Labor Day Thoughts

"Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country." —— U.S. Department of Labor

Given the lessening clout of the labor unions in general, I propose that we think instead about the labors we have as a country to improve our national well-being. With the desolation wrought by Hurricane Katrina across four states, and the remembrance of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks next weekend, it seems worthwhile to meditate on where we as a people need to improve.

Several writers have commented on the moral collapse in New Orleans:

• "In New Orleans, moral levees are inundated too," by Tunku Varadarajan
• "Sermon for today - Moral levees," by Donald Sensing (Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt)
  
• "Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State," by Robert Tracinski (Hat tip Lucianne.com)
• "Assigning blame? Don't. People must take responsibility for themselves," by Rod Thomson

This is a meme that will likely continue for a while. I know it's something I've been thinking about this week while looking for some concrete way to turn frustration into positive action.

Although I work in New Jersey, I supervise two employees who live and work in the vicinity of Pascagoula, MS. Both were incommunicado for several nerve-wracking days; one checked in on Wednesday morning, the other on Friday morning. Praise God both are safe and have homes they can live in. Last Wednesday morning, before I knew they were safe, I was anxious and frustrated that I couldn't do anything to help them other than pray and send money (I'm donating via the Salvation Army, UMCOR, and our company relief fund).

Seeing the pictures of the disorder in New Orleans got me thinking, though, because they reminded me of the ghetto riots in the late sixties as well as the riots in Los Angeles following the Rodney King beating trial. The pathology on display in New Orleans is hardly unique to that city, but exists all over the United States, especially in large urban areas.

I happen to live near Camden, where even dedicated social workers and church activists are starting to admit that after forty years and millions of dollars spent on welfare and social services, they haven't made an appreciable difference in the city's slums. I heard one minister comment that the only thing left to do is pray, since nothing they've been doing works anymore —— if it ever did. He went on to say that perhaps the church's efforts (in our case, United Methodist) had gone too far in providing value-neutral assistance just like the government, leaving out the Gospel message and its emphasis on an individual's salvation and accountability. This is pretty much the approach prescribed in the denomination's Social Principles. For example, this paragraph on Poverty states,

Therefore, we do not hold poor people morally responsible for their economic state. To begin to alleviate poverty, we support such policies as: adequate income maintenance, quality education, decent housing, job training, meaningful employment opportunities, adequate medical and hospital care, and humanization and radical revisions of welfare programs.

I sometimes wonder if mainline Protestant professional do-gooders hold poor people responsible for anything: victimhood is writ large in the policies supported above. Note the emphasis on creating utopia through government policies, with no imperative for direction action such as missionary work. I think John Wesley (not to mention William Booth) would be appalled. At least the United Methodist Committee on Relief is rather more pragmatic.

Fortunately, there are direct ways to improve society. My favorite is Habitat for Humanity, with its emphasis on providing a hand up rather than a hand-out. Our church has covenanted with Metro Camden HFH to build a house this year. I intend to be on that work team, as well as supporting it financially.

It's easy to focus on just one catastrophe such as Katrina or the tsunami, and forget to support the day-to-day efforts of charities closer to home. While I was writing checks this week, I also dropped a couple to my local Salvation Army and American Red Cross chapters. Won't you?

P.S. If you'd like some positive news about your tax dollars providing relief on the Gulf Coast, check out DefenseLink.

Thursday Tidbits

Odds 'n' ends from around the web:

• Powerline posted excerpts from President Bush's speech in Idaho this week. A sample:
  

  The stakes in Iraq could not be higher. The brutal violence in Iraq today is a clear sign of the terrorists' determination to stop democracy from taking root in the Middle East. They know that the success of a free Iraq, who can be a key ally in the war on terror and a symbol of success for others, will be a crushing blow to their strategy to dominate the region, and threaten America and the free world. They know that when their hateful ideology is defeated in Iraq, the Middle East will have a clear example of freedom and prosperity and hope. And the terrorists will begin to lose their sponsors and lose their recruits and lose the sanctuaries they need to plan new attacks.

  And so they're fighting these efforts in Iraq with all the brutality they can muster. Yet, despite the violence we see every day, we're achieving our strategic objectives in Iraq. The Iraqi people are determined to build a free nation, and we have a plan to help them succeed. America and Iraqi forces are on the hunt, side-by-side, to defeat the terrorists. And as we hunt down our common enemies, we will continue to train more Iraqi security forces.
  ***
  The battle lines in Iraq are now clearly drawn for the world to see, and there is no middle ground. Transforming a country that was ruled by an oppressive dictator who sponsored terror into a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror will take more time, more sacrifice, and continued resolve. Terrorists will emerge from Iraq one of two ways: emboldened or defeated. Every nation -- every free nation -- has a stake in the success of the Iraqi people. If the terrorists were to win in Iraq, the free world would be more vulnerable to attacks on innocent civilians. And that is why, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, the terrorists will be defeated. (Applause.)

  
  
• Powerline also posted "Some Thoughts on Casualties in Times of War and Peace"
  

  Sometimes it becomes necessary to state the obvious: being a soldier is a dangerous thing. This is why we honor our service members' courage. For a soldier, sailor or Marine, "courage" isn't an easily-abused abstraction--"it took a lot of courage to vote against the farm bill"--it's a requirement of the job.

  Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

  That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.

  The statistics from the "Atlas of Injuries in the U.S. Armed Forces" (AUG 1999) indicate that accidental deaths counted weren't necessarily in the line of duty. Rather, the military keeps track of off-duty incidents as well; reducing all causes of death and injury means improved readiness and a better ROI for our tax dollars. The Navy, for example, is pushing a Designated Driver program called the HERO Campaign, which is just one of many ongoing safety-related efforts.
  
  
• Powerline also pointed me to Katherine Kersten's touching column in the StarTrib, "In Iraq, Grace takes amazing hold":
  

  Pastor Ghassan Thomas was overjoyed on April 9, 2003, when coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein. For four years, in the face of relentless persecution, he had operated an underground Christian church of about 50 members in the heart of Baghdad.

  Saddam's police had tortured him repeatedly, Thomas says -- beating him, suspending him from a ceiling fan and attaching electrodes to his tongue.

  Though Saddam's fall brought an end to official persecution, it also brought challenges. The living quarters where Thomas' fledgling flock had worshipped couldn't accommodate his swelling congregation, and he lacked resources to address their daunting needs.

  As his frustration mounted, Thomas says, "I prayed to God for a sister church to stand with me and help me."

  The answer to Thomas' prayers came from half a world away: Eden Prairie, Minn.

• If you're looking for a roundup of good news from Iraq, check out All Things Conservative and the official Pentagon roundup. Chrenkoff is winding down his blog now that he has a new job, but promises another roundup next Monday.
  
  
• John Fund of the Wall Street Journal was on Hugh Hewitt's show the other night, discussing his piece "Resurrecting Jim Crow for Political Gain," among other topics. He reported on a recent rally in Atlanta on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. The lede:
  

  The Voting Rights Act, whose 40th anniversary we celebrate this month, has helped minorities elect 81 sitting members of Congress and thousands of local officials. But the rally civil rights groups held in Atlanta earlier this month to push for extension of the act's key temporary provisions downplayed those gains and instead pushed wild claims that some state laws requiring an ID to vote are the functional equivalent of Jim Crow poll taxes.

