Kaplan: Withdrawal Risks Genocide; Miniter: Media Has It Wrong

Atlantic editor Robert Kaplan, who has provided brilliantly informative articles on the American military throughout the war on terror, has posted on the magazine's web site a most sober and sane assessment of the way forward in Iraq.

In sum, withdrawal risks genocide in Iraq. The alternative is to engage Iraq's neighbors in preventing such an outcome.

We're not sure about the alternative. But we are confident of the risk in withdrawal.

Meanwhile, we remain intrigued that there are still responsible journalists like Richard Miniter, a freelancer formerly of the Wall Street Journal, who can write books proclaiming what his latest does. Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror argues that the situation in Iraq is not as altogether awful as one might conclude from the MSM, which relies on Sunni Iraqis largely connected to the old Baathist regime. For a taste, you can hear an interview with the author by Tavis Smiley here (use IE for this; you'll get an awful effect with Firefox).

Miserable News for Cincinnati Education: Willard Indicted

Cincinnati's W. E. B. DuBois Academy was almost certainly the city's most successful charter school and arguably the most successful school of any kind in educating at-risk students of poverty.

So it is very discouraging to learn that its founder, former superintendent and current paid advisor Wilson Willard was indicted for multiple counts of fraud.

Mr. Willard is innocent until proved guilty, and we hope that he's genuinely and totally innocent. But we find ourselves disheartened that what seemed a genuine success story in a critical area of social life and improvement in our city has degenerated months into yet another personal and financial scandal.

Yuck!

Additional Perspective on Previous Post: Vacuum of Iraqi Leadership

We commend to gentle readers the blog by Iraqis for the world, Iraq the Model, and note in particular a recent post on the meeting of Iraqi clerics of both Sunni and Shiite persuasions in Mecca. What the courageous and insightful Iraqi blogger notes is that these leaders went all the way to the holy city to sign an accord that affirmed that murder is wrong.

The absence of effective leadership on the part of Iraq's ostensible leaders is perhaps the most obviously underreported problem in the country presently. It's like India without Gandhi or South Africa without Mandela, or the United States without Lincoln, for that matter. All were huge messes,* but imagine how much huger the messes would have been without those remarkable, albeit flawed, individuals to command loyalty, restrain impulses, and compel rational and charitable responses to situations of disagreement among potentially warring factions.
____________________
*We're not familiar with the statistics on South Africa, but we know that the rate of mortality in the American Civil War and the Indian struggle for independence and subsequent partition were significantly higher than what we've seen in Iraq.

British Contrarian Journalist Articulates SWNID Assessment of Iraq

Journalist Tim Hames, unknown to us previously, posts in the Times of London a most excellent (in that agrees with us) assessment of the present situation in Iraq and the merits of the British and American efforts there. Because it is embedded in a column that takes on matters less urgent, like the British relationship to the United States, we will quote the critical portion in full. Because we simply affirm it, we will offer no additional comment:

Secondly, I am not inclined to castigate the US Administration for what has occurred in Iraq. As Matthew [Parris, another Times writer] correctly says, it is far from obvious that deploying many more troops after Saddam Hussein was toppled would have made sense, or that the “de-Baathification” of the Iraqi Army and bureaucracy was a miscalculation. For a start, “de-Baathification” was scarcely a deliberate US policy. These institutions simply disintegrated when their leader disappeared.

The largest single mistake, in retrospect, rests elsewhere. The problem has not been the Bush Administration underestimating how much Iraqis might come to loathe the West for the “occupation” but a failure to grasp the extent to which, thanks to Saddam, Iraqis had come to fear and hate each other.

That inter-communal hatred is the present cause of Iraq’s troubles. American soldiers have died in tragic numbers this month not because of any so-called insurgency that wants to drive the US out of Iraq but because they have been attempting to prevent rival religious and sectarian militias from killing their enemies. The effort to hold together a central government in Baghdad (a drive, ironically, designed to reassure the defeated Sunnis) does not command sufficient consensus to sustain it.

What needs to be done now, as James Baker, a former US Secretary of State, appreciates, is to secure a decentralised settlement and convince the Shia majority to divide the oil revenues in a way that each camp will consider fair. In such a situation, as Kim Howells, the Foreign Office Minister, has outlined, US and British forces could be withdrawn steadily throughout 2007 without chaos.

I would not bet against Iraq’s future. That country retains extraordinary attributes. To declare it dead and buried a meagre three years after Saddam’s demise is, to me, premature folly. After all, would the recovery of Germany and Japan have been anticipated in 1948, three years after their surrender? Or the fate of Russia accurately assessed in 1994, during the chaos of the Yeltsin years, three years after the Soviet Union was disbanded? Or would anybody have expected that China would be where it is today in 1992, three years after the Tiananmen Square massacre?

The question that those of us in the pro-war camp have to confront is whether by, say, 2010 Iraq, the Middle East and the wider world will be demonstrably the better for Saddam’s overthrow than if he and his sadistic sons had been left in power. My answer to that question remains, unambiguously, in the affirmative.

Barron's, Enquirer Follow SWNIDish Wisdom

This morning's news brings indications that wisdom of the SWNIDish variety still can be found in the MSM.

