Good News from Afghanistan

A major Taliban leader has reportedly been killed. Military implications aside, the greatest thing about this story is the denial by a Taliban spokesman.

We strongly deny this. He is not present in the area where American forces are claiming to have killed him," commander Mullah Hayat Khan told Reuters by telephone.

"The American and NATO forces from time to time make such false claims. It's just propaganda against the Taliban."

The fact that Akhtar Mohammed Osmani is not present where he was supposedly killed in no way refutes the claims of the American military as his body could have been removed from the scene. Of course, the fact that he is not present is only meant to be considered if we fail to be convinced by the fact that Khan is strongly denying Osmani's death, as opposed to simply denying it. If he had been on tv when making his remarks, he probably would have pointed his finger sternly as well. "The Americans . . . did not . . . drop . . . a bomb . . . on that man's car. Mullah Osmani."

Outrageous on So Many Levels

The Brussels Journal has a brief post on the increasing freqeuncy of rapes of Oslo women by Muslim immigrants and the disgraceful response of Norwegian authorities. Probably the most disgraceful part of the reaction of one Unni Wikan:

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily. Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, in 2001 said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

Now, it is true that men are sexually drawn to the sight of the female form and the sight of certain female body parts, and it is also true that if women dress so as to limit the amount of skin they show, particularly in certain areas, and limit the extent to which they accentuate certain body parts, it will lessen the amount of unwanted sexual attention they receive from men. However, it in no way follows that women dressing more modestly is the key to addressing Oslo's rape problem, even if it helps (so would granting citizens the right to keep and bear arms). The fact of the matter is that a man who will rape a woman simply because she is provacatively dressed does not belong on the streets of a free society. For the sake of maintaining an orderly society and for the protection of the general public, it is the responsibility of the state to remove those who would perpetrate these unspeakable acts from the general public and to lock them away for long periods of time.

Still, questions remain. Why do Muslim men rape native Norwegian women who are provocatively dressed, and what does it mean to say a woman is "provocatively dressed"? As to the second, I can't be sure of this, but I suspect to be dressed "provcoatively" is to be wearing less than the full traditional female Muslim garb (i.e. her head is uncovered). That leaves the question of why this happens. Three possibilities occur to me. The first is that these Muslim men are driven so crazy with lust by even the uncovered head of a woman that they cannot restrain themselves from immediately engaging in sexual intercourse with the object of their lust, whether or not the woman consents to it. The second possibility is that they are of the opinion that these women are dressing like whores (not necessarily an incorrect opinion) and thus deserve to be treated as such. The third possibility is more disturbing. It is possible that these Muslim men are raping Norwegian women in an effort to bring coerce a change in how Norwegian women dress. Indeed, it is possible that they are doing so with the approval, if not encouragement of radical imams. If the first is the case, these men belong in prison because they only know how to behave as animals, not as human beings. If the second is the case, these men belong in prison because they have neither regard for the rule of law nor the inherent dignity of man. Just because a woman dresses like a whore, it does not mean she deserves to be treated as one. If the third is the case, then not only should the rapists be imprisoned, but the imams encouraging this should either be imprisoned or deported for inciting violence.

This situation is not something to be papered over or accepted in the name of multiculturalism. It is a direct challenge to the rule law and to the inherent dignity of the human person. Norway should take such steps as are necessary to bring this problem to an end, including imprisoning the rapists for long periods of time (at least 20 years with no possibility of parole), and permit their citizens to carry conealed weapons in public. One of the most vital human rights is the right to self-defense, and a people deprived of the ability to defend itself is a people that will find itself subject to oppression from violent factions seeking to increase their power, in this case, radical Muslim men using violence to force a free society to adopt its values. And on the purely practical level, I'd be willing to bet that many of these Muslim men who are tempted to rape "provocatively dressed" women would think twice if they thought there were a pretty good chance it would get them shot.

Global Scare-Mongering

The London Sunday Telegraph carries an important article by Christopher Monckton intended to shred the predictions of the recent Stern Review Report on climate change. In reality, the article does much more, showing how bad science is responsible for much of the hysteria surrounding the issue of global warming and the belief that man is responsible for most, if not all of it. According to Monckton's numbers, increased solar activity could conceivably account for all observed warming over the past century. What's more, the UN undersetimates the natural greenhouse effect, overestimates average temperature changes, increases known physical constants, and uses flawed measures of ocean temperatures.

Monckton concludes that warming is likely to range from 0.1 to 1.4 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, less than the UN's low-end assumption of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Why aren't these conclusions being widely published? This piece indicates specific, fundamental flaws in not only the Stern Report, but in all of the science underlying what is commonly called the "consensus view." If the numbers in his piece are correct (as I suspect they are), a reassessment of the science on global warming should occur. If the numbers are wrong, they should be refuted immediately. Yet it is more than likely that this piece, as well as research that supports the views of skeptics of global warming caused by human activity, will simply be ignored by major universities and government institutions, as well as the likes of the BBC, CNN, the AP, the New York Times, PBS, Reuters, and even media outlets with an interest in things scientific such as the Discovery Channel. This is the same way the established figures in the scientific community treated Intelligent Design, and there were negative consequences as a result.

Now, I don't want to equate global warming skepticisim with Intelligent Design where scientific merit is concerned. As far as I can tell, there is sufficient scientific evidence supporting skepticism about man-made global warming, while there is no scientific evidence whatever supporting Intelligent Design. However, both have gained traction because their claims were simply ignored or dismissed out of hand, as opposed to being challenged or refuted, though this has changed with regard to Intelligent Design, and Intelligent Design is no longer regarded as highly as it was a couple of years ago. If Monckton is wrong, and the data he cites are wrong, prove it. If he's right, and his data are right, make sure future research reflects this. The purpose of science is to determine the state of the natural world, not provide ammunition for a political cause. The Stern Report and the UN's global warming research are examples of science becoming the whore of politics, and the consequences are potentially devastating for both science and society at large.

The Latin Mass

Stephen Bainbridge succinctly states the case for the return of the Tridentine Mass to common use. I agree completely with his case and have only one thing to add to it. Arguably the biggest substantive objection to the Tridentine Mass has been the fact that most people are not familiar enough with Latin to understand the words being spoken during the Mass. In this day and age I think this objection has been rendered largely irrelevant by the ability to make written translations of the Mass readily available to the congeration. Furthermore, these translations can by juxtaposed with copies of the actual Latin used in the Tridentine Mass. I know this because I have provided for myself a copy of the Rosary in Latin accompanied by an English translation of the prayers, both of which I obtained here.

On the whole, I think the introduction of a vernacular rite was a good thing, but something was lost when the Tridentine Rite was abandoned. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes. The resurgence in demand for the practice of the Tridentine Rite is evidence that it possesses something of value that is at best under-emphasized in the Vernacular Rite. The two Rites should exist alongside each other as equals serving different purposes, at least until the Vernacular Rite can be modified to adequately address its shortcomings.

Vietnam: Rising Capitalist Power

The New York Times has a fascinating profile of Vietnam's current economic climate. Currently, the economy of Vietnam is growing faster than almost any other economy in the world. It's standard of living is rising rapidly, especially for skilled laborers; the stock market is booming; and their tax code will soon be superior to the United States' tax code in some ways. Not bad for a Communist country that was on the verge of starvation fifteen years ago.

