with the same country. And the lesson is liberty has got the capacity to change enemies into allies. And my citizens, liberty has got the capacity to turn regions of hate to regions of hope. Liberty has got the capacity to yield the peace we want.

Someday, an American President will be sitting down with duly elected leaders talking about the -- duly elected leaders from the Middle East talking about the peace, and a generation of Americans will be better off for it.

For further reading, The National Archives has a nice history of the Constitution.

Santorum at Rally For Troops tonight

[Update 11:00 AM] From NBC10 News:

Sen. John Kerry has canceled his visit to Philadelphia Wednesday night.

************************************
Santorum at Rally - 18th Street Between Arch and Cherry
November 1, 2006

Your attendance is requested

Show YOUR support at a press conference for our troops in light of recent derogatory comments made by Senator John Kerry.

“YOU KNOW EDUCATION, IF YOU MAKE THE MOST OF IT, IF YOU STUDY HARD, YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK, AND YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO BE SMART, YOU CAN DO WELL. IF YOU DON’T, YOU GET STUCK IN IRAQ.”

Senator Kerry is visiting Philadelphia on Wednesday, 11/1 in the evening to raise money for Bobby Casey at this location. At that time, Senator Rick Santorum will join veterans and families in rallying in support of our strong and intelligent men and women serving their country with pride and protecting our freedom.

PLEASE JOIN US AT:

5:30PM
18th Street Between Arch and Cherry
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

Philadelphia Young Republicans
email: mara@philadelphiayr.com
web: http://www.philadelphiayr.com

T-12 Days and Counting: Why We Fight

Why does anyone fight for a cause? Generally, it's because the person believes the world would be a better place if the cause prevailed. The fight may be overt or covert, involving force of arms or force of ideas, and may benefit few or many.

Yesterday when I got home from work, I was greeted by this headline at Lucianne.com:

N.J. rules same-sex couples should get

same rights as heterosexuals

This represents a classic fight of ideas. Married couples have a whole bunch of ancilliary rights under state laws, many of which devolve from the fact that marriage is, among other things, an economic contract. Rather than fight state by state, statute by statute, to amend the laws to include other sorts of consensual living arrangements, gays and lesbians figured out that if they could have their partnerships labeled "marriage", then the rest of the subsidiary rights under law would automatically pertain too. It seemed much simpler to broaden the definition of marriage than to keep fighting the step-by-step legislative battles. So they took to the courts.

The art of politics is all about finding solutions to problems that are amenable to the majority of participants. This applies in any organization that depends on buy-in from its members in order to continue to function, whether it's a book club or a government. Hugh Hewitt complains that the NJ Supreme Court decision, like the decisions in Vermont and Massachusetts, subverts the political process by demanding that the legislators craft law to support the court's reading of the state constitution.

A similar argument is made against Roe v. Wade, that the US Supreme Court decreed a "right" and stopped the political solution-finding in each state dead in their tracks. The result has been acrimony and litmus tests for politicians and appointed officials for more than 30 years.

Last week in Philadelphia during the Townhall.com event, a woman asked how to convince someone who's pro-choice to vote for Senator Santorum, who is pro-life. Dennis Prager answered that politics is a hierarchy of values: "We will never have a party we totally agree with, so we have to compromise."

Do the Democrats, or the Republicans, or the Greens, or Libertarians better match your values and priorities? If you agree with a party on nine of ten issues, why would you vote against them for the sake of that one issue?

These are times when you may need to re-evaluate your values hierarchy. Which is more important, making President Bush a lame duck for the next two years (Nancy Pelosi's stated aim), or pressing the war against Islamic fascism?

Perhaps this soldier's email to Kathryn Jean Lopez, comparing the Cold War to the current war, can provide some perspective:

Sure there are differences between that conflict and this one and of course there are people who would love to tell me just how dissimilar the two conflicts really are, how you cannot really compare the two, etc., etc. But, I have seen firsthand the depths of evil to which the Muslim extremists can go and I can assure you that as a threat they are every bit as dangerous as the Communists were. or any enemy we have ever faced, for that matter. More important, as the president has said, they are patient and they are determined. They will not relent until they achieve their aims. I'm afraid we are in for another long, protracted ideological struggle. I really believe we will win this one, too, as long as we stay united. We have to. Our children and our grandchildren are depending on us.