  Both Judge Greg Mathis, the star of a syndicated courtroom TV show, and California Rep. Barbara Lee claimed that the last two presidential elections had been "stolen." Judge Mathis told the rally Republican leaders "need to be locked up because they're all criminals and thieves." Other speakers claimed Georgia's new photo ID law would suppress poor and elderly minority voters who might lack such a document. When the bill passed the Georgia House in March, black legislators sang slave songs and one even slammed a prisoner's shackles on the desk of the sponsor.

  Juan Williams, a National Public Radio correspondent and author of "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years," is "stunned" by such vituperation. He told Fox News that it is "reacting to devils that have been slain 40 years ago." He says that "in service to having no fraud elections, I think you could say to people, go and get a legitimate ID. I don't think that's too much to ask."

  Andrew Young, the former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador who spoke at the rally, believes that in an era when people have to show ID to rent a video or cash a check "requiring ID can help poor people." He noted that Georgia is deploying a mobile bus to issue voter IDs and allowing groups like the NAACP to arrange for it to go to specific sites.

  
  
• Speaking of voter fraud, NY Times columnist Paul Krugman has been factually challenged in a couple of recent op-eds about the Florida recounts in 2000. As The American Thinker reports:

  Paul Krugman, the former Enron advisor, New York Times op ed columnist, and presumably in his spare time, “educator” at Princeton, has made a habit of distortion, and half truths in his twice-weekly columns in the “paper of record.” Several website have sprung up to deconstruct each Krugman column,and others respond to specific errors, which are routine. But Krugman's column on Friday, August 19 marks a remarkable descent into outright dishonesty, a new low. What is most astounding is that the dishonesty involves Krugman's deliberately mistaken interpretration of a study in which his own paper, the New York Times, was a participant, and from which the Times ' reporters drew entirely different conclusions from those which Krugman trumpeted in his article.
  

  A follow-up commentary is here. (Hat tip Patterico). More dissecting at Powerline and NRO.
  
  
• One simmering scandal you may not have read about (especially if your main news source is the New York Times) concerns a $800k "loan" from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club to the corporate parent of Air America. The New York City Department of Investigations is investigating Gloria Wise for misuse of government grants in making the loan. Air America is being sued for non-payment of air time, with allegations of fraudulent corporate maneuvers. All the earmarks of a classic whodunit! Key reports are the following:
• New York Sun's entire series of articles by David Lambino (Hat tip to Captain's Quarters).
• Michelle Malkin and Brian Maloney (aka Radio Equalizer) teamed up for a multi-part series. Today's installment is "INSIDE AIR AMERICA: THE SHELDON DROBNY FILES", with Part 2 on Brian's site. Michelle lists her previous related posts at the bottom.
• Professor Bainbridge examines the merits of the civil lawsuit against Air America. (Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt)
  
  
• The latest chapter in the ongoing "Able Danger" controversy is Senator Specter's memo to the FBI's Director seeking information (via Captain's Quarters). Captain Ed has run a series of posts on Atta and Able Danger this month, along with various AQ intelligence reports from overseas, such as France and Germany. He has a roundup post today with more links, "Able Danger: The Strange Spanish Interlude."
  

Rocket attacks in Jordan

This morning, several rockets were fired in the direction of two US Navy ships in port at Aqaba, Jordan. They missed the USS Kearsarge and USS Ashland, but killed a Jordanian soldier.

While the AP story has been getting more detailed throughout the day, the blogosphere is providing context, connecting dots, and raising questions. Some salient posts:

• Captain's Quarters Blog: "Terrorist Attack On US Navy Misses Target"
• Michelle Malkin: "THE JORDAN ROCKET ATTACK"
• Athena at Terrorism Unveiled: "Terrorist Attack in Aqaba, Jordan" (via MM)
• EagleSpeak: "Harassing Fire on US Navy Ships" (via Trackback at TU)
  
• The Counterterrorism Blog: "Jordan Missile Attacks: Al Qaeda & Hezbollah Working Together?" (via EagleSpeak)
  
• Bubblehead: "USS Kearsarge ESG Attacked by Rockets" (via EagleSpeak). ESG is the Navy acronym for "Expeditionary Strike Group".

Quick reads

Some of the articles I found interesting this week:

• A number of bloggers recommended Charles Krauthammer's article in Time Magazine, "In Defense of Certainty", which was in the June 1st issue.
  

  The Op-Ed pages are filled with jeremiads about believers--principally evangelical Christians and traditional Catholics--bent on turning the U.S. into a theocracy. Now I am not much of a believer, but there is something deeply wrong--indeed, deeply un-American--about fearing people simply because they believe. It seems perfectly O.K. for secularists to impose their secular views on America, such as, say, legalized abortion or gay marriage. But when someone takes the contrary view, all of a sudden he is trying to impose his view on you. And if that contrary view happens to be rooted in Scripture or some kind of religious belief system, the very public advocacy of that view becomes a violation of the U.S. constitutional order.

  What nonsense. The campaign against certainty is merely the philosophical veneer for an attempt to politically marginalize and intellectually disenfranchise believers. Instead of arguing the merits of any issue, secularists are trying to win the argument by default on the grounds that the other side displays unhealthy certainty or, even worse, unseemly religiosity.

• Neo-Neocon takes a look at "The International Criminal Court as theater." She concludes:
  

  The international justice system regarding war crimes is highly subject to abuse by special interest groups. In a sense, it is a polite fiction that such a system can exist and be meaningful, because it lacks the true characteristics of a functioning legal system. As such, we are correct to have opted out of the game.

• The Anchoress writes, "The Holy Spirit stirs, then ravishes:"
  

  We read, increasingly, a tone of wonderment in the press as reporters who have long-ago shrugged off religion as unsophisticated and tres uncool discover that people - even young people - not only are seeking faith, but embracing it and commiting to it, and living it. And yes, loving it.

  There is so much going on. There has been so much going on for a while, but it has come into sharper focus, I think, since the death and funeral of John Paul the Great and the election of his successor, Benedict XVI.

  Something is stirring.

  The Holy Spirit is never static, she is ever at work, ever on the move.

• Dr. Sanity looks at "The Left's Pervasive Tyranny:"
  

  [T]he Left has made it their primary modus operandi to use the force of the government to give clout to their cultural, social, political and moral and quasi-religious beliefs in all areas. Of course, they do it because they understand that they are much more knowledgable than you or I are about what is right.
  
  It is the pervasive tyranny of the elitist.

• Hurl's Blog muses on the ramifications of Bush-bashing in "Thanks Bush:"
  

  It seems we have come to a place in the world where two scapegoats exist – Jews and Bible-believing Christians. One group is generally represented by Israel, the other by America - described by radical Islam as the “Little Satan” and the “Great Satan” respectively. There also seems to be an unwritten alliance of sorts between radical Islam and those on the left who regularly bash, ridicule and demonize Bible-believing Christians as well as are becoming increasingly hostile to Israel. They share the same enemies…..

• And for policy wonks, The Employment Policy Institute published a paper by Dr. Aaron Yelowitz - University of Kentucky, and Dr. Richard Toikka - Lewin Group, entitled "Effective Tax Rates and the Living Wage:"
  

  Overall, the authors have found that living wage ordinances do little to actually increase the standard of living for low-income families. The $55-a-month increase in total family earnings represents a less than 2 percent increase for the average family. In terms of an increase in earnings, the $16-per-month increase represents an increase of approximately one-half of one percent. The authors state, “a reasonable reading of our results is that the living wage has a limited capability in improving the economic status of the poor.” This limited capability is important because decades of studies clearly show that mandated wage floors create disemployment effects—particularly for the low-skilled employees these laws are intended to help. Pushing the intended beneficiaries out of a job while providing minimal benefits to remaining employees makes living wage ordinances an ineffective anti-poverty policy.