And who deserves a good chunk of the credit for this? Certainly Vietnam's leaders do (more on them in a bit), but I'm thinking of a particular American president with a not-so-stellar reputation, namely Richard Nixon. His decision to engage China in an attempt move it away from the Soviet Union politically hastened the end of the Cold War and laid the groundwork for China's embrace of something like capitalism. If this had not happened, I don't believe either China or other states in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam, would have had the wherewithal to look to Western capitalism as a cure for the ills of their economic systems.


On thing omitted from the profile (not surprisingly, as the piece was about Vietnam's economy), is the question of whether the increase of economic liberty in Vietnam has been accompanied by an increase in political liberty. Has Vietnam made progress in granting its citizens rights such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech, or is it following the Chinese model of vibrant economic growth accompanied by large-scale supression of religious and political freedom? WIll Vietnam become a free and open society as it continues to grow economically, or will the Vietnamese state exploit new technologies and expend great energies to keep its people under its thumb?

Where's Adam Gobetti When You Need Him?

Adam Gobetti, your friendly, neighborhood anarchist would be thrilled to learn that the Czech Republic is currently getting along just fine without a government. Indeed, it hasn't had one since June. Granted, it's not as though the entire government has ceased to be, but there is no party or coalition of parties controlling it at the moment, and things seem to be going swimmingly.

One thing I would be interested in knowing is whether or not the executive branch continues to function, collecting and spending tax revenue. If so, the lack of a governing coalition in the Czech Parliament isn't that big a deal, but if the gears of the central government have simply ground to a halt, then this demonstrates the maxim that government which governs least governs best. Indeed, it would show that in a well-ordered society where the rule of law is well established, it is best to leave well-enough alone, even to the point of temporarily doing away with the central government (an unintended consequence in this situation, to be sure). Now, this all changes if there is a threat to domestic order, be it internal or external, but short of that, the central government need not intrude into the lives of its citizens.

Multiculturalists Are in a State of Shock

Apparently Colonialism wasn't all bad. Who'd'a thunk it?

Now that's not to say it was an unadulterated good (What human endeavor is?), but clearly many Western colonizers did something right.

Interestingly enough, the study found that the country that had the greatest positive impact on its colonies was the United States.

Good News

The Supreme Court has upheld, at least temporarily, Arizona's law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls in order to be able to vote.

Frankly, that anyone would challenge such a law strikes me as absurd on its face. As citizens in a democratic society we have the obligation to participate in our own governance, and the most crucial manner in which we, the people participate in our own governance is through the exercise of the vote. To this end, voting should be as easy as is reasonably possible. However, voting should not be so easy that the vote of those responsible for determining who fills elected positions in our government can be diluted or even undermined by those who have neither the duty to determine how we are to be governed, nor the right to vote. To prevent this happening, it is only common sense to expect that those attempting to vote be able to establish that they are indeed eligible to do so. In order to do this, the state of Arizona has required all eligible voters provide photo ID proving they are who they say they are. I can see no good-faith reason to oppose this on principle.

Of course, there are nefarious reasons for opposing such a measure. Allowing people to vote without proper identification opens the door to massive voter fraud. Illegal immigrants can vote. People can vote multiple times. Those not registered to vote are able to vote.

Who has derived the most benefit from this? Those who are opposed to the measure, namely Democrats. They oppose this measure because it undermines their electoral prospects, and it's a shame. Instead of moderating their positions to better appeal to the public (without sacrifricing their principles, of course), the Democrats have tried to win elections by hook or by crook, all the while maintaining many of the far-left positions that have caused them to lose so much power has turned one the great American political parties into a joke. Given the current political climate, there is no reason the Republicans should have the slightest hope of holding either house of Congress. Yet, the Republicans are likely to hold the Senate and still have an outside shot at holding the House of Representatives. The war in Iraq is not going well (largely because we have done little to nothing to address Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq), and the economy is perceived as being in much worse shape than it is. Republicans have been rocked with scandal after scandal, including two Representatives pleading guilty to charges of bribery. Then there's the Mark Foley mess, the issue of border security and runaway federal spending.
The Democrats should take back both houses of Congress with majorities that should take ten years for Republicans to whittle away, but the Republicans have a chance to retain control of the House and Senate. That this is the case is a testament to just how devoid of a coherent philosophy the Democrats are.

North Korean Test

North Korea has reportedly tested a nuclear weapon. For my part, I'm skeptical. According to both the French and the South Koreans, the explosion was the equivalent of 550 tons of TNT*, and there has been no radiation detected at the site of the explosion as yet.

North Korea has claimed to have nuclear weapons since 2002, but there has never been any hard evidence to support this claim. It has also seen a significant portion of its income dry up as the United States has taken measures to disrupt its distribution of counterfeit American dollars. It seems possible that North Korea staged a phony nuclear test either to extort economic aid from the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia, or to advertize their nuclear wares to the Iranians. It is also possible that the "test" is motivated more by domestic politics than international politics. Either way, North Korea gains as much by a fake test everyone else believes is legitimate as by an actual nuclear test, especially after its failed missile test on 4 July.

In short, the most likely scenario at this point is that North Korea buried a few hundred tons of TNT, set it off and claimed it had conducted a nuclear test (and that the radiation had been perfectly contained). Until I see any hard evidence to the contrary (e.g. radiation being emitted from the test site), I see no reason to belive North Korea has conducted an actual nuclear test.

*Russia claims the explosion was equivalent to 5,000-15,000 tons of TNT, which would make it similar in size to the Hiroshima bomb. If this is correct, I'd be more inclined to believe that North Korea did indeed carry out a nuclear test.

Update: Apparently I'm not the only skeptic.

Christianity and Evolution

Michael Shermer has published a brief article in Scientific American claiming that Christianity and evolution are reconcilable. The first two points need expansion, and the third one more readily explains Cain and Abel than original sin. Instead, he should have discussed how evolutionary theory can explain original sin if the desire to be like God (the Author of Life) can be linked with the desire to reproduce (to enter into the act of creation).

Points four, five and six are solid.

Ultimately, it's a good start to a case that quite desperately needs to be made. The case for evolution (though not for a purely Darwinian version of it) is overwhelming, and the evidence in its favor only grows with the passage of time. In order for Christianity to be able to maintain its claims on the truth, it must find a way to reconcile itself with evolution, not by compromising its fundamental tenets, but by establishing a framework of thought that allows both to coexist without contradicting each other.

Terrorist Threat Worse

A new National Intelligence Estimate has reportedly found that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has worsened the threat of terrorism. Even though the report was completed in April, there is no reason to assume that things are any different now. There is also no reason to assume the report is fundamentally flawed, in spite of the recent track record of American intelligence agencies.

However, it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that pulling American troops out of Iraq would lessen the terrorist threat. The terrorist threat has worsened because the invasion of Iraq gave radical Muslims the opportunity to fight the Great Satan. The fact that they have not yet been defeated gives them hope of victory, and the more attacks al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiite death squads can pull off without bringing down the full wrath of the Americans, the greater the prospect of an American defeat looms, thus encouraging Muslims in the Middle East and beyond to side with the various insurgent groups. Pulling out of Iraq would be seen as a victory for groups like al Qaeda in Iraq and would further increase the threat of terrorism because the entire Muslim world will have seen that it can defeat America on the field of battle. The only way to reduce the terrorist threat is to win. The Iraqi insurgency must be crushed. So must al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mehdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr. Ultimately, this will mean dealing with Syria and Iran, possibly, though not necessarily militarily. It is only by defeating Muslim terrorist groups and their state sponsors and enablers that the threat of terrorism can be elminated.