What are you willing to fight for? Vote accordingly!

For more ammunition, read the transcript to President Bush's press conference yesterday. Also Thomas Sowell, and Dr. Sanity, and Hugh Hewitt, and the Anchoress.

For news on the military war, see DefendAmerica and Central Command (CENTCOM), plus Milblogging, Mudville Gazette, and Black Five.

Related posts:

• T-20 Days and Counting: Naming the Enemy
• T-21 Days and Counting: Rick Santorum
• Beware Creeping Tyranny

T-15 Days and Counting: The Propaganda War

The public's perception of how things are going in Iraq is shaped by what news and information makes it through the filters and biases of reporters, editors, and publishers. The bias problem is not unique to North American media either: BBC executives have actually admitted its leftist leanings. (H/T NRO Corner)

The revelation that CNN is a willing partner in broadcasting the enemy's propaganda should shock us, but it is just one more point of evidence that much of the main stream media is biased against the traditional liberal values that have made American freedoms the envy of the world.

Recently, President Bush made the point about the propaganda war that's being waged against us:

Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." (ed. - emphasis added)

"George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw." (ed. - emphasis added)

Tigerhawk provides the historical background:

At the time the media perceived and promoted the Tet offensive as a great victory for the enemy. In an age when the network anchors deployed truly awesome power, Walter Cronkite destroyed Lyndon Johnson's chances for re-election when he editorialized that we were "mired in stalement". President Johnson declared "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America," and withdrew from the 1968 presidential campaign.

Tet, however, was not a military disaster for the United States. Quite to the contrary, history has revealed that the Tet offensive was in fact a crushing defeat for the Viet Cong, and effectively required that the Communists conquer the South by invasion from the North, rather than by civil insurgency. The Viet Cong were only able to turn a military disaster into strategic victory by persuading the American media that the United States was mired in stalement. With the domestic political support for the war fading fast, the United States decided to withdraw from Indochina, even though it would take Nixon and Kissinger another four years to accomplish it.

Victor Davis Hanson argues that we're doing better in Iraq in particular, and the larger war against Islamic fascism, than most media outlets admit:

The odd thing is that, for all the gloom and furor, and real blunders, nevertheless, by the historical standards of most wars, we have done well enough to win in Iraq, and still have a good shot of doing the impossible in seeing this government survive. More importantly still, worldwide we are beating the Islamic fundamentalists and their autocratic supporters. Iranian-style theocracy has not spread. For all the talk of losing Afghanistan, the Taliban are still dispersed or in hiding — so is al Qaeda. Europe is galvanizing against Islamism in a way unimaginable just three years ago. The world is finally focusing on Iran. Hezbollah did not win the last war, but lost both prestige and billions of dollars in infrastructure, despite a lackluster effort by Israel. Elections have embarrassed a Hamas that, the global community sees, destroys most of what it touches and now must publicly confess that it will never recognize Israel. Countries like Libya are turning, and Syria is more isolated. If we keep the pressure up in Iraq and Afghanistan and work with our allies, Islamism and its facilitators will be proven bankrupt.

But victory won't happen if Americans believe the negative spin and vote the Democrats into power in Congress in two weeks.

Milblogger Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette puts the challenge succinctly:

But like it or not, Mr and Mrs Average American are involved in a propaganda war, the only battle of the war on terror currently being fought on U.S. soil - and those who choose not to be victims of that battle may wonder what the appropriate response should be. Perhaps just this - bear in mind the stated goal: "to throw fear into the American people's hearts", divide and conquer, weaken resolve, and defeat America. Be aware of the plan to reach that goal, and recognize it for what it is when next you see it in action, as you undoubtedly will. (And while you're at it, spread the word...)

Greyhawk has lots more commentary on the propaganda war:

• al Qaeda's "Working Paper for a Media Invasion of America" - the Media Responds
• al Qaeda's "Working Paper for a Media Invasion of America"
• Al Qaeda "A-list" Journalist Responds

Update: Also check out the President's radio address (H/T Mudville Gazette):

Another reason for the recent increase in attacks is that the terrorists are trying to influence public opinion here in the United States. They have a sophisticated propaganda strategy. They know they cannot defeat us in the battle, so they conduct high-profile attacks, hoping that the images of violence will demoralize our country and force us to retreat. They carry video cameras and film their atrocities, and broadcast them on the Internet. They e-mail images and video clips to Middle Eastern cable networks like al-Jazeera, and instruct their followers to send the same material to American journalists, authors, and opinion leaders. They operate websites, where they post messages for their followers and readers across the world.