Of course, data alone won't stop the politicians any time soon...

Monday Notes

I'm back from a quick vacation over the weekend, visiting my sister and her husband in Massachusetts. While I was there, I read most of The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell, which was on their coffee table. He has an interesting thesis, explaining sudden societal changes in terms of epidemics. I need to get my own copy so I can finish reading it!

I took them out to dinner Friday night at Blue Ginger in Wellesley, which is owned by Chef Ming Tsai. While pricey, with entrees at $21-35, it was worth every penny! The food was delicately flavored and presented beautifully by the attentive staff. If you're in the area, I recommend it for an exceptional treat. They take reservations, but also set aside tables for walk-ins.

Last Tuesday, Robert Plant's [warning: that site is a bandwidth beast!] new album "Mighty Rearranger" came out in the US. I had put it on my "must-buy" list when I first heard the single "Shine It All Around" a couple of months ago, so I hied myself to Best Buy on Wednesday and bought the last copy in the rack. I've been listening to it—some would say OD'ing—ever since, especially on the drive to and from MA. One thing I haven't seen any mention of is his use of Christian imagery in several songs. Of course, I might be reading too much into lyrics like this from "Shine It All Around":

This is the heart of the man
This is the heart of the matter [man?]
Break a little bread now, spread it all around

Perhaps it just goes to an old-fashioned liberal British education where students read the classics? At any rate, I get a charge every time I hear the song. The rest of the album is musically diverse and I discover something new in every listening, whether it's harmony, lyrics, or rhythms. A reasonably friendly fan site is at Robert Plant Homepage.

Over at the NRO Corner, a couple of items caught my attention:

• IRANIAN REVELATIONS [Michael Ledeen] posts a remarkable email that purports to translate parts of a letter to "Rafsanjani ... written by a Karaj based cleric. He says in the letter that he is ill and near death, so presumably that is what has given him the extra ordinary courage needed to write this letter." Ledeen comments, "I think it is enormously important, because it shows the depth of the hatred of the regime from a leading Shi'ite mullah, in a degree of detail I think most of us would find amazing. And it also provides very useful information about the official presidential candidate, Rafsanjani, who is often described as a "moderate.""

• THEOCRATS AND ALL THAT [Andrew Stuttaford] highlights an article by Mark Lilla in the NYT, as well as a book review in the Financial Times, that is "a nice little example of the way in which liberalism has swapped reason for dreams, fantasy and paranoia."

OpinionJournal, meanwhile, posted a prescient WSJ editorial "Liberal Fundamentalism: Who are the intolerant extremists?" that was originally published on Sept. 13, 1984. It opens,

We have been following the extensive theological commentary in the press on the subject of politics and religion in the current presidential campaign. It might not otherwise have occurred to us that so many editorialists and columnists harbored so many deep, pent-up opinions on religious worship, voluntary school prayer or Christian fundamentalism.

What we have been looking for but have so far missed in this great awakening of religious writing is a short sermon on the subject of liberal fundamentalism. And so in the spirit of Samuel Johnson, who once wrote homilies for his church pastor so as not to fall asleep during Sunday services, we would like to offer a few thoughts on what has been far and away the most messianic religion in America the past two decades--liberal politics.

Plus ça change, plus ça même.

John Hinderocker (of Powerline) has a column up at The Weekly Standard that looks into the oddities of the UN's proposed $1.2 Billion renovation project. The verdict?

It appears there are serious questions about the U.N.'s renovation project. Depending on which assumptions one accepts about cost and square footage, anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion in expense is unaccounted for. Given the U.N.'s history, is there any reason to doubt that the costs projected by that organization include substantial sums representing, as Trump put it, incompetence or fraud? Given what we know about the oil-for-food program, is there any reason to trust the U.N.'s business or accounting practices?

American taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing the answers to these questions. The renovation is to be financed by a low-interest, 30-year, $1.2 billion loan from the U.S. government. (Kofi Annan's original request for an interest-free loan was turned down.) And, of course, the loan will then be repaid largely by American taxpayers, who foot a little over 20 percent of the U.N.'s bills.

A few congressmen and senators have finally begun to ask whether the U.N. building project is a boondoggle. It's about time.

Also check out the Powerline post: "Anything goes if you're planning to attack believing Christians." They summarize a Robert Novak piece, noting that "NARAL Pro-Choice America hired two operatives to obtain and probe the financial disclosure records of 30 appellate court judges considered potential nominees for the Supreme Court," a move that Novak terms "a fishing expedition to find irregularities in potential selections for the Supreme Court." Not a promising development, to say the least.

The Theocracy Debate

My pastor and I have been having some wide-ranging philosophical conversations after study group the past few weeks. One evening, he commented that he was becoming increasingly concerned about the Theocracy movement and the threat it represents. That piqued my blogging instincts, to see who was saying what out in the blogosphere and MSM.

It's rather curious when you think about it: the media attention about the "theocracy threat" vilifies certain religious viewpoints in a manner that would be un-PC if the religion were anything other than Christianity or Judaism. John McCandlish Phillips summarized the recent "rhetorical heavy artillery" in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post on May 4 (also available here). Hugh Hewitt opined:

The main thrust of [Phillips'] column is to throw a spotlight on the absurd hysteria among MSM as to evangelicals, and on what ought to be --but is not-- the embarrassing lack of knowledge about American history that undergirds that hysteria. It is a wonderful piece. Not that it will change a single mind among the MSMbots, but worth your time nonetheless.

There's lots of hot air being expended on the topic, with some writers engaged in on-going debates with each other, such as James Taranto (4th item) and Max Blumenthal; Nooilforpacifists has the box score. Frequently, the cogent arguments on side A are totally opaque to those on side B and vice versa. Part of the problem is that there are actually several related debates going on at the same time.

One debate is about whether the President and the Republican Party have been taken over by the ultra-conservative religious Right. Some of this paranoia goes back to the angst over the Terry Schiavo travesty, and the attempted intervention by Congress and the President, while others such as Andrew Sullivan are still smarting from last fall's elections and the results of various referenda.

Typical of this strain is the reporting on the conference entitled "Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right". All of the conservative commentary I saw was based off the same Washington Times article, which had a followup here.

NEW YORK -- Secular humanists and leftist activists convened here over the weekend to strategize how to counter what they contend is a growing political threat from Christian conservatives.

Understanding and answering the "religious far right" that propelled President Bush's re-election is key to preventing a "theocracy" from governing the nation, speakers argued at a weekend conference.

"The religious right now has an unprecedented influence on American politics and policy," said Ralph White, co-founder of the Open Center, a New York City institution focused on holistic learning. "It is incumbent upon all of us to understand as precisely as possible its aims, methods, beliefs, theology and psychology."

Dr. Sanity writes, "Here we are in a war on Islamic fundamentalism, and the Left seems to think that the U.S. is at risk for a Christian theocracy" (hat tip to MOM). She continues,

However comforting it is to believe that Christianity is the religion that poses a threat to freedom and democracy, the Real World will eventually intrude on such fantasies. While these clever people "bravely" confront the straw man they have set up, the real danger will slip in unnoticed and without hindrance.

When do you suppose the "secular humanists" and Leftists will organize a conference to discuss the threat that Islam poses to their political freedoms? Don't hold your breath.