Iran War in October?

That's what former Senate Majority Leader Gary Hart is arguing (and that it will go horribly wrong). Well that's what he's asserting, anyway. Now, Hart may be right or he may be wrong, but he offers no evidence to support his claims. It seems that we must accept what Hart says based on nothing more than his authority as an observer of things political and his sneers at those who might disagree with him.

Again, I don't know whether or not Hart is right, but it seems to me that in order to be taken seriously, Hart should actually provide some facts to back up his assertion. As it is, though, it is a matter of relative simplicity to answer Hart's assertions.

First, Hart says "It should come as no surprise if the Bush Administration undertakes a preemptive war against Iran sometime before the November election." Well, I guess that depends on what you consider a war. If you define war broadly enough to include things like the intervention in Kosovo (something Hart apparently does, given how he describes the action to be undertaken), then the claim almost becomes plausible. However, the exclusive use of air power in a military campaign has been proven to be highly ineffective, most recently by Israel's early attempts to dislodge Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon. Any attempt to bring about regime change by military means would almost certainly require some sort of ground involvement, be it special forces cooperation with dissident groups, a large scale invasion, or some sort of combination of the two in order to be successful. We certainly haven't seen anything like a large scale military build-up along Iran's border with either Iraq or Afghanistan, indicating no major U.S.-led invasion, and public support for Iranian dissident groups has been sporadic at best. This doesn't prove that the U.S. is not moving to help undermine from within the Iranian regime, but some sort of sustained display of public support for democratic movements inside Iran, as well as exposing human rights abuses being committed by the Iranian regime, would certainly be very helpful in building support within Iran for American military action against the Mullahs.

Another factor which I think makes military action unlikely is the amount of trust President Bush places in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He trusts her more than any of his other cabinet officials, and the fact that he has her running the State Department indicates that he wants to solve the crisis diplomatically if at all possible because the diplomatic approach leaves the situation in the hands of his most trusted deputy.

Hart goes on to say

Were these more normal times, this would be a stunning possibility, quickly dismissed by thoughtful people as dangerous, unprovoked, and out of keeping with our national character. But we do not live in normal times.

And we do not have a government much concerned with our national character. If anything, our current Administration is out to remake our national character into something it has never been.

What exactly does Hart consider to be normal times? What does he consider to be "our national character", and how does he know the current administration is not "much concerned with our national character"? Hart never says. Thus, these two paragraphs are merely rhetorical cheap shots which do not belong in a serious analysis.

Hart goes on to spell out how the attacks will unfold, apparently based on questionable reporting that unmanned drones and commando teams are inside Iran collecting and refining intelligence on targets. This may or may not be happening, but even if it is, it in no way follows that military action is imminent, and even if it is, it in no way follows that this will be the nature of the military operations.

Hart then goes on to offer a summary of what the president will offer as a defense of his decision to attack Iran. Here he actually lays out a list of facts explaining why he has taken this particular course of action with only a relatively minor cheap shot with his sanctions are for sissies statement. That is, until he asserts without any evidence whatever that the real reason for attacking Iran is that "we need the oil."* This canard has been around since at least the Vietnam War, when it was argued that the United States was involved there to control Vietnam's mineral resources.

The rest of his piece is equally unconvincing. There is no guarantee military action against the mullahs will lead to a popular uprising against the mullahs, but given the unpopularity of the mullahs and the state of domestic unrest in Iran, there's no guarantee that it won't. Ultimately, the reaction of the Iranian public to U.S. military action against various regime targets- including nuclear facilities- will depend in large part on how the United States frames its actions to the people of Iran. The president's UN speech may have been the start of an attempt to frame the military action as an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow their oppressors, but much more needs to be done if such attempts at public diplomacy are to be successful.

There is also no reason to believe "the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end." Currently, the United States spends about 4% of its GDP on defense, outspending the next seven largest militaries combined. From 1943-45, the United States spent and average of 37.4% of GNP on defense. If the United States were willing to invest such a large percentage of GDP in the Global War on Terror, the United States could arguably sustain military interventions in not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but also North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela (not that I'm advocating that in any way). The Western way of war is not being eclipsed. Rather, the West (including the United States) is simply refusing to fight as its capable of fighting.

He also provides no evidence that the goal of "sunny neoconservatives" is to become "neo-imperial Middle Eastern power." And while predictions of increased support for radical Islamic groups are plausible (especially among Left-wing groups in the United States and Europe), it is not guaranteed, especially in the long run. Support for militant Islamic groups is predicated on the possibility of success. If the United States achieves its war aims quickly, it is reasonable to conclude that, after an initial flurry of pre-planned terrorist attacks, support for radical Muslim groups. On the other hand, if things drag out, support for these groups might well increase as the prospect of victory seems to grow.

Is the United States going to attack Iran this October? It's possible, but I don't see it happening.

Would such an attack be the unmitigated disaster foreseen by Gary Hart? Again, it's possible, but there are too many variables to make a definitive prediction with any degree of certainty.

Ultimately, Hart's piece seems designed to paint the Bush administration (and Republicans in general) as power-mad buffoons, not seriously analyze the likelihood and potential consequences of war with Iran.

*Of course, the whole idea that the United States will attack Iran this October is premised on the idea that the real motivation for attacking Iran is domestic political gain. His reasoning? The Democrats might take control of at least one house of Congress in November. Therefore, the United States needs to attack Iran to prevent this happening. The insularity of this is shocking. In this view, Iran is no real threat to the United States, at least no threat talking can't solve. The only possible reason for attacking Iran is to further the president's domestic agenda. Never mind Iran's seizure of the American embassy in 1979, its patronage of Hezbollah, the attack on the Khobar Towers, its nuclear program, not to mention its diplomatic duplicity, only a paranoiac would be concerned enough about Iran to seriously consider military action. Ultimately, Hart's comments reveal more about how he and his ilk view the world. The big struggle is between those enlightened progressives who seek to build a kinder, gentler, more equal society and evil, troglodytic conservatives, capitalists and whatnot seeking to undermine them. Everyone else is just a bit player.

For Their Next Trick

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will show that Iran has no ties to Hezbollah.

In the meantime, though, Stephen Hayes cuts through all of the smoke and mirrors of the Committee's report on Iraq-al Qaeda connections. He effectively shows the report to be a hack-job, and a poor one at that.

Democrats love to accuse the president of manipulating intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq. I guess all I can say is see Matthew 7:3-5.

Different Understandings of God's Nature

Here is the portion of Benedict XVI's speech at Regensburg concerning Islam:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

Here then, the Pope illustrates a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, and it is very interesting to see how this has been reflected in the reaction of the "Muslim street." Whereas Christians respond to statements deemed to be anti-Christian with argument (if they see fit to respond at all) and any violence or the threat of violence is condemned, the first reaction of the Muslim world is to riot, firebomb churches, kill nuns and threaten the Pope himself with violence. This same thing was also evident in the Danish cartoon controversy, when the first reaction of Muslims was to riot and threaten death to anyone who published the cartoons, as opposed to explaining why the cartoons were a slander against Islam and Mohammed in particular.