Barron's (not to be confused with Michael Barone, y'all), the venerable investment weekly famous for its commitment to a dour view of the economy (Motto: "Sell stocks, buy bonds, it's 1929!") is prognosticating two Republican leaders, albeit with reduced majorities, in our bicameral national legislature in 2007. Their analysis is state-by-state and district-by-district and takes into account the Rs' historic and current advantage in dollars. This accords with our SWNIDish hope and, as we have noted, a sliver of other analysis and polling out there.

Meanwhile, the Enquirer, not known for the conservatism of its editorial opinions since Peter Bronson's retirement from the editorial board chairmanship, endorses both Mike DeWine and, most surprisingly, Ken Blackwell.

DeWine they celebrate for his thoughtful influence on Senate deliberations and Republican party policy. Blackwell gets kudos for his aggressive positions on reforming educational and governmental finance with a view to addressing Ohio's most acute economic problems. They also don't miss criticizing his recent campaign tactics. We agree, and we can't get over the fact that we do.

What surprises us about both endorsements is how the normally bland local opinion writers summon some uncharacteristically sharp criticism of the Democratic candidates' positions, or lack thereof. To wit, on Brown:

Brown echoes the talking point that seemingly has been fed to every other Democratic congressional candidate this fall - that his or her opponent is a "rubber stamp" for President Bush. This simple-minded toting up of roll-call votes is nonsense. You could just as easily - and unfairly - argue that Brown is a rubber stamp for Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.

But it is especially nonsensical where DeWine is concerned. If you look beyond the raw percentage of votes supporting the leadership's stance, you see how DeWine has influenced his own party's position on those issues and has worked with members of the other party on finding consensus.

Most troubling about Brown his how he exploits Ohio workers' fears with his faux-populist, anti-free-trade rhetoric. He posits cause and effect where such relationships are not clear. He says he's very pro-trade yet opposes efforts to free up tariff structures that often have disadvantaged American firms more than those of other nations.

He pits large corporations - Procter & Gamble is one - against small businesses. This is especially crass. Small businesses, where most of the new jobs come from, are beginning to flourish in our state because of expanded opportunities for trade - both directly and through their supply relationships to the P&G types.

And on Strickland:

Strickland also talks of making Ohio an oasis of alternative energy research, a key point in his "Turnaround Ohio" plan. Yet he offers little in the way of specifics on how he will execute that turnaround. "We can fund initiatives simply by taking advantage of available federal and other funding or reordering our present priorities we've ignored in the past," he says on his campaign Web site. "Programs and budgets aren't leadership. Leadership is all about people and results."

We're not sure why that last sentence is marked as a quote. Are the Enquirer opinionists quoting Strickland again to hoist him by his own proverbial petard? Or are they ridiculing the vacuousness of Strickland's un-positions? Either way, we thank them for announcing that there's really only one set of policies to consider in the governor's race.

So our political self goes forward today hopeful that the eternal pessimists at Barron's are correct and that the Enquirer's opinions can have impact well beyond its declining readership.

And so on this Sunday morning, we will venture a cheeky political sermon (note to those inclined to comment: admittedly brash overstatement and oversimplification ahead), with the immortal Harry Truman supplying our text:

Truman was fond of saying, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for Democrats." We say, if you want everyone to get rich like a Republican, vote for Republicans.

Update: We thank intrepid Barron's blog-searcher Christine for alerting us that the article in question is the free feature of the week. You can access the whole thing here.

We do admit that in the big picture it is not altogether comforting to realize how powerful an indicator of political success is a candidate's success in raising campaign funds relative to her opponent's. But we find every imaginable alternative to be even worse in their suppression of free speech.

SWNIDish Advice Statistically True: To Finish Grad School, Get Married

Inside Higher Education today reports on a study by economist Joseph Price of Cornell University demonstrating, against conventional wisdom but in accord with SWNIDish wisdom, that being married is linked to success in graduate school.

The advantage is strongest for married men but still significant for married women. And it applies even though married graduate students tend to be older and have lower GRE scores than singles. Being married with children also seems to be an advantage.

The author of the study anecdotally attributes part of the marriage advantage to time management. We agree.

We'll further argue that the same aspects of character that tend to make people marriageable also tend to make them good graduate students.

For years we've been telling students not to think that being married will make grad school harder. Now we're glad to have some statistics to back our intuition.

The Nikki Giovanni Flap: Organizers Should Have Known

Cincinnati's news reporting has mostly been beset with a spasm of reaction to the miserable excuse for a poem read by alleged poet Nikki Giovanni at the dedication ceremony for the renovated Fountain Square. A story with a link to a Word document with the entire poem is available here, for those with the patience.

Most reaction has been about how unsuitable it was for her to use vulgar expressions to insult Ken Blackwell. Actually, we think she probably got Blackwell a few sympathy votes from that move.

We actually don't mind the political stuff, and we're unshocked by the vulgarity, though we would prefer to do without it. But we vigorously object to this miserable piece of incoherent, unpoetic and inaccurate drivel being read to living people. The "poem" possesses nothing of a remotely poetic character. It reads more like a randomly arranged list of "things to do in Cincinnati," with a couple of hackneyed political remarks thrown in for good measure.