I would suggest that if "smiting theocracy" is the goal, then they need to grow up and deal with the anxiety, helplessness, anger, and rage they are feeling; then focus on the real danger we face as a country.

Captains Quarters and Powerline commentaries both derided the motives of the panelists and organizers. I shared the CQ post with my pastor, and he then shared an email he had received which provided a different perspective. It was forwarded to him as the anonymous reflections of a pastoral counselling colleague of a staff member at another Methodist church:

...I think that whether you are a conservative republican, an evangelical, a moderate, a liveral or a democrate of any kind the material discussed in this conference should scare you to death. Many conservative republicans have been very concerned that our present government is not "conservative" and does not represent conservative values of smaller government, no deficits and moving many areas of government to the states. The conference characterized what is replacing these conservative values and has come into control of the Republican Party.

To summarize the carefully documented conclusions of the excellent speakers at the conference: There are two streams of far right that have converged through an "elective affinity" in President George W. Bush, who was describe (sic) by one presenter as an extrememly intelligent leader of deep passion and ambition, an oral intuitive style and dyslexia which causes him to appear foolish and unlearned. One of these streams is Dominion Theology or Christian Reconstructionism. Leaders like Tim LeHay (sic), Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, the late Rausea Rashddony and James Dobson. The Dominionists began in the 1970's to move to take over the government. They ultimately organized by going into individual districts of the Republican Party and slowly moving the conservative political leaders out and replacing them with Dominionist leaders thereby taking over the party from the bottom up. Their goal is to "reclaim" the United States as a Christian country under the rule of God and the values of God's law. Last year, 41 Republican senators and one Democratic senator voted 100% of the time for their policies, according to the Christian Coalition. The second stream is the Neoconservatives represented by Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others. They see this as the American Century and consider that it is the century of American rule. In the early 1990's they developed a plan to invade Iraq as the jump off point to securing the oil prodictuion of the Middle East in order to establish this American rule. However, they were pushed aside by Bush I and generally ignored by Clinton. They belived that only a Pearl Harbor-like event would bring the populous (sic) behind their plan. That came with 9/11. At first the President was stunned by this event but within days found his footing. He turned to his fundamentalist world view and this ideological group of leaders and we have seen the road he has followed.

I'm definitely behind the times. Here I'd been thinking that the Trilateral Commission was the power behind the throne! Fortunately, MaxedOutMomma has better research skills (and wit) than I:

So I went in search of this theocracy, because frankly I'm feeling a bit peeved at being left out. Not only was I left out, but I have asked among my acquaintances and friends who are dedicated church goers, and we've all been left out. I asked Mormons, Brethren, Assembly of God'rs, Catholics (and considering the amount of money I've dropped in the plate over there, they owed me an honest answer), Baptists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, even a Methodist - the list goes on and on. I could find no one who had been invited to be a part of this theocracy. No one. I have located a couple of extremely progressive northeastern Episcopalians who believed in the theocracy and blamed it for the declining membership of the ECUSA. But I could find not one person who had been invited to participate. Now that's security.

Not a single one of us got the memo:

Go read the whole funny piece.

Another debate is whether the Religious Right has the right to participate in the political process like any other organized interest group, since their views are just so "wrong". This is where James Tarato weighed in with his Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal, "Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right":

One can disagree with religious conservatives on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, creationism and any number of other issues, and still recognize that they have good reason to feel disfranchised. This isn't the same as the oft-heard complaint of "anti-Christian bigotry," which is at best imprecise, since American Christians are all over the map politically. But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land.

For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. This has required exquisite discipline and patience, since changing court-imposed policies entails first changing the courts, a process that can take decades. Even then, "conservative" judges are not about to impose conservative policies; the best the religious right can hope for is the opportunity to make its case through ordinary democratic means.

Which brings me to the third thread: the debate about Bush's judicial nominees, the Democrat's filibustering, and the "nuclear option". Are the Republicans, as a party, really this devious or stupid? Here's a commentary I came across on those nasty Republicans who propose the "nuclear option" for changing the filibuster rules:

What they want is to establish a theocracy with their brand of Christianity running everything. Then you will have to become their brand of religion, or leave the country for fear of violent reprisals, just like how the Taliban ran things in Afghanistan. If you listen to the rhetoric of the religious folks the Republicans are following, you will hear all sorts of things about this. (from Maags Blog)

Great shades of The Handmaid's Tale! And that came out in 1985.

As you wander around the internet, you'll discover that claims about the religious far right are being applied to conservatives and Republicans as a generality, rather than as specifically describing a small, but vocal, minority. Fortunately, conservatives aren't afraid of the political tension this might create. William F. Buckley observes,

"Whether Bush owes his election to any explicit connection with evangelical Christianity is sheer speculation, as noted. But a derivative point, made by Wilfred McClay and of quite general interest, is: What has happened to the political idealism associated with the liberals? He refers to Martin Peretz of The New Republic, whose views he summarizes. “Liberals, he argues, find themselves today where conservatives were a half-century ago, without ideas, without a vision of the good society, bookless, forced to feed on stale ideas from the 60s, and therefore, dying.”

Let them die. Meanwhile, conservatives will keep our eyes on President Bush, and stop him before he campaigns for compulsory baptism." (emph. added)

Since I have more material than time to post, let me give you some other links to follow:

• Glenn Reynolds linked to Michael Barone and Jon Henke on the issue of religion and politics in America. Glenn also has a related piece at TechCentralStation.
  
• My sister pointed me to Jim Wallis of Sojourners, and Dr. James Forbes, Jr., as representative of those who have theological issues with the Fundamentalists. More on Dr. Forbes can be found here and here.
  
• Dale Franks of QandO Blog has an excellent post "The Theocrats Are (Not) Coming!". The comments are well worth the read too, and are what led me to MaxedOutMomma and Nooilforpacifists.
• Don Feder writes about "The Left's 'Dominionist' Demons" at Front Page Magazine.
• George Will pens "The Christian Complex" at Townhall.com.
• Of course, there's the whole separation of church and state debate. On my journeys, I came across mentions of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. A couple of thoughtful analyses on what the diplomats really meant by "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen;..." are here and here.

Friday reads

Victor David Hansen writes in National Review Online, "Democratic Suicide":

Philosophically, two grand themes explain the Democratic dilemma. One, the United States does not suffer from the sort of oppression, poverty, or Vietnam nightmares of the 1950s and 1960s that created the present Democratic ideology. Thus calcified solutions of big government entitlements, race-based largess, and knee-jerk suspicion of U.S. power abroad come off as either impractical or hysterical.

Second, there is the widening gulf between word and deed — and Americans hate hypocrites most of all. When you meet a guy from the Chamber of Commerce or insurance association, you pretty much know that what you see is what you get: comfort with American culture and values, an upscale lifestyle that reflects his ideology and work, and no apologies for success or excuses for lack of same.

But if you listen to Dr. Dean and his class venom, it hardly seems comparable with how he lives or how he was brought up. John Kerry's super power boat, Teresa Kerry's numerous mansions, Arianna Huffington's gated estate, George Soros's jet, Ted Turner's ranches, Sean Penn's digs — all this and more, whether fairly or unfairly, suggest hypocrisy and insincerity: Something like, "High taxes, government regulation, racial quotas, and more entitlements won't hurt me since I have so much money at my own disposal anyway, but will at least make me feel good that we are transferring capital to the less fortunate."