It seems to me that difference between the Christian understanding of God's nature and Islam's is at the root of the differences between Christian and Muslim reaction to perceived insults. For both the Christian and the Muslim, God is the source of all truth. However, the similarities end there. For the Christian, God is inherently rational, His creation reflects that rationality, and reason is His gift to man- whom He has created in His image and likeness- so that he may come to know the truth. For the Muslim, God is entirely transcendant, and it is thus impossible to know the truth, save by divine revelation. Because of this, it falls upon any given Muslim to defend his faith by whatever means is at his disposal. If he can answer a criticism of Islam or overcome an argument against it by force of reason, he may certainly do so, but if that is not an option for him, it is justified to oppose the criticism or argument with violence because it must necessarily be sophistry, and thus a threat to those Muslims who might be tempted away from Islam by it. However, such behavior also casts severe doubt on Islam's claims to the truth in the eyes of rationalists.

Question to Which I Probably Know the Answer

Iran has just opened a heavy water nuclear reactor. They have also been enriching unranium for the past several months.

According to the story linked above, light water reactors use regular water and require enriched uranium (though not so highly enriched as weapons-grade uranium) in order for the fission reaction to work. Heavy water reactors use water formed using a heavier hydrogen isotope (i.e. hydrogen with one or more neutrons in the nucleus) and do not require enriched uranium for for the fission reaction to proceed. However, it is possible to obtain plutonium from the uranium rods once the uranium can no longer be used as nuclear fuel. This plutonium can then be used to make nuclear weapons.

If Iran's nuclear program is merely directed toward the production of nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons, why should Iran be engaged in both the building of a heavy water nuclear reactor and the enrichment of uranium?

John Bolton Rocks

It is being reported that the U.S. and France have reached an agreement on a draft Security Council resolution* calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Ordinarily, I would think this a horrible thing, but on balance this one might actually do some lasting good.

The draft, sent to the entire Security Council for consideration, "calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations."

Hezbollah has made the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanon the criterion for halting their operations (both terrorist and military), but the resolution does not call for this. Thus, either Hezbollah defies the cease-fire resolution, and Israel continues its assaults upon Hezbollah; or Hezbollah abides by the conditions of the cease-fire as laid out in the resolution and loses face as a result of its failure to follow through on its promise "to fight to the last bullet and to the last breath" to drive Israeli forces from Lebanon.

*It still has to be adopted, butthere is no reason at this point to think it won't be.

The West's Civilian Fetish

Jim Geraghty wonders whether we aren't becoming desensitized to civilian casualties. Speaking for myself, I know I've become somewhat desensitized to them, and I imagine quite a few others have as well. What's more, I don't think this is an entirely negative development. Certainly since Vietnam, and arguably since the end of World War II, the number of civilian casualties has been the almost exclusive moral barometer by which the actions of Western militaries are judged. This combined with the West's unwillingness to take casualties of any sort has put civilians in grave danger. Unprincipled foes place legitimate military targets behind civilian shields to either protect them from attack or try to gain the moral high ground (many times with the complicity of Western media) if they are attacked. Furthermore, terrorist organizations attempt to force political or military concessions from the West by deliberately attacking civilian targets, and they have been successful far too many times, most recently on 3/11 when the train stations in Madrid were bombed.

Both of these tactics are used because they seem to work, and as long as the West continues to emphasize civilian causalties above all else, they will continue to be employed to great effect by terrorists in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and beyond. Only when these tactics are shown to be ineffective will they cease to be used, and while we should always deplore and punish the deliberate killing of civilians (as opposed to killing civilians unavoidably in strikes on legitimate military targets) by those on our side, our becoming demonstrably desensitized to civilian casualties essentially renders these tactics ineffective because their effectiveness rests not on actually taking and holding territory, but on the reactions of populations to their tactics. If the populations of countries view the deaths of civilians in wartime with the shrug of a shoulder, terrorist tactics are thus rendered ineffective, and they will be forced to do things like actually take and hold territory. This plays into the hands of traditional militaries like those of the United States and Israel and, just as importantly, makes civilians low-value targets once again.

Hail Mary

Even though I think the United States and its allies were right to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a democratic state in Iraq, and I continue to support our efforts there, I've always harbored doubts as to whether the United States would be able to build a democratic Middle East that could last more than, say, ten years after the United States military ceased to be the guarantor of the new democratic order. Nothing I've seen has alleviated my doubts,* and I've wondered whether the United States should continue to expend blood and treasure on democratizing the Middle East. A government elected by its citizens is merely the capstone of a successful democracy. More important is a robust civil society dedicated to individual liberty, meritocracy and the rule of law under a government strong enough to maintain order and obliged to control itself. Without these, I can't see democracy succeeding in the Middle East. Is this effectively being built in Iraq? Only time will tell, but the cosnervative in me says that you can't completely remake a society overnight, or even over the course of a few years. Add to this the problem of rebuilding a civil society all but wiped out by a totalitarian dictator, and things only look bleaker. Still, despite the monumental task at hand, I am once again convinced that democratization of the Middle East is the only way to save the West from the doom that threatens to descend upon it.

Fjordman has written a piece for The Brussels Journal about the demographic situation facing the developed world. Essentially, he argues that mass-immigration from failed states is threatening to bring about the end of most European societies because these immigrants come from failed states and bring with them the cultures of these failed states which then threaten to become major political and cultural driving forces in the countries to which these immigrants immigrate. Ultimately, he concludes that European elites lack the will to do anything about this and that this will lead either to extreme civil unrest or the collapse of Europe or both. Now, the United States can't compel Europe to deal with its immigration problem. Heck, it can't even deal with its own immigration problem. Instead, the United States is promoting the ideal of democracy and individual liberty to the failed states that most threaten the West in order create the incentive for those who would otherwise leave their country in search of material well-being to remain and seek their fortunes in their own lands. This was and is supposed to be a way to stop terrorism at its source, but it also looks like the only way save Europe from itself.

It's a long shot, a Hail Mary, but I can't see any better alternatives at this point.

*However, the Iraqi insurgency may turn out to be just what is needed to instill long-term faith in the Iraqi government.

Whose Side Is He On?

It appears that Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has sidelined one of his his nuclear inspectors at the reqwuest of Iran. Apparently, he found things the regime in Tehran didn't want him to find, and so Tehran asked El-Baradei to remove him from the IAEA inspection team responsible for inspecting Iran's nuclear activities and forbid him access to documents pertaining to said activities. El-Baradei complied.

It's possible that I'm overreacting, but it seems to me that this kills any possiblity for an acceptable solution being reached through current diplomatic efforts. If Tehran can get El-Baradei to remove inspectors who get too close to discovering something Tehran doesn't want them to find, then either the Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, or the United States and selected allies will have to act outside the U.N. to prevent this happening, thus increasing the likelihood of a military altercation between the United States and Iran. This is because, absent clear evidence that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power*, Russia and China have no incentive to act to bring the Iranian crisis to a resolution, and the U.N. cannot take concrete action** without assent from Russia and China, who have automatic vetoes on the Security Council.


*It's possible that Russia and China have decided that Iran having nuclear weapons is in their best interest as it creates more problems for the U.S. and more opportunities for them to increase their own influence. Heck, Russia may figure that a war between the United States and Iran helps them because it will drive up the price of oil, meaning more oil for Russia. China could also take advantage of the situation may invading Taiwan and increasing its influence in East and Southeast Asia.