In one recent message, the Global Islamic Media Front -- a group that often posts al Qaeda propaganda on websites -- said their goal is to, "carry out a media war that is parallel to the military war." This is the same strategy the terrorists launched in Afghanistan following 9/11. In a letter to the Taliban leader Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden wrote that al Qaeda intended to wage "a media campaign, to create a wedge between the American people and their government."

The terrorists are trying to divide America and break our will, and we must not allow them to succeed. So America will stand with the democratic government of Iraq. We will help Prime Minister Maliki build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And we will help Iraq become a strong democracy that is a strong ally in the war on terror.

For more positive news about the war efforts, check out http://www.defendamerica.mil/.

T-18 Days and Counting: "Great Americans"

A colleague sent me the paper below, entitled "Great Americans," written by his grandson Peter Floyd, and gave me his permission to post it here. His grandson's class at his USAF technical school was given an assignment to write a paper about why they joined the military. Peter's paper was one of two that were chosen to be read during the graduation exercises. After you read it, I am sure you will understand why it was chosen.

GREAT AMERICANS

When your grandfather is a retired chief master sergeant, your dad is a Sgm your mom a Staff Sergeant in the Army, both of you older brothers are Corporals in the Marine Corps, and all of your Aunts and Uncles are a part of the military. It's very clear what they want you to do with your life. Join the military. As a 17 year old kid who was just about to graduate High School there was only one thing to do Rebel.

I was determined not to follow that line. I wanted to go to college and have fun and just be a normal teenage college student that has to beg his parents for money. Little did I know that a new awaking and new determination that would open my eyes? But it wasn't my own strengths and determination NO it was my middle brother Lcpl Brian Floyd.

15 days before my High School graduation my brother was very severely injured from an I.E.D explosion in FALLUJAH , IRAQ. His hands and head where impaled by shrapnel from what was his HUMMV. He was immediately transferred to Bethesda Medical Hospital. Seeing what was done to him, how bad he was my whole world fell apart. When you grow up as an Army Brat your family is all you really ever have. I wondered how someone could do this to my own brother. They have no idea of the pain they put my family threw. It only reinforced my thoughts that the military just wasn't for me.

I left my brother's side to attend my graduate High School only to come back to find him up and walking down the hall way on his own. It was so amazing to see that because, one week before they didn't know if he was going to live or not; and then to see him walk, I swear in that moment I saw god in him. I knew he would be ok

Two months later he got to come home. Still on I V. and without a STRUCTURED Forehead he was in need OF A FRIEND. I put my dreams of College on hold to be the one to stay with him. Being with him 24/7 we talked just like old times and relied on one another. One night we were up real late and he was talking about how miserable he was. I asked him well does your head hurt what you need. He said, "I need my team". And my team needs me back over there". I said, what are you crazy; you just got hurt and you're not going to get out. He said, Peter I raised my hand up and swore that I was willing to give up my life for this country. I'm still alive so im going to keep on fighting until I can't anymore. What we talked about that night struck me threw the heart like a knife. It made me think maybe there is something more to the military than what I see. If my brother almost lost his life and he is willing to get back up and do it all over again than either he took one too hard to the head, or he has experienced on of the most amazing events of his life.

Seeing him get his purple heart was amazing I was so proud of him. And I realized then that I wanted him look at me the same way I look at him. I didn't want him to see his little baby brother. I wanted him to see the fighter and the Warrior in me. He was one of the first people to return to full active duty after suffering a serious brain injury. He reached his goal by returning to his team and going back to Iraq Sep 5 2006. Looking back on our conversation a year ago I completely understand why he didn't quit. He didn't do it just for himself he did it for those he left behind. Instead of having sympathy for what happened to him I have a fear of not knowing what his limits are. So what inspired me to join the air force? It was the determination of another during his struggle that changed my life and I'M proud to call him my brother and my teammate.