With the opening of the movie "The Crusades", American Thinker ran a chilling two-part history lesson this week: Jihad begot the Crusades (1) and Jihad begot the Crusades (2). A sample:

The Iberian peninsula was conquered in 710-716 C.E. by Arab tribes originating from northern, central and southern Arabia. Massive Berber and Arab immigration, and the colonization of the Iberian peninsula, followed the conquest. Most churches were converted into mosques. Although the conquest had been planned and conducted jointly with a faction of Iberian Christian dissidents, including a bishop, it proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavements, deportations and killings. [...]

Al-Andalus represented the land of jihad par excellence. Every year (or multiple times within a year as “seasonal” razzias [ghazwa]) raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went. Many thousands of non-Muslim captives were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves, brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women.

A much faster read is the commentary by military historian John B. Dwyer.

Over at TechCentralStation, Ryan Sager pens "The Left Catches On":

Three years after the passage of McCain-Feingold (a.k.a. the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. the End of Free Speech As We Know It), a smattering of Democrats and liberal activists are slowly coming to the conclusion that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to let the government decide who can and cannot engage in political speech.

After all, what would prevent incumbents in Congress from passing laws to secure their jobs by making it harder for their opponents to criticize them? And what would prevent a political party -- holding, say, power in both houses of Congress and the White House -- from using election laws to try to smother the opposition?

Right: Nothing.

Daniel Henninger writes about the policy effects of the CDC's statistical gaffe on the obesity non-epidemic:

Public officials will always ride in the slipstream of an evident crisis. But there is a cautionary tale here. The informational world we inhabit has become a volatile mixture of news, rumor and often incomplete science. This or that threat, need or cause comes at us constantly. But there may be a limit to how often politicians can lower a bucket into the well of public credibility, asking people to alter their behavior and pay handsomely for the privilege--as here, or climate change or fuel alternatives. There might not be much left when the authorities most clearly must ask people, for example, to prepare for an avian flu pandemic before it arrives from Asia.

When the 400,000-dead obesity study unraveled, the CDC's director called it a "lesson in humility." In a world that is evermore complex, busy and costly, it would be a good thing if the people in Washington with the power to impose solutions to the problems of life on all of us made their new watchword "humility." Fat chance.

Tech Central Station has related articles here, here, and here.

Down Under, Arthur Chrenkoff's roundup of Good News from Afghanistan is in its 12th edition, and I expect he'll post another Good News From Iraq on Monday. He also has a pictorial on "The disadvantages of pissing off America, or Why life as a top Al Qaeda operative is not good for your health and well-being, not to mention your skin."

And finally, Mudville Gazette posts a handy guide to the "knobology" of blogging, "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Blogging (But were Afraid to Ask)"

New Jersey's Next Governor?

I met Bret Schundler yesterday evening at a campaign appearance in Merchantville, about 3 miles from my house, which meant I had no reason at all to not show up! The event was organized by the Merchantville and Haddonfield Republican Clubs, and while many of the 65-70 people attending got emails, I heard about it from an automated phone message from the candidate himself.

Like other Republicans, I've been subject to mailings from one or more of the 7 Republican candidates weekly for the past three months. So I was curious to meet Bret in person, and hear firsthand how his plan to lower property taxes differs from the other candidates' plans.

Bret spoke and answered questions for about 30 minutes. I was impressed by his plan for reform, which combines property tax relief with constitutional amendments to constrain spending at the local, county, and state levels. He's working to get the amendments on the November ballot--regardless of whether he gets the nomination. As he states on his site:

Most campaigns offer vague proposals and empty, breakable promises.

NOT US!

We're focusing this campaign on passing specific property tax, spending, and anti-corruption reforms now – before Election Day!

After all, the corrupt politicians who are blocking reform in the New Jersey State Legislature each have to run for re-election next year.

That gives us, the people of New Jersey, an opportunity to put real pressure on these legislators by informing them, in no uncertain terms, that if they do not pass our “Reform NOW Agenda” before Election Day we will vote against them!"

He compared his plan with that of Doug Forrester, emphasizing that with his program, the spending constraints come first, and the lower taxes follow naturally, while claiming that Doug's program didn't deal with spending limits (not entirely true, according to the info on this page, although it's vague on any implementation details). Bret's recommendations are quite specific, based on research at the University of Pennsylvania to find the "magic" multiplier that allows a "rate of spending growth [that] is fast enough to enable government not only to cover the rising costs of existing programs, but also to create some brand new programs, or otherwise improve services, each year," even while property taxes fall (full text here).

As I mentioned, it was a fairly small gathering, so Bret spent time before and after his speech meeting everyone and engaging in conversation. I happened to be talking with a newly-elected Cherry Hill school board member and her husband when Bret came over. The two men started talking about Bob somebody-or-other who was going to be the subject of a documentary. Bret's social skills are such that he stopped, looked at me, and asked, "Do you know who we're talking about?" (He already knew I was fairly new to the state, from our conversation before the speech.) I admitted that I was clueless, so he took the time to fill me in on the remarkable story of basketball Coach Bob Hurley of St. Anthony's in Jersey City. A gracious gesture by a gracious man to make sure I was included in the group.

I suggest you check out his campaign site and blog for yourself. I've become a believer!

The Complexity Curse

I've been meaning to do research into the various Social Security proposals being floated about, but keep putting it off. Of course, the need to finish decorating my kitchen after the remodel last August has been a higher priority than blogging, along with sleep, work, exercise, and laundry.

I realized today that a big part of my reluctance to wade into the morass of details is simply the sheer complexity of the issue. And none of the proposals I've seen make Social Security any easier to explain, administer, or collect.

The President's push for creating private accounts with part of the SS tax is commendable, since the current system has no guarantees at all. However, I'm already saddled with a standard IRA, Roth IRA, 401(k), annuity, and a pension; all with different rules on age eligibility, payouts, taxes, and heritability. The thought of yet another retirement account to deal with does not fill my heart with glee--although it probably warms the cockles of the hearts of accountants, financial advisors, and lawyers! As it is, I probably pay less attention to my retirement accounts than is fiscally prudent: the boggle factor is the primary reason.

Did I mention that I've never really expected Social Security to provide much income in my retirement? My dim view of its future wasn't helped by Congress extending the age at which I'm eligible for full benefits past 65. Moreover, I was in Civil Service when the Thrift Savings Plan was introduced. I had to laugh at the literature that proclaimed that Social Security was the foundation of my retirement savings, and TSP was a supplement. That was obviously written by bureaucrats who had never, ever, paid into Social Security, nor understood that it was always meant as a "safety net", not as the primary source for retirement income.

I wonder how making Social Security more complex will hinder the drive to simplify the tax code. So much of the logic behind the legislation for various IRAs, Keoghs, 401(k)s, etc., is based on encouraging long-term savings by manipulating the tax code. Would there be a greater or lesser incentive to save for retirement if savings and investment income weren't subject to income or capital gains taxes at all?

We all pay for complexity in our governance. For example, did you do your own taxes by hand this year, or did you buy software, or use a professional tax advisor? At the other end of the process, the IRS's staff is not known for providing correct answers to tax questions at anything approaching a Six Sigma quality level (3.4 Defects Per Million Opportunities). How much heartburn, attorney's fees, and uncertainty could be avoided by a flat tax described fully in a hundred pages of regulations? How much human capital would be freed for more productive pursuits?

Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that legislators like to keep their brethren of the bar fully employed. Complexity is their friend. Just look at McCain-Feingold and the latest flap about whether political commentary on blogs that link to candidates' sites should be subject to the same limitations as paid ads. (Captain's Quarters and Powerline have several posts each.)

The Constitution of the United States is a model of clarity, because it defines first principles for organizing the government. President Bush's speeches typically describe his vision and principles, rather than nitty-gritty. Unfortunately, it's in the muckwork of writing legislation, rules, and regulations that the over-arching principles get lost--and ordinary citizens tune out anything beyond the sound-bites from mainstream media.

The effort to reform Social Security will likely be a classic case of good intentions getting mangled in the sausage grinder of Congress. Few will dare breathe the thought that the whole Ponzi scheme should be rethought from first principles, namely, why do we consider it necessary for the federal treasury to be the retirement fund for the masses? It's not the 1930's anymore. And if simplifying the entire tax code is also a good idea, shouldn't changes to Social Security that impact that tax code aim for simplification too?

Just wondering.

Liberalism's Intellectual Vacuum

Scott Johnson of Powerline waxes eloquent in his praise of the Claremont Institute:

Everything I think I know about American politics I have learned from studying the works of Professor Harry V. Jaffa and his students at the Claremont Institute. In general, we believe that America took a wrong turn with the advent of the Progressive era and the Progressive attack on the Constitution in the name of -- what else? -- progress. It is the audacious project of of the Claremont Institute to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.

Key to the success of the project is the intellectual reclamation undertaken by the institute's flagship publication, the Claremont Review of Books (subscribe here). The magazine is to play the same role in inspiring the rollback of the Progressive undoing of the Constitution as the New Republic served in paving the way for the abrogation of limited constitutional government.

He links to a powerful essay by William Voegeli, "The Endless Party," which examines the fundamental weakness of American liberalism. A sample:

Liberals have a practical reason why they won't say what they ultimately want, and a theoretical reason why they can't say it. The practical reason is that any usably clear statement of what the welfare state should be would define not only a goal but a limit. Conceding that an outer limit exists, and stipulating a location for it, strengthens the hand of conservatives—with liberals having admitted, finally, that the welfare state can and should do only so much, the argument now, the conservatives will say, is over just how much that is.

Keeping open, permanently, the option for the growth of the welfare state reflects the belief that the roster of human needs and aspirations to which the government should minister is endless. Any attempt to curtail it would be arbitrary and wrong. (In his concession speech after losing to Ronald Reagan in 1984, Walter Mondale listed the groups he had devoted his political career to assisting: "the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, the handicapped, the helpless, and the sad" [emphasis added].)

This gets us to the theoretical reason why liberalism cannot incorporate a limiting principle or embrace an ultimate destination. Given humankind's long history of sorrows, most people would consider securing "abundance and liberty for all," ending poverty and achieving racial justice, a pretty good day's work. For LBJ it was, astoundingly, "just the beginning."

It's well worth reading the whole thing.

Calling all Feminists!

Given the whining that NOW has been up to lately (do read Myrna Blyth's suggestion that they change their acronym to THEN), it's amazing that America's foremost "feminists" have been largely silent about the liberation of millions of Afghani and Iraqi women who had suffered under abusive regimes. Well, maybe not, because it would mean saying something good about a Republican administration and its war efforts.

However, there's at least one feminist scholar who is aware of the inherent misogyny of Iran's Islamic fundamentalists. Professor Donna M. Hughes, who holds the Carlson Endowed Chair in Women’s Studies at the University of Rhode Island, wrote a piece in Front Page Magazine entitled, "Defeating the Woman-Haters" (Hat tip to Chrenkoff):

Introduction

Twenty-six years ago in Iran, Islamic fundamentalists captured their first state. They turned it into a theocratic dictatorship and used its resources to fund terror abroad and pursue weapons of mass destruction. Since then, violence, expansionism, and terror against civilians have become hallmarks of Islamic fundamentalism. If the Iranian regime obtains nuclear weapons, it will use them to maintain control of Iran, intimidate countries within missile range, and expand their influence abroad.

To defeat the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, one must understand what keeps them it power. Insight into the role of misogyny ‑ hatred of women ‑ in the tyranny's ideology and its tactics of social control is the key to ending the reign of terror.

Professor Hughes concludes her case by suggesting a number of tactics governments, the UN, and NGOs should undertake in their dealings with Iran to subvert the misogyny and hence the mullahs' power. I doubt that her rather PC prescription is as strong a lever as she posits, but it's an interesting line of attack. Go read the article, and then imagine the impact of Secretary Rice making a state visit to Iran.

Scott Ritter rides again

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is making dire statements about the futility of the US ballistic missile defense program:

On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament. [...]

The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015.

However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.

To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.

Ritter seems to be stuck in a Cold War reality, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Russians aren't the most pressing threat for the US right now: rather, the North Koreans and Iranians are much more likely to shoot first. And Russia is in much closer proximity to those two nations than the US is. You can read more about the SS-27 here.

Even if the US decides that it needs to be able to counter the SS-27, that hardly means that the efforts to date to counter the "less sophisticated threats" are worthless. Check out the MDA homepage for recent press releases and background reading on the US National Missile Defense program.

UN can't buy respect anymore

While there have always been critics of the UN, the gross malfeasance of the bureaucracy is becoming obvious even to the casual observer. The ludicrous posturings by Kofi Annan and assorted co-dependent bureaucrats in the wake of the tsunami disaster are just the most recent insults.

Back before Christmas, Kenneth L. Cain, a former UN human-rights officer, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

A debate currently rages about whether Kofi Annan enjoys the moral authority to lead the United Nations because the Oil for Food scandal happened under his command. That debate is 10 years too late and addresses the wrong subject. The salient indictment of Mr. Annan's leadership is lethal cowardice, not corruption; the evidence is genocide, not oil. [...]

Liberal multilateralists on the left, like me, are often skittish about offering too pungent a critique of Mr. Annan, because it offers aid and comfort to the "enemy" on the conservative unilateralist right. But if anyone's values have been betrayed at the U.N. over the past decade it is those of us who believe most deeply in the organization's ideals. Just ask the men and women of Rwanda and Srebrenica.

Claudia Rosett, who has written reams about the Oil-for-Food scandal, calls for regime change at the UN:

...The Secretariat has had a year of gagging contractors, threatening the jobs of whistle-blowers, and pounding out letters to the editor explaining that the Secretariat should not be blamed for anything because it is in fact responsible for nothing--though somehow more money, especially from the U.S., is always wanted. A few senior officials are now due to depart. Several thick reports on various fronts are due to be filed, and perhaps here or there a head will roll.

But to suppose that the United Nations will reform itself from within is to miss the eerie unreality of the place. It is not simply changes in some of the staffing that are needed, or U.N. commissioned reports recommending that the U.N. "reform" by way of doing even more of whatever it does already. What's needed is something that among sovereign states we have come to call regime change--the basic alteration of a system that in its privileges, immunities and practices resembles rather too closely some of the dictatorships that still pack its ranks.

Over at WindsofChange.net, Joe Katzman explains the origins of the term "Toyota Taliban" referring to UN and NGO (non-governmental organization) aid workers living in luxury in Afghanistan. He also links to other articles on the topic, such as these from Roger L. Simon, Diplomad, and Instapundit.

Actually, you should check out The Diplomad blog regularly to keep up with the on-going UN relief farce. From today's post:

Day 9 of the tsunami crisis.