**There's been a fair amount of talk about how the U.N. Security Council is ready to take concrete action against Iran should it refuse the package of incentives offered by Europe in exchange for abandoning its uranium enrichment program. The problem is that there is no talk of what such action would be. Would it be a strongly worded resolution condemning Iran and calling on them to give up their enrichment program? A strongly worded resolution condemning Iran and calling on them to give up their program with the threat of "grave consequences" should they fail to comply? Would it involve economic sanctions? Surgical air strikes? A full-scale invasion? There are so many possibilities that the simple threat of "concrete action" in the Security Council is an empty one unless "concrete action" is clearly defined and demonstrably harsh.

Never Buy Your Airline Tickets in France

France has just imposed a tax on airline tickets "to help the world's poor." Leaving aside the question of whether foreign aid programs work (They don't. Just look at Palestine.), this policy violates the principle that the duty of a government is to serve its people. However, this policy also strikes me as following naturally (though not necessarily inevitably) from a belief in international progressivism. According to the progressive philosophy, it is the responsibility of the state to improve society. Furthermore, the justness of society is not determined so much by the conduct of its people as by the policies of the state (irrespective of their effectiveness or their unintended consequences). It thus follows that the state becomes the chief moral agent* in a society, as opposed to the individual. If the state is the chief moral agent, then, in a globalized world, the state becomes responsible for helping other states make their societies more just, as opposed to individuals from wealthier societies helping those from impoverished ones through altruism or businesses investing in these poor communities and providing economic opportunities for them. And if the state is responsible for providing aid to poorer states, then there is no reason it cannot tax its people for just such a purpose. It's not as if they have the duty to provide for themselves and their families: The state has already taken care of that. Thus, people have no right to their own money because spending it cannot possibly fulfill any moral imperative.

This policy is a reductio ad absurdum of progressivism, and it illustrates why I cannot embrace it as a morally serious political philosophy.

*Getting back to my debate with Josh, it is this enshrinement of the state as the chief moral agent, as opposed to the individual, which renders Progressivism incompatible with Christianity, in my view.

The Problem With Having Opinions

Is that some times they slip out when they shouldn't. Josh picked up on this in my previous post and has run with it. Specifically, he has exploited my description of the ultimate Progressive political objective as a utopian state. While I believe this to be correct (and I'm guessing Josh does as well), it is not self-evident that this is the case. Ultimately, the the Progressive aim is to establish a just society. Therefore, in order to establish whether Progressivism can be deemed consistent with Christianity (or any religion, for that matter), the following questions must first be answered:

1) What is a just society?
2) What powers should the state be entrusted to establish and maintain such a society?
3) With what powers can the state be entrusted to establish and maintain such a society?
4) What is the impact of overthrowing long-standing traditions in an attempt to establish such a society?

There are probably others as well, but these will do for a start. While questions of human nature and theology can legitimately come into play here, these questions are questions of political philosophy.

I'm not going to back away from my opinion that Progressivism is utopian, and if I am right, Josh is correct to say that Progressivsm cannot be legitimately reconciled with Christianity (assuming Christianity is true, something both Josh and I do). However, the religious Progressive, particularly the Christian Progressive has a way out. He may well concede that there is no way man can bring aout this just society on his own, but just as God works through man with all of his imperfections, so can he work through the state with all of its imperfections to bring about a just society. Of course, this almost renders politics irrelevant. After all, God could also work through a ficus plant with all of its imperfections to bring about a just society. Still, this cannot be seen as the conclusive answer to the argument of the religious Progressive, merely a witty retort to make his argument seem silly.

No, when it's all said and done, the compatibility of Progressivism with Christianity depends on the answer to my first question: What is a just society? I reject Progressivism as uptopian because I find what I understand to be its vision of a just society to be sorely lacking. I regard it a fantasy to believe that a Progressive society can be equated with a just society. It is only because I recognize my fallibility that I allow for the possibility that I am wrong.

Also, I don't think it reasonable to conclude that the NSP dismisses the Scriptures as a source of authority. There are clearly members of the NSP who think Scripture should be a legitimate source authority and those who think it shouldn't, and there is no way to tell from the article in "The New York Times" which faction, if any, represents the majority opinion.

And, on another point of agreement, I also do not see the NSP coming out against abortion or homosexual "marriage", or anything of the sort. Hence, I can't see them becoming much more than an Amen Corner for the secular left.

Is the Religious Left Doomed to Failure?

Over at Ingalls' Inklings, Josh takes aim at a conference of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.
It's a post that hits the ball out of the park. Unfortunately, he knocked it foul. The main reason for this is he comes at it from the wrong perspective, and in so doing misses the raisson d'etre of the NSP.

In the Fall 2002 issue of "The Public Interest", Professors Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio published an article entitled "Our Secularist Democratic Party". This article laid out how secularists had become the dominant force in Democratic politics over the past 30-40 years. This led to large numbers of religious people leaving the Democrat Party for the Republican Party, causing what has been termed the Democrats' "religion problem". It is this problem that the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP) is looking to solve. Ultimately, the vagueness of the term "believer" is not a problem because the distinction the NSP is not so much concerned with religious consistency as with creating a broad public understanding that Progressivism is not equivalent to radical secularism. In other words, being religious (whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Zoroastrian, whatever) is not inconsistent with being a progressive.

Fundamentally, the NSP is a political organization (though it is unfair to say that its members place their faith in politics), and it is thus primarily concerned with ends. Furthermore, it is a coalition, so people's reasons for espousing the ends of the organization will not be consistent across individuals within the organization. The mebers of the NSP may have come from different places, but they are looking to get to the same place. That is enough to establish a working coalition. In this case, the NSP wants to establish a "Religious Left" to stand against the "Religious Right", and this is where they go wrong. In order to be a viable political faction, as opposed to mere window dressing, the NSP needs to establish itself as a reasonable alternative to the secular left. To achieve this, they must demonstrate the ability to influence the political direction of the left, particualrly on such issues as abortion and homosexual "marriage". Failing to do this, it seems to me inevitable that they will be seen as little more than an Amen Corner for the secular left, not a viable alternative to the Religious Right, so called.

Ironically enough, Josh also commits the same offense of vagueness for which he excoriates the NSP when he says that "Progress by definition implies deviation from the status quo." Progress does not imply a deviation from the status quo, it necessitates it. What's more, to progress is to move forward toward a certain objective. Progressivism has always sought movement toward a utopian state, largely defined in terms of material well-being for the masses, especially the lower classes and has viewed the state as the engine of progress toward this. Does this objective lead to "a fuller embodiment of Christian values and truths* in the world"? Does it contradict Christian values and truths? Ultimately, these questions cannot be settled without evaluating the means advocated and their consequences for all affected by them, something Josh refuses to do.

Also, I think Josh reads too much into "the pervasive use of 'we,' our,' and 'I.' The quotes used by the author in the article represent the judgments of the reporter and editor as to what was important to the story. It may be that this was a correct assesment, but it may also be that the reporter missed the point or was distorted what happened in seeking to create the impression of division.

*I would also caution Josh about appending adjectives to the word truth. Truth is truth is truth. There is no such thing as a uniquely Christian truth, Muslim truth, Wiccan truth, or atheist truth. There are things beliefs held as true by these different groups, but they are either true or false. They aren't true for one group and false for another. This is the religious subjectivism against which he has warned.