Peter Floyd
U.S. Air Force

Related story and pictures from Marine Corps News:

It’s all in the family for Jacksonville Purple Heart recipient

Nov. 22, 2005; Submitted on: 11/22/2005 10:02:18 AM ; Story ID#: 2005112210218

By Cpl. Mike Escobar, 2nd Marine Division

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. (Nov. 22, 2005) -- Whether wounded on the battlefield or resting in a military hospital back home, injured Marines have always relied on the support of their fellow service members and loved ones to motivate them on the often rough road to recovery.

Nineteen-year-old Lance Cpl. Brian Floyd received more than a few words of encouragement from his family, but a unique understanding of the trials he faced as a wounded combat veteran of the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq.

“It’s a family tradition to serve our country, no matter what branch of the military we do it in,” said the infantryman with 1st Combined Anti-Armor Team, Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, explaining how every member of his family is or has been a member of the nation’s armed forces. “We’ve always supported one another, and it feels great to have them by my side when things like this happen.”

The Jacksonville, N.C. native referred specifically to the encouragement his loved ones have given him throughout the past six months, a period of time marked by numerous surgeries and physical therapy sessions.

Floyd, a 2004 graduate of Terry Sanford High School in Fayetteville, N.C., was wounded in action on May 1 near Fallujah, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle.

“I’d been manning the gun turret at the time,” he explained. “The armor shield right in front of the gun broke (during the blast), and a shard of metal slipped underneath my Kevlar (helmet). I ended up taking shrapnel to the head and in my left hand. I got knocked out, and the next thing I remember was waking up at (the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.)”

From that time on, Floyd said his family was there to lend him a helping hand.

His father, Army Sgt. Maj. Willie Floyd (retired), pinned the Purple Heart Medal onto his son’s chest here Nov. 16.

“I’m so proud of Brian’s dedication to duty, and also extremely grateful to his corpsmen and command for taking care of him,” Sgt. Maj. Floyd said after the ceremony. “They did what they had to do to get him off the battlefield that day, and they’ve given us back that fighting spirit that Brian possesses.”

Also present at the ceremony were Lance Cpl. Floyd’s mother, Army Staff Sgt. Georgette Floyd; two brothers, Lance Cpl. Willie Floyd and Peter Floyd; and two of his aunts, Army Sergeants First Class Elizabeth German and Ta’Juanna Denmark. They had traveled from bases in Fayetteville and Fort Benning, Ga., to see their wounded Marine presented his medal.

“After what he (Brian) has been through these past few months, I’m the one who looks up to him now,” said Floyd’s older brother Willie, who is also based here and serves as a machine gunner with 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment.

Currently, Floyd resides at Camp Lejeune’s Wounded Warrior Barracks while he receives what he said will be his last surgery. He said he eagerly waits to return to full duty to once more fight alongside his brothers in 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, and that he never lost his passion for the Marines.

“I’ve wanted to be a Marine since I was 12 years old,” Floyd stated. “I’m hoping to do 20 years in the Corps, and maybe even more, because there’s nothing else for me to do in this world.”

-30-

Photos included with story:

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. - Lance Cpl. Brian Floyd, fourth from the left, poses for a group photo alongside several of his relatives and his friend, Petty Officer 3rd Class Micah Selcer, far right, after being presented his Purple Heart Medal here Nov 16. The 19-year-old infantryman with 1st Combined Anti-Armor Team, Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment and Jacksonville, N.C. native said every member of his family serves, has served or is waiting to serve in the nation's armed forces. Photo by: Cpl. Mike Escobar

MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. - Lance Cpl. Brian Floyd, an infantryman with 1st Combined Anti-Armor Team, Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, is presented his Purple Heart Medal here Nov 16 by his father, retired Army Sgt. Maj. Willie Floyd. The 19-year-old Jacksonville, N.C. native was awarded this medal for injuries sustained after a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle while he and his teammates had been conducting security and stability operations outside Fallujah, Iraq in May. Photo by: Cpl. Mike Escobar

T-19 Days and Counting: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

A number (pardon the pun) of recent stories would seem to be bad news for the Republicans:

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths (Cnn.com)

War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq."

Poll Signals More Republican Woes (WSJ.com) (H/T Real Clear Politics)

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll illustrates the political toll Republicans are paying for rising discontent over the Iraq war, as well as a spate of scandals including the disclosure that Republican House leaders knew of inappropriate emails to House pages from Florida Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned late last month. Voters' approval of Congress has fallen to 16% from 20% since early September, while their disapproval has risen to 75% from 65%.