I know I had promised to lay off the UN for a bit . . . but I can't. As one reader commented on a previous Diplomad posting on the UN, "it's like watching a train wreck" -- you know it's horrible, but you've just got to look at it.

In this part of the tsunami-wrecked Far Abroad, the UN is still nowhere to be seen where it counts, i.e., feeding and helping victims. The relief effort continues to be a US-Australia effort, with Singapore now in and coordinating closely with the US and Australia. Other countries are also signing up to be part of the US-Australia effort. Nobody wants to be "coordinated" by the UN. The local UN reps are getting desperate. They're calling for yet another meeting this afternoon; they've flown in more UN big shots to lecture us all on "coordination" and the need to work together, i.e., let the UN take credit. With Kofi about to arrive for a big conference, the UNocrats are scrambling to show something, anything as a UN accomplishment. Don't be surprised if they claim that the USS Abraham Lincoln is under UN control and that President Lincoln was a strong supporter of the UN.

Maybe watching the UN flounder is not like watching a train wreck; perhaps it's more akin to watching an Ed Wood movie or reading Maureen Dowd or Margo Kingston -- so horrible, so pathetic, that it transforms into a thing of perverse beauty. The only problem, of course, is that real people are dying.

Speaking of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), the US Navy has a photo gallery online of relief efforts. (Hat tip Instapundit.)

Mark Steyn provides a wry commentary:

But the waters recede and the familiar contours of the political landscape re-emerge - in this case, the need to fit everything to the Great Universal Theory of the age, that whatever happens, the real issue is the rottenness of America. [...] But even Telegraph readers subscribe to the Great Universal Theory. On our Letters Page, Robert Eddison dismissed the "paltry $15 million from Washington" as "worse than stingy. The offer - since shamefacedly upped to $35 million - equates to what? Three oil tycoons' combined annual salary?"

Mr Eddison concluded with a stirring plea to the wicked Americans to mend their ways: "If Washington is to lay any claim to the moral, as distinct from the military, high ground, let it emulate Ireland and Norway's prompt and proportionate attempts to plug South-East Asia's gaping gap of need and help avert a further 80,000 deaths from infection and untreated wounds."

If America were to emulate Ireland and Norway, there'd be a lot more dead Indonesians and Sri Lankans. Mr Eddison may not have noticed, but the actual relief effort going on right now is being done by the Yanks: it's the USAF and a couple of diverted naval groups shuttling in food and medicine, with solid help from the Aussies, Singapore and a couple of others. The Irish can't fly in relief supplies, because they don't have any C-130s. All they can do is wait for the UN to swing by and pick up their cheque.

Meanwhile, Belmont Club reflects about why the UN keeps insisting that it should be in charge (also see here and here).

In the matter of providing relief for tsunami victims, the UN cannot afford to assume any other attitude than a reluctant willingness to stoop to command the national contingents. For the United Nations to abandon its claim to primacy in the tsunami relief effort is the equivalent of renouncing its scepter as the 'sole source of legitimacy' and the only fount of 'moral authority'. For no danger is so great to international organizations and Kings as the peril of being proved unnecessary. Though almost almost none of the food, supplies and logistical systems to provide relief have so far have come from the World Body, it appears existentially important to it that what has arrived wear the livery of the United Nations.

Indeed.

Merry Christmas!

Presidential Christmas Message, 2004

For 2,000 years, Christmas has proclaimed a message of hope: the patient hope of men and women across centuries who listened to the words of prophets and lived in joyful expectation; the hope of Mary, who welcomed God's plan with great faith; and the hope of wise men, who set out on a long journey guided only by a slender promise traced in the stars. Christmas reminds us that the grandest purposes of God can be found in the humblest places. And it gives us hope that all the love and gifts that come to us in this life are the signs and symbols of an even greater love and gift that came on a holy night.

The Christmas season fills our hearts with gratitude for the many blessings in our lives. With those blessings comes a responsibility to reach out to others. Many of our fellow Americans still suffer from the effects of illness or poverty. Others fight cruel addictions, cope with division in their families, or grieve the loss of a loved one. Christmastime reminds each of us that we have a duty to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves. By volunteering our time and talents where they are needed most, we help heal the sick, comfort those who suffer, and bring hope to those who despair.

During the holidays, we also keep in our thoughts and prayers the men and women of our Armed Forces -- especially those far from home, separated from family and friends by the call of duty. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, these courageous Americans are fighting the enemies of freedom and protecting our country from danger. By bringing liberty to the oppressed, our troops are defending the freedom and security of us all. They and their families are making many sacrifices for our Nation, and all Americans are deeply grateful.

Laura joins me in wishing all Americans a Merry Christmas.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Monday Reads

Arthur Chrenkoff has "Good News from Iraq" part #17 posted today. (Also available at Opinion Journal and Winds of Change.)

Lots of bloggers and columnists are weighing in on the on-going debate about whether Christ can be mentioned in the public square during the month of December:

• Charles Krauthamer's OpEd in the Washington Post "Just Leave Christmas Alone" (Hat tip Clay Calhoun)
  
• Hugh Hewitt links to several items:
• One Hand Clapping rounds up several commentaries with "The Christmas Wars"
• Washington Post: "Evangelicals Use Courts to Fight Restrictions on Christmas Tidings"
• Washington Times on efforts here in NJ: "Night of caroling won't be silenced"
• And Hugh's own commentary on a Jeff Jarvis piece that he disagrees with (scroll down). And here's Deacon's take at Powerline.
  
• "Putting the [Blank] Back in [Blank]mas 8" is today's edition of an on-going series over at Cheat Seeking Missiles

A couple of noteworthy items about Judaism in America

• Powerline provides a history lesson in "Teaching the Free Man":
  

  American Jews are celebrating their three-hundred and fiftieth anniversary here. The first Jewish community in North America was established in New Amsterdam (New York) in 1654. In 1658 fifteen Jewish families arrived in Newport, Rhode Island. By 1759 their numbers and resources had increased sufficiently that they undertook the construction of what has become America's oldest synagogue, the Touro Synagogue of Newport.

  In 1790 Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to ratify the Constitution and complete the Union. To mark the occasion, President Washington made a ceremonial visit to Newport when Congress recessed in August. Newport welcomed Washington with open arms. In Newport on August 18, according to James Thomas Flexner, Washington "completely fatigued the company" by walking, fortified by the wine and punch served in four different houses along his route, briskly from nine in the morning until one in the afternoon.

  In anticipation of Washington's visit to Newport, the congregation prepared a letter welcoming Washington for presentation to him at a public event on the morning of August 18. The letter was authorized by the congregation's board and signed by its president, Moses Seixas. It is Washington's magnificent letter responding to Seixas's that is known as a testament to religious freedom and that has become famous as one of the classic statements of religious toleration in America.

  The congregation's letter to Washington is not so well known. Ironically, however, the most famous line in Washington's letter is an echo of the congregation's letter to Washington. By far the most striking feature of the congregation's letter is its expression of sheer gratitude to Washington for the religious freedom afforded by the United States (pre-First Amendment).

• Betsy's Page excerpts from Dennis Prager's piece in yesterday's LA Times, "Born-Again President -- White House Hanukkah":
  

  As a yeshiva graduate, I never thought I would live to see identifying Jews, let alone Orthodox rabbis, so happy to be in a room with a menorah and a Christmas tree. Yet that signified a sea change taking place in American Jewish life — the realization that Christianity is no longer the enemy or the great Other but, for the first time in 2,000 years, a great ally.
  This realization has yet to dawn on many Jews. The memory of almost two millenniums of European, i.e., Christian, anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust is seared deeply in Jewish hearts and minds, and it is very hard for most Jews to truly believe that the cross is a friend, not an invitation to a pogrom.
  