Act of War or Just Another Crime?

In a piece for OpinionJournal.com, former FBI director Louis Freeh lays recounts his experience heading up the investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996. Prior to reading this piece I was 95% certain that Iran had had a hand in the attack. Now I'm absolutely certain they were responsible for it. The men who carried out the attack were acting as surrogates of the Iranian government, which ordered the attack and provided training and funds for the attack. This was an act of war by the government of Iran against the United States. There are simply no two ways about it. So why are the Mullahs still in power in Iran? Why were they not overthrown in 1979, when the American embassy was seized (another act of war)? Or when Hezbollah (Iran's terrorist group) bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? Why haven't their military meddlings in Iraq (providing weapons and funds to insurgents, among other things) invited swift and severe reprisals? Why do we choose to ignore what is in front of our face and seek a diplomatic solution with an enemy for whom the only acceptable diplomatic solution is our complete surrender with some economic benefits thrown in for good measure?

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating going to war with Iran, but it looks more and more to me like that's what it's going to take, and if that's what it's going to take, the United States is going to have to be the major force taking care of business, largely because both theoretically and practically we're the only ones who can. Britain and Australia would come with us, I think. I could also see Poland and some of the other smaller members of the Iraq coalition joining in as well. Heck, I could even see Canada getting involved now that they've got a decent Prime Minister who seems to understand that concrete action accomplishes more than endless, vacuous negotiation.

As I've said before, I don't think invading Iran and overthrowing the Mullahs is necessarily the answer, but in order for any of the other alternatives (either a reasonable diplomatic resolution or revolution from within) to be successful, the legitimate threat of force has to present. The United States doesn't have to be overly belligerent or bellicose, but it does have to make clear that failure to reach an acceptable solution will result in the demise of the current Iranian regime. The Iranians have no reservations about waging war against us. It's about time we changed that.

That's All We Need

The New York Times is reporting (a couple of years late in my opinion) on the increasing cooperation between Iran and Syria. Needless to say, this strikes me as being pretty much a non-story. Both Iran and Syria have been meddling in Iraq in attempts to undermine the effort to establish a legitimate, democratic government in Iraq allied with the U.S. Syria has been the major conduit by which al Qaeda operatives have entered Iraq, and Iran has provided funds and weapons to insurgents. Furthermore, there has been a fair amount of cooperation between the two countries where groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are concerned.

However, there is one paragraph in the story that I think worthy of a story in and of itself:

Arab governments once hostile to Iran have begun to soften their public posture after decades of animosity toward Tehran. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt met Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani, in Cairo recently, and Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, visited Tehran this month and declared the two nations to be good friends. In addition, Iranian officials recently sent messages of friendship to every Persian Gulf state.

This paragraph raises, in my mind, serious questions about why these Arab governments are choosing to extend olive branches to Iran now. Obviously, they are engaging Iran diplomatically for prudential reasons. It is also reasonable to conclude that they believe Iran to be pursuing nuclear weapons. After all, if Iran were merely pursuing nuclear power plants it would not alter the political landscape in the Middle East sufficiently for these governments to feel the need to be firmly on Iran's good side.

That's not quite what worries me, though. It is possible that these Arab governments are making nice with Iran simply to make sure they have all of their bases covered no matter how the Iran-vs-the West nuclear showdown plays out, but I don't think so. My reading of this is that these Arab nations have taken stock of the positions of Iran and the West and the actions each side is taking and have concluded that the West's attempts at a diplomatic solution will fail and Iran will acquire nuclear weapons because not even the United States, let alone the EU-3 and the UN, have the will to do what is necessary to prevent Iran developing them.

The Fundamental Irrationality of Soccer

Though I've always preferred American sports, I do enjoy watching and playing soccer, but I may have to reconsider. The Weekly Standard has published an article arguing that playing soccer is contrary to human nature because the use of hands is forbidden, and, more importantly, the head is used as a club. Much as I hate to say it, he's got a point. I may just to rethink my opinion of . . . What's that? WHAM!!!

Soccer is the most beautiful and ingenious sport ever contrived by man, requiring the most athleticism, intelligence and natural talent. Life is meaningless without soccer, just a black hole of nothingness, a dreary abyss of chaos. Soccer is order and goodness and truth. The universe only makes sense when viewed through the prism of soccer.

I Knew "The DaVinci Code" Had Problems

But I never thought this would be one of them. It really wouldn't surprise me if there were to be a group denouncing the demonization of giant, city-smashing lizards the next time a Godzilla movie comes out.

The Fruit of All Evil

Over in The Corner, John Derbyshire linked to the following video, which claims that the structure of the banana is evidence of intelligent design. This prompted the following reply from one of his readers:

Derb---That video convinced me. The banana is obviously God's handiwork. But what about the orange? I can never peel those damn things without all the tough white part remaining. And the apple is OK, but the skin invariably gets wedged between my teeth. Are these lesser fruits God's discarded banana prototypes or perhaps the work of the Devil?"

His correspondant is obviously wrong. These are neither lesser fruits or the work of the Devil. It is obvious that the difficulties encountered in eating these and other fruits prove that man was not designed to eat these fruits. It follows that consuming these fruits is contrary to the will of God and thus a sin. Furthermore, the degree sinfulness in eating a particular fruit can be discerned from the relative difficulty of eating the fruit. For instance, getting apple peel stuck between your teeth is a minor inconvenience and thus merely a venial sin. The extreme difficulties encountered in preparing an orange for consumption indicate that eating an orange rises to the level of a mortal sin. As I rather enjoy eating oranges and have not received absolution for this, I can only conclude that I'm going to Hell for indulging in this most grievous sin of the flesh.

Well That Settles It

The Vatican has come out in favor of the development of nuclear energy. The most interesting part of the story is the role played by the disaster at Chernobyl.

At the opening, the president of the Vatican dicastery recalled that the Chernobyl accident "alerted the world about the need to study the suitability and morality of the use of atomic energy for civil ends."

At the same time, the accident made "innumerable initiatives of solidarity flourish, directed in a special way to children" and "made possible a profound debate on the use of civil nuclear energy and the conditions of safety of its use," the [Renato Cardinal Martino] said.

While the actual causes and full effects of Chernobyl remain shrouded in mystery, the above statement indicates that some good has resulted from it. If the disaster at Chernobyl leads to a more widespread and intelligent development of nuclear power, a relavtively cheap and very clean form of energy, the good that can be said to have resulted from Chernobyl will be great indeed.

I Know This Is Saying Quite a Bit

But this may be the worst song ever. Hopefully you'll take my word for it, but if you follow the link, consider yourself warned.

Update: There's a video too. God help us all.

Cracking the Iranian Nuclear Nut

In a piece for City Journal, Mark Steyn offers a sobering analysis of the situation the West faces with Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Frankly, we recognize that we cannot allow Iran to develop or obtain nuclear weapons, but we do not appear to have the will to do what is necessary to stop them getting nuclear arms, believing instead that we can simply talk Iran into abandoning its nuclear ambitions.