Warm winds of change hit the Antarctic (news@nature.com)

[...] The stronger winds cause warming mostly in the summer. Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula has actually been most intense in winter, but in summer a large part of the extra heat goes into melting ice. This has dramatic consequences.
Percolating meltwater enlarges crevasses and leads ultimately to the disintegration of floating ice shelves.

The largest and most prominent such event happened in March 2002 when the Larsen ice shelf, with an area of 3,250 square kilometres, collapsed. Overall, more than 13,500 square kilometres, an area larger than Jamaica, of floating ice shelves have broken up in the past 30 years. This is expected to speed the flow of inland ice to the coast, accelerating global sea level rise.

The 2002 event can now be pinned down to a specific change in climate, which is in turn linked to human-induced global warming, the authors say. Some argue that this is the first single event proved to have been caused by manmade climate change. "It's close to being evidence," says Ted Scambos, lead scientist of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

What's wrong with these stories? The authors make inferences about causality that may or may not be valid. My mother, who studied statistics in the 30's at Columbia University, liked to relate a tale told by one of her professors to illustrate the difference between correlation and causality.

It seems that a certain researcher had found that older women were more likely to walk with their toes pointed outwards than younger women. He concluded that women's feet turned more outward as they aged. A later researcher took another look at that study, did some anthropological digging, and concluded that age had nothing to do with it: older women were more likely to have been taught as young girls to walk with their toes pointing out. The correlation was solid, but what caused the condition was open to debate.

Some counter-arguments for the stories above:

655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties. (OpinionJournal.com)

After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.

An email to Hugh Hewitt (a followup to Hugh's earlier post):

Thank you so much for bringing attention on the all the faulty polling being done. You are not crazy, you are absolutely, 100% spot-on on this. I have worked my entire adult life, 25 years, processing market research and public opinion surveys. I know enough about surveys to be able to construct one that shows people prefer Pepsi over Coke, 60%-40%, or vice versa, and you would have no idea how I got either result even if I gave you the internals and methodology. You don’t have to take it on faith that there is a media conspiracy to misrepresent polling, they admit it in their own poll results. I have yet to see a general population poll that did not show adults 2%-4% more liberal than registered voters and registered voters 2%-4% more liberal than likely voters, and yet the media has no qualms about citing adults or registered voters when they want to give the Dems an added boost. Likewise, most 7 day tracking studies show a liberal 2%-4% bias when collecting over the weekend, yet the weekend seems to be the favorite time to poll. But the most important flaw is the one you have been talking about, the fact that every poll seems to over sample Democrats by 5%-10% consistently.

Climate of Fear (OpinionJournal.com)

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

Advertising copywriters know that having "factual" numbers in their stories lend credibility; most people lack the technical or scientific knowledge to know how to refute them, or recognize when they've been manipulated. Furthermore, people remember the bold headlines on page one, but not the corrections buried inside in tiny print. So it's an uphill battle to counter the erroneous perceptions people get from the mainstream media.

T-20 Days and Counting: Naming the Enemy

Last night, Dennis Prager talked about the Orwellian world we live in, where liberals can slander Christians with impunity, decrying the coming theocracy, but conservatives aren't allowed to use the term "Islamic fascists" because it's not politically correct! Dennis noted that critics willfully misconstrue English grammar to imply that the term impugns all Muslims. Not so: "Islamic" modifies the word "fascists" to describe a particular sort of fascist. During WWII, people understood that "Italian fascist" applied to a particular sort of fascist, but did not apply to all Italians.

Osama bin Laden* and Iranian President Ahmadinajad are both fascists, for they have both stated publically that they are striving to bring about an Islamic theocracy, one that would make the Taliban look like pikers. Historian Victor Davis Hanson explains:

Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist” appeasers in the West is just too bad.

First, the general idea of “fascism” — the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.

Senator Rick Santorum is likewise adamant that "words have meaning," and that we must be more precise in our terminology. Calling the enemy cowards, or militants, or insurgents, or describing our battle as the "Global War on Terror," has led many Americans to be in denial about the threat: Complaints that the Administration is really creating a climate of fear for political purposes continue to be aired.