  But American Christianity has never been like European Christianity in its attitude toward Jews and Judaism. Jews have been equals and honored as such from even before the creation of the United States. Many of the founders studied Hebrew; Thomas Jefferson wanted the Seal of the United States to depict the Jews' exodus from Egypt; Yale University's insignia is in Hebrew; a verse from the Torah (Leviticus) is inscribed on the Liberty Bell; a rabbi attended George Washington's inauguration — the list of pro-Jewish expressions in U.S. history is endless. But perhaps most telling is the fact that although there have been any number of Christian countries and there are many secular ones today, it is the U.S. that calls itself Judeo-Christian.

The Tale of a Teddy Bear

The news from Iraq isn't all about terrorism and bombings. While cross-checking links for more info on the reconstruction effort, I came across a letter from a Marine gunnery sergeant at Blackfive about a little girl, a teddy bear, a landmine and a Marine convoy. It's worth reading the whole thing. (Hat tip Winds of Change) It ends with this comment:

It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain's majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?

If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.

[Update] One way you can help send toys to Iraq is through Operation Give. "Operation Give is grass-roots, non-partisan, volunteer-driven, and non-political. All we want to do is help children of Iraq in their recovery from years of depredation, and make the world a better place."

Blackfive also posted a long list of ways to help our troops, including Soldiers' Angels, and Spirit of America.

Rebuilding Iraq

Our local newspaper carried a personal-interest story in the business section today, about a local woman, Kathye A. Johnson (an engineer, no less!), who spent three months in Iraq this year for her company:

In August, Johnson, 47, of Medford, planned a short trip to Iraq to explore business opportunities for her employer, a global construction management firm where she was vice president of operations.

She hoped to expand on the $1.2 billion contract already awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers to a combination of Hill and Michael Baker Jr. Inc. of Moon Township, Pa., and Stanley Consultants Inc. of Muscatine, Iowa. The joint, five-year contract is part of an $18.4 billion package approved by Congress in 2003 to rebuild Iraq.

She remained through October because the person Hill had hired to run the entire job in Iraq was not working out. Johnson volunteered to fill in until James E. Koch of St. Louis replaced her.

...

One of the architects of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, Army Gen. Tom Bostick, praised Johnson's work.

"We were in dire straits before she arrived. Kathye was an impact player from day one. She was a great leader and most helpful in bringing disparate teams together working toward a common goal," said Bostick of the Army Corps of Engineers.

When she stepped in to mop up the mess, she said the reconstruction effort was at a standstill. Less than 5 percent of the hundreds of planned construction projects from rebuilding schools to restoring potable water had broken ground. Morale was deteriorating because communication among the various divisions had broken down and cohesive leadership was lacking.

"There was a lot of insurgent activity, plus I picked up a serious respiratory infection about 10 days after I arrived. Still, we worked nonstop, seven days a week, on the database and got all the players talking to one another again. There's probably 100 companies involved under our joint team, which has grown from 12 to 22. I helped put the reconstruction effort on track and I believe I made a difference," said Johnson, who had traveled extensively, including a two-year stint in Bangkok, while working for Fluor Corp. before joining Hill's staff nearly three years ago.

Sites that regularly carry good news from Iraq and Afghanistan include Chrenkoff, Blackfive, Winds of Change, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division, US State Department, and DefenseLink. Some recent stories:

United States Forgives 100 Percent of Iraqi Debt

Washington -- The U.S. government has written off 100 percent of Iraq's sovereign debt to the United States, a total of $4.1 billion, with an agreement signed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, Treasury Secretary John Snow and Iraqi Finance Minister Adil Abd al-Mahdi December 17.

"Lifting the crushing burden of the old regime's debt is one of the most important contributions we can make to Iraq's new beginning," Powell said at the signing ceremony.

Minister al-Mahdi noted that Iraq was a donor nation in the early 1970s, but he said, "Over two decades, all the fortunes and wealth of Iraq were destroyed. Instead of having billions of reserves, Iraq was left with billions in debts."

The minister blamed the former regime of Saddam Hussein for wasting Iraq's wealth in wars with its neighbors.

Secretary Snow said, "The situation that Iraq faces is unprecedented, and the response of the world community needed to be unprecedented as well." He said dramatic debt relief is necessary if Iraq is to be able to reintegrate into the world community.

The agreement to write off Iraq's debt to the United States follows a decision by the Paris Club of creditor nations to write off 80 percent of Iraq's debt to its members in a three-phase process over the next four years. The November agreement of the Paris Club reduced Iraq's debt to the member nations from $38.9 billion to $7.8 billion.

Al-Mahdi characterized the Paris Club agreement as "a second liberation of Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein." He said that liberating the economy is an important part of liberating Iraq.

Powell hailed the debt relief that Iraq has received saying, "Rather than financing the vices of the old tyrant, Iraq's treasures and resources are being used to bolster security and build infrastructure, to care for the nation's elderly and educate its young people."

Rehabilitation of Iraq's Sweet Water Canal Completed, USAID Says

The U.S. Agency for International Development's $23 million rehabilitation of Southern Iraq's Sweet Water Canal was successfully completed this week. The project was conducted on behalf of Iraq's Ministry of Water Resources with Bechtel Corporation serving as the prime contractor.

The massive cleansing and repair of this vital 149 mile waterway also includes the $12 million refurbishment of 13 water treatment plants and the repair of the RZero pumping station that sends water from the canal's reservoir through a network of pipelines leading to residential, commercial and agricultural users.

The Sweet Water Canal has been a primary source of fresh water for the city of Basrah since 1996. But lack of maintenance caused sediment to accumulate in sections of the canal and pumps to break because of the turbidity. When USAID undertook the rehabilitation, the canal's embankments were cracked and many mechanical and electrical components in the pumping stations were beyond repair.

The completed USAID project improves the quality and nearly doubles the quantity of fresh, potable water produced for the 1.75 million of the Basrah region. The training of local plant managers insures proper maintenance in the future.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has provided economic and humanitarian assistance worldwide for more than 40 years.

Airport Opening Considered First Step to Return of Iraqi Tourism

BASRA, Iraq, Dec. 17, 2004 -- In July 2005, Basra International Airport in Iraq will officially open for commercial air and passenger traffic.

"The airport was never really functional," said Nolan Smith, assistant area engineer for the Basra office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region South. "It was never formally opened to large commercial flights, primarily because of war. But now, it could open up to cargo flights in the very near future."

The $4.9 million renovation of the terminal includes the air traffic control tower, according to Erick Bush, with construction services for the Transportation and Communications Sector of the Corps' southern district. The navigational aids contract has not yet been awarded, but it is out for bid, according to Bush.

Construction needs not yet funded include upgrades to the fuel farm and electric feeder lines. A Native Alaskan firm, Nana Pacific, won the bid and was to start work in early December.

"The airport is one of highest profile projects we have here, with high likelihood of success: being on schedule, on budget and being fully functional when complete," Bush said.

The airport has managed to avoid the 10 years of war, embargo and looting that have devastated other places in the country, according to Smith. "The art is still there," he said, "and there is a lot of it. The facilities are old and suffer from neglect, but we are hoping that some may be reparable.