What folly. If Iran has decided that it is in its vital interest to obtain nuclear weapons, then the only way to persuade them otherwise is to make it clear to them their pursuit of such weapons will prove fatal to them. The problem is that those currently responsible for negotiating with Iran view the situation through a western, secularized lens and so misapprehend the situation. From the time of the French Revolution, economic issues have been of increasing importance in European politics, becoming the most important political issues after World War II. More and more, money and property have come to be seen as the sources of power, as opposed to things that are gained as a result of having power (i.e. My wealth is the source of my power. vs. My power is the source of my wealth.). Viewed in this light, Iran's intransigence makes no sense, especially in light of the carrots being hung in front of them (e.g. Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Iran). Although the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) seem to be waking up to the fact that Iran has no desire to surrender its nuclear program, they fail to apprehend why this should be so. Furthermore, even if the EU-3 were to get Russia and China have significant trade ties to Iran and so oppose any concrete action against Iran, be it economic sanctions or miltary action.

So, what can be done?

First of all, the United States, being the only country able to effectively prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons, must take the lead on the issue. The Eu-3 have been engaged in futile negotiations from the start. Their efforts having failed, the weight of American military might must be brought to bear. To that end, a large chunk of the American forces in Iraq must be moved to the border with Iran. Similarly, most of the American forces in Afghanistan should be moved to its border with Iran. Any military campaign against Iran would be immensely difficult, but it is helpful that we can bring significant force to bear from two directions. It may also give Iran pause if we remind them of this.

From here, I think there are three courses of action that could possibly work.

The first choice is to foment revolution from within. The Iranian people may or may not be pro-American, but they certainly don't have any love for the mullahs. If we start to publicly encourage the people of Iran to overthrow the mullahs and promise to come to the aid of those opposed to the mullahs in whatever way necessary, including military support, it could very well lead to the downfall of the mullahs and an Iranian government that at least isn't hell-bent upon wiping the Great Satan off the face of the earth.

The second choice is a military invasion with or without UN approval (I'd prefer without because I find that the UN makes Jack Abramoff look like Goerge Washington.), with whoever wants to come along. We come in from the both the east and west, possibly enticing Russia to come down from the north by promising them a warm-water port (not likely, as Russia would either have to come through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan or invade amphibiously via the Caspian Sea, which would make the capture of Tehran easier).

The third choice is the one I least expect to happen. The final solution is achieved diplomatically, but the nature of the sabre-rattling beforehand makes it highly implausible that this will be the course of action taken. This would involve the president traveling to, say Alamogordo, NM, accompanied by the likes of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld to deliver a speech on Iran's nuclear weapons program and what the U.S. intends to do about it. At the end of the speech, as a demonstration of the lengths to which the U.S. is willing to go to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, a live test of a nuclear weapon will be conducted behind the president (far enough away that no one is harmed by the blast, obviously). After the test is complete, the president should demand full, verifiable, unilateral disassembly of Iran's nuclear program as a precondition to further talks. Needless to say, there will be howls from decent people pretty much everywhere, but Iran should get the message.

Two world wars have taught us what barabrism we are capable of unleashing on one another. In Europe, this has led to a reluctance to use military force to resolve problems, lest a similar barbarism be unleashed again. In effect, many people in the West are afraid of our own power because we know the horror we can cause. In many ways, this is a sign of our moral advancement. The desire to not exact a greater toll than justice demands is a sign of civilization, and the mutual agreement of parties to adhere to civilized rules of war allows for something less than the total war nations of the west once waged on each other. However, when one side refuses to agree to the civilized standards, civilized nations must be willing to show that they can out-Attila Attila. Iran wants to wipe the U.S. off the map and create a pan-Islamic state with Tehran as its political center. The U.S. needs to show not only can it wipe Iran off the map right now, it is willing to do so to secure itself againt the threat of a nuclear Iran. Barring a miracle, only the legitimate threat to do the unthinkable can peacefully stop Iran's otherwise inexorable progress toward the bomb.

Show Me the Money

In his new book, In Our Hands, Charles Murray proposes a radical overhaul of our national entitlement system.

In his new book, In Our Hands, Murray offers what he calls "the Plan": Halt all government entitlement programs and redistribute tax money directly to citizens. The Plan is elegantly simple. When you turn 21, you begin receiving monthly income from the federal government--deposited directly into your bank account--that totals $10,000 a year. This grant keeps coming, month after month, until the day you die.

Not everyone gets to keep the full $10,000. Once your salaried income hits $25,000, the size of your grant diminishes gradually until those making above $50,000 get only $5,000 a year. The only condition is that you not be in jail--once you're out of the pokey, you get the money. (Last, Jonathan. "The $10,000 Question" 4/7/06)

Now, I'd like an extra $10,000/year as much as the next guy, and the system Murray is proposing is apparently more cost effective than our current system, but I'm a little skeptical. While it may provide lower income workers with health insurance and a more secure retirement if they spend their money wisely, it also seems to run the risk of having the same effect as welfare pre-1996, namely the institutionalization of poverty among those most dependent upon these monthly stipends. Now, I'll withold judgment on The Plan until I've actually read the book, but the sense I have now is that it's too good to be true.

Nothing Says Zionist Conspircacy

like "Tom and Jerry".

It seems almost superfluous to point out that Tom and Jerry was developed by MGM, not Disney.

Hat tip: Mark Steyn

File This One Under "What Were They Thinking"

The Michigan state legislature has voted to increase the minimum wage in the state from the federally mandated $5.15/hr to $6.95/hr in October. Now, as of this past January Michigan's unemployment rate was 6.2%, nearly 1.5 percentage points higher than the national rate. Given such a high unemployment rate, I would think the last thing you want to do is increase the cost employers have to pay to bring on new employees. What's more, how many employers will be forced to lay off a portion of their staff because they can't afford to pay all of their workers $6.95/hr?

That's not to say there aren't benfits to the increase. Those making less than $6.95/hr fortunate enough to retain their jobs will be better off financially, but it doesn't seem worth the further entrenchment and exacerbation of Michigan's unemployment problem.

Newsflash: Government Wastes Money!!!

Not only were government efforts following Hurricane Katrina poorly coordinated and highly inefficient on all levels, a lot of money was wasted too.

Honestly, I've had a hard time working myself into a high dudgeon over government efforts before and after Katrina. Things unfolded pretty much as I expected they would: The military performed well, and everything else was a mess. Coordination between levels of government was poor at best. Resouces were underutilized when they were utilized at all. The resources that were used were poorly allocated. A lot of money was thrown around, much of it to no real use. Instead of being pressed into action, volunteers received diversity training (whatever the heck that is) from FEMA. On the whole, it was a typical government operation.

Many (most? I hope not.) Americans, as a result of the New Deal and the Great Society, view the government as an entity to whom we can turn in time of need, who will help us solve our problems and get us out of trouble. I'm not sure why this is the case, as neither the New Deal or the Great Society have been particularly effective, but that's the way it is. They forget (or never learned) the lesson Mark Steyn tool from the passengers of Flight 93 on September 11: "To expect the government to save you is to be a bystander in your own fate."

Failure in Iraq

In his February 24 column, William F Buckley Jr asserts that the United States has failed in Iraq. Our failure, according to Mr. Buckley, lies in our failure to train the Iraqi amry to effectively cope with the insurgents. There is something to this. If the Iraqi army were capable of dealing effectively with the insurgents, America would not be blamed for the violence caused by the insurgents. However, if this were simply a question of how well the Iraqi army has dealt with the insurgents, it seems reasonable to conclude that the army itself and the Iraqi government responsible for it might be blamed for their own ineptitude. What has happened is something different. We have been blamed for something we never set out to do: provide law and order. Instead, it has been our objective to establish an Iraqi government capable of doing this.