The irony is that many liberals consider themselves to be part of the "reality-based community," but their "reality" doesn't match the world that I and many others perceive. Dr. Sanity provides a diagnosis:

Denial can make otherwise intelligent individuals/groups/nations behave in a stupid or clueless manner, because they are too threatened by the Truth and are unable to process what is perfectly apparent to everyone. People who live in this Wonderful World go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--and I mean NOTHING--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason or logic; or their own senses will make an individual in denial reevaluate that world view. All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact.

It is an uncomfortable truth that there are radical Muslims who don't want to share the planet with infidels at all. They've been probing the West's defenses and psyche for decades. The Army maintains a Timeline of Terror that starts in the 1960's. This is not a dark fantasy of the Bush Administration!

"This is not simply a fight against terror - terror is a tactic. This is not simply a fight against Al Qaeda, its affiliates and adherents - they are foot soldiers. This is not simply a fight to bring democracy to the Middle East - that is a strategic objective. This is a fight for the very ideas at the foundation of our society, the way of life those ideas enable, and the freedoms we enjoy."

-R.L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the Army
-General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, United States Army

How do we break through people's defense mechanisms so we can engage in thoughtful debate about the best way to win the war for Western Civilization? We thought that the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were a wake up call. Plus the attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Egypt, Mumbai, and elsewhere around the world since. But their shock value fades ever more quickly, and people return to their habitual world-views.

I don't know the answer. I wish I did.

* H/T to In The Bullpen for the timeline of OBL's pronouncements.

T-21 Days and Counting: Rick Santorum

That's how much time is left until the general election on November 7th.

Tonight, Senator Rick Santorum spoke at a townhall meeting in Philadelphia. The event was sponsored by WNTP (990 AM) and the Philadelphia Federation of Young Republicans. Featured guests were talk show hosts Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager.

The crowd was hushed as Senator Santorum came to the end of his speech, and then burst into loud applause and gave him a standing ovation. Let me share my notes from his speech and Q&A:

• The country needs people who can stand up in difficult times and confront the issues and the American public.
• "Greatest danger facing America is Islamic Fascism." Important that we know who the enemy is. Americans are wavering on the war because we don't understand the enemy.
• Words matter. "War on terror" brings images of men hiding in caves — so Americans think, How could we lose to them? President Bush kept referring to the enemy as cowards for a time after 9/11, but that's a misrepresentation. "These people people are not cowards; misguided, sick, but not cowards." We don't call them what they are, so we don't understand them.
  
• Enemy's favorite movie is watching the two Fox news reporters submitting to Islam. They see us as evil, corrupt, not willing to die for anything, weak materialists.
  
• Iran is where the action is, our principle threat right now. We've already dealt with two major enemies: the Taliban and Al Qaeda (which are radical Sunnis), and Iraq which under Saddam Hussein was being opportunistic in aiding terrorists. Iran and the radical Shiites are now the third problem.
• Iranian President Ahmadinajad is our threat and our opportunity. Rick sees parallel with 1930's and Europe's approach to Hitler: they didn't take him at his word, and assumed he was someone they could negotiate with. Same story now with Ahmadinajad, who has designs far beyond running his little corner of the world. He's more dangerous than Hitler because he's also a religious zealot who sees his duty as to bring the end times, when Islam wins its final battle over the infidels and the 12th Imam returns. He's dangerous because he has resources (oil, for example) and ability to aquire nuclear weapons thanks to the A.Q. Khan network and N. Korean scientists.
  
• We're dealing with a man/country/movement that wants to change the world. We sit by and play political games, and do nothing.
  
• This year's Senate races will determine the course of our national security policy for years to come. If the Democrats take power, they will say, We can negotiate with him. We will delay and delay, and then wonder why Iran has nukes.
  
• If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the world will no longer be the same. That day is sooner than we've thought, given N. Korea's test last week.
• Rick thinks that our intel in the Middle East is deplorable. Exiles tell him that there is strong pro-U.S. sentiment in Iran among the people. He thinks we lost credibility after the Administration's decision to work with the Europeans and negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program at behest of State Department.
  
• Touted his work to pass the Iran Freedom and Support Act (S.333), saying the Administration finally realized that some policy on Iran was better than none. He feels we need to foster peaceful revolution from within Iran — soon. If not, have to consider other options, including military.
• "On matters of principle, people deserve your best."
• "Don't let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi fool you into thinking that under their leadership the country would become more conservative!" I.e., get out and vote Republican; don't be cowed into staying home on election day.
  