Although much has been accomplished along these lines, from the establishment of an interim government, to the ratification of a constitution, to the election and seating of a parliament, as well as much progress in the training of an army and the rebuilding of infrastructure, we have failed in one critical respect: We have been unable to stop the Iraqis looking to us to provide security. As a result, we are blamed for problems that aren't our fault and expected to handle situations that aren't our resposnsibility. It isn't that we're unable to deal with probblems such as this (look at what happened when we finally went into Fallujah), but that we have limited our responsibilities in the hope that the Iraqis will look to their own government to guarantee liberty and security. Up to now, this hope hasn't been realized, and until it is, our venture in Iraq cannot be said to be a success.

It isn't easy to midwife a democracy. It only makes it harder when you're expected to be father to it.

Christianity and Evolution

Back in November, Brian asked why it is so difficult for many people to square their faith with evolution. Based on discussions I've had with friends of mine who fall into this category, there are two principle obstacles to people being able to square their faith with the acceptance of the correctness of evolution. The first is a question of biblical interpretation, and the second is a philosophical problem.

The problem of interpretation arises because many Christians* believe that every passage of the Bible must be interpreted literally. If the Bible says the world was created in six days, then by gum, it was. They make no allowance for the possibility of a legitimate figurative or allegorical interpretation of Scripture**. Because of this, any idea resting on something which contradicts a literal reading of the Scriptures- in this case, the evolution of species over 3.5 billion years- is not only wrong but heretical as well.

The philosophical problem, and it is a problem, is that many of these people will make the further argument that the acceptance of evolution equates to the acceptance of Naturalism, or Materialism, the belief that all the physical world is all that exists. Needless to say, this is patently absurd. Naturalism can only follow from evolution if the only option is between Biblical literalism and Naturalism because evolution only contradicts a literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis, never mind that the first two chapters of Genesis contradict themselves if read literally.*** In point of fact, evolution can shed no light one way or the other on the reality of the supernatural and its interaction with the natural world because, like any theory in the natural sciences, it gives natural explanations for observed natural phenomena. The realm of the supernatural is reserved for philosophy and, ultimately, theology.

When push comes to shove, truth cannot contradict truth. Either Christianity is true (as I belive), or it isn't. Either evolution is correct (again, as I believe), or it isn't. If both are true, then the latter can fit within the former. However, if the truth of one proves the falsity of the other, I suspect Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is not long for this world.

*This includes many Catholics, though Catholic teaching has never stated that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Indeed, such Catholic thinkers as St. Augustine, John Henry Cardinal Newman, and Benedict XVI have not held to a strictly literal reading of Scripture.

**While it is legitimate to interpret certain passages of Scripture figuratively, or allegorically, not all passages of Scripture can be so read without gutting the whole of Christianity. For instance, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ cannot be read figuratively without gutting the substance of Christianity.

***If you don't believe me, read them closely.

In Honor of

Osama's recent tape recording, here's a classic from 2001

If Attacked by Terrorists

France vows to bomb itself into submission.

In all seriousness though, Chirac seems to understand on some level that the way to deal with terrorists is to meet strength with strength. Witness bin Laden's latest message. The combination of spin and chutzpah in that tape would make Baghdad Bob proud, and the fact that Osama sees the need to make such a laughable statement, particularly his insistence that al Qaeda is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, indicates that things are not going well for al Qaeda. Indeed, the reason things are going so badly for al Qaeda is because following 9/11, the Bush administration decided to meet their strength with ours, and in doing so, we have found that al Qaeda cannot stand and fight, never mind actually take and hold territory. As devastating as the Iraqi insurgency may be, its success is predicated upon our perceived weaknesses, not their actual strengths. This could never be said about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. We had to actually defeat them; with al Qaeda we simply have to keep on doing what we're doing, occasionally swatting at them like a horse swats at flies with his tail.

States like Iran, Syria and North Korea are another matter. We need to figure out how to deal with them effectively, and there aren't any palatable options. As with WWII and the Cold War, our biggest problems are with nation-states. Al Qaeda is just a nuisance to be slapped down when the opportunity arises.

Into the Great White North

Apparently, the United states has a contingency plan for invading Canada. I suspect our primary weapons will be profanity, loud music and the battle frenzy brought on as a result of hearing "eh" aappended to everything.

What Do You Leave Behind?

This article is rather long, but it's a must-read.

Disturbing

The New York Times is reporting that Iran has resumed its nuclear program, including uranium enrichment. That Iran is able to do this without fear of repercussion shows the inherent limits of the diplomatic process. Iran has determined that it is in its vital interest to acquire nuclear weapons, and only physical intervention will prevent this acquisition. This isn't necessarily a call for military intervention, even if it would satisfy the demands of some that our forces be withdrawn from Iraq. The military option should not be taken off the table, but there are other ways to exert pressure on the Iranian regime, such as working with dissident groups to undermine the regime from within the country. It's about time we started realistically considering these options and expressing our consideration of them publicly.

Important Column

Spengler delivers another excellent, excellent column on the differences between Islam (and Mormonism) on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. I do disagree with him on one point, though.

Spengler states:

"It is dangerous to publish anything that Muslims might interpret as blasphemy, as Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, discovered when it published 12 cartoons of Mohammed, some portraying the Prophet in violent acts. Muslim protests and threats caused two of the cartoonists to go into hiding. After Arab foreign ministers condemned Denmark for refusing to act against the newspaper, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered a near-apology in his New Year's address.

"Strange as it may seem, the pope must whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Koranic prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief his reported comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform."

The implication here is that Benedict is making his statements quietly because he fears retribution. This strikes me false. Instead, it seems to me that Benedict made his statements in the forum he did not out of fear, but out of prudence. His opinion on the reformability of Islam is certainly not one to be disregarded lightly- indeed, I am inclined to agree with it, but Benedict realizes that he may be wrong. Furthermore, active Western engagement with Islam, be it American foreign policy or French attempts to restrict the wearing of the hijab by Muslim girls in French schools , are premised on the notion that the West and Islam can be reconciled to some degree or another, and a statement such a statement as the one Benedict made, made by a figure with his standing in a public forum risk undermining these efforts at a time when the jury is still out on this count. In other words, I suspect Benedict hopes he is wrong but fears he may be right and doesn't want to issue what may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's more, if he is right, it is essential that people are aware of the irreconcilability of Islam and the West and that steps be taken to ensure that we are prepared to deal with what would be the inevitable failure of Western policy both in the Middle East and Europe.

And I Thought the Government Couldn't Do Anything About Fuel Prices

Apparently they can. Of course, I doubt it's what most advocates of government action had in mind.

Osama Dead?

Apparently so, according to Michael Ledeen. If this proves to be true, it's good news from a symbolic standpoint. However, I don't know how much of an effect it will have on a practical level. Osama wasn't terribly involved in the day-to-day operations of al Qaeda, and he hadn't exactly been making many public appearances to bolster recruiting. If he is dead, there may be some drop-off in new membership in al Qaeda as a result.

But even if al Qaeda is devastated by his death, Iran has long been the area of greatest concern. Should they acquire nuclear weapons, it seems a near certainty they will use them against Israel, and there is nothing to stop them using elements of, say, Hezbollah, to detonate other nuclear devices in various European or American cities.