• National security, American culture, and economy would be at risk under Democratic leadership.
• Our war efforts have had three major components. First, going after the enemy in their lairs and destroying them. Second, stepping up intelligence efforts and stopping plots before they hatch (several hundred stopped so far around the world). Third, "fortress America" — which is the Dem's first priority and exactly backwards — beefing up government to keep us safe, spending billions of dollars but not the best way to defend America.
• US has been on offense since 9/11 and Rick wants us to stay on offense!
• Q. about putting an end to gun violence. Rick said it was a multi-dimensional problem, requiring a number of approaches, such as tougher enforcement, intervention programs for juvenile offenders, and programs from community- and faith-based organizations. Violence comes from neighborhoods where common denominators are lots of violence, broken homes, and absentee dads. Need to promote marriage, reconnect fathers with kids. Liberals say that we can't moralize or judge people's families. Problem is that children get hurt by that ideology. Need to build healthier families and communities.

Dennis Prager preceded Senator Santorum, speaking for thirty minutes to a rapt audience.

• Dennis is here in Philadelphia because of Rick Santorum, not being paid to appear. "This is a race worthy of your money, time, and effort."
• We are in a battle for the soul of America. Ironic that many Republicans don't understand that, while many Democrats do.
• Liberals are foolish, but not bad, often mean well. To liberals, essence is about feeling good (rather than actually doing good).
• "American Trinity" is his way of describing our distinctive value system, and it's found on every US coin: In God We Trust, E Pluribus Unum, and Liberty. Uniquely American, what it's all about in the final analysis.
• In God We Trust means we're grounded in a moral framework with Judeo-Christian values. Unlike the Europeans, our American forebears were grounded in "Judeo", although there's no such thing as Judeo-Christian theology. Talking values here, not theology. US is not a secular country, but does have a secular government.
• E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one". Liberals endorse multi-culturalism, which is the antithesis of E Pluribus Unum, "un-American". Multi-culturalism means every culture is equally "celebratable", which is demonstrably false. Americans have always made culturable judgements, keeping that which is good.
  
• US has only culture that has put together religious society with liberty, understanding that God wants us to be free. Deeply religious people asserting that libery is at center of God's command.
• Question that matters is, who is dominant in a society? Most Germans were peace-loving before WWII, but the Nazis were the ones in power.
  
• Enemy understands that US is greatest threat to Islamist vision of world-wide caliphate under sharia.
  
• Rick Santorum is up against an opponent who is just there to try and unseat him. Dennis is here to help him fight the good fight.

Hugh broadcast his first two hours from the next room (so of course, we missed his show!), and then joined us at 8 pm, after Rick Santorum's speech. He was introduced by Dennis Prager.

• Pennsylvania Republicans have saved Union before (with Lincoln nomination), and can save Senate this time.
• Many Democratic candidates are empty suits. Wrong and clueless, many incurious about issues. This is a crucial moment in the history of the Republic, but Democrats are fielding light-weights.
• Related story of Mother Teresa receiving Medal of Freedom at Rose Garden, and when invited to speak, said "Mr. President, I need more money!" Moral: ask for what you need. Rick Santorum needs your time, money, and energy if he is to win in November.
• Had Scott Rassmussen on his show this evening, who is a prominent pollster. Hugh talked to him about the models pollsters use to predict turnout. Lesson is that turnout models are garbage-in, garbage-out, so polls aren't all that accurate. Best indicator of what's really going on is to see where the parties are spending their money. Dems know that Rick Santorum has come from behind to win 3 of 4 times on election day, so they're spending lots to defeat him.
• Rick is an unusual politician because he will answer questions that are asked, and respond with a well thought-out and articulate position. He has a coherent world-view. It's always necessary to understand what we stand for.
• Need truth-tellers, and Rick Santorum is one.

The evening was fun, and I enjoyed getting to meet Dennis for the first time, and Hugh for the second time.

**********
Local campaigns I'm supporting: Jim Saxton for Congress and Tom Kean for U.S. Senate.

[Update 10/18 1046] Welcome Hugh Hewitt readers!

And for those people who haven't read his take on last night's events it's here.