What's worse, Giovanni didn't even get the details right. "I am Montgomery ribs," she intoned. We assume she refers to Montgomery Inn Ribs. "I am Findlay Street Market." No, you are merely Findlay Market. "I am Symphony Hall." Well then, you are not in Cincinnati. No such venue exists in Our Fair City. The Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra plays in Music Hall.

In sum, we agree with Xavier English professor Norman Finkelstein, whose opinion on Giovanni the Enquirer summarizes this way:

Finkelstein called Giovanni's poem a "klutzy" piece that seemed to have been dashed out in a few minutes, a poem that reached for "too many easily accessible images of Cincinnati and Cincinnati history." Giovanni might have included her reference to Blackwell to be provocative, he said - but "in doing that, whatever poetic integrity the thing had went down the tubes."

Giovanni "has a good deal of skill and panache in handling a certain kind of public oratory," Finkelstein said. "I don't think she's a particularly strong poet anymore."

But this is no sub-par performance for Giovanni. This is what she does. Again, we defer to the experts, per the Enquirer:

James Cummins, a professor of English at the University of Cincinnati and curator of the school's Elliston Poetry Collection, agreed that the poem wasn't good - just a string of images, a catalog of facts, a bit of opinion. . . .

He also said that while Giovanni might not be a "great poet," she is a "poet/activist" known to speak her mind - and event organizers should have expected just that.

"Absolutely, they knew what they were getting when they asked Nikki Giovanni," he said.

Exactly. Giovanni is successful as a poet because she has managed to do what lots of people in the arts have done historically: bamboozle people of means and pretention into paying her. In earlier ages, that largely meant producing things that flattered the ruling classes. Now it means producing things that offend the middle classes. For those wealthy elites whose tastes have developed no farther than their naively quasi-Marxist politics, such offense to the bourgeoisie is the equivalent of artistic merit, not to mention penance for their own social privilege.

Ironically, on her own terms this makes Giovanni, who called Blackwell a political whore, a poetic whore.

Zogby/WSJ Show Rs in Senate, Blackwell with a Faint Pulse

Zogby, never noted for favoring Republicans, continues to track the November elections less favorably for Dems than do other sources.

The Wall Street Journal's handy interactive map for tracking current polling data, strangely similar to the NY Times's, shows a net gain of one Senate seat for the Democrats, leaving the GOP with a comfortable 55-45 majority.

Further, Zogby puts Brown's lead over DeWine in Ohio within the margin of error. If DeWine pulls off a squeaker, then the Senate, minus Rick Santorum but plus Tom Kean, Jr. from New Jersey, stands pat.

Meanwhile, the pathetic, inept campaign of Ken Blackwell can take hope in the Zogby report that he still trails empty suit Ted Strickland by only ten points. We think there's still time for Blackwell to make a run by telling his story and touting his moderate, appealing proposals, not the ridiculous character assassination on which he's been relying. The problem with character assassination in a race like this is that no one is voting for Strickland because of his character to begin with. They're just voting against the Republicans, and negative campaigning gives one more reason to do that.

Plan a nice buffet of snacks for the evening of November 7, because it looks like you'll still be munching in the early morning of November 8.

Barone: It's Still a Republican World

Michael Barone has been backing off earlier prognostications that the Rs will hold both houses of Congress. But he's unrelenting in his assessment of the body politic as a whole.

In the eyes of the principal coauthor of the Almanac of American Politics, 2006 will not represent realignment to the Ds. The shift will be too small (the race will be close and the margin small), is not based on new ideas from the opposition party (the minimum wage is the centerpiece, and it's been around since 1938), and is unlikely to sustain itself into 2008 (Ds poll way, way behind Rs for the White House).

If that sounds like a lot of things you've read from SWNID, it's because Barone is also Seldom Wrong.

If the election becomes a referendum on Bush's job performance (an assessment that Barone calls unfair in light of history, again a SWNID topos) or a response to voters' fatigue with the fatigued Republicans (again familiar), the effect will be temporary.

Gray Lady: Ds Must Run Table to Take Senate, Nearly Same for House

The NY Times Election Guide tally of US Senate races belies the paper's tone about the upcoming election. Specifically, it shows:

40 Senate races "safe" for Ds (including uncontested seats)
8 Senate races "leaning" to Ds
3 Senate races "toss ups"
2 Senate races "leaning" to Rs
47 Senate races "safe" to Rs

This means that to prevail in the Senate, Democrats must take all the races that lean to them and all the toss-ups (including NJ, which is currently in their hands). Fail once, and they need to pick up one of two races that lean R. N.B. that "lean Democrat" in this case can mean very thin polling margins, like Brown's in Ohio, definitely subject to turnout.

In the House, the situation is about the same:

190 seats "safe" for Ds (all contested, for those who forget the constitution)
23 seats "leaning" to Ds
13 seats "toss ups"
22 seats "leaning" to Rs
187 seats "safe" for Rs

Again, for minimal control, the Ds need safes plus leaners plus five of thirteen toss-ups.

The sheer closeness of it all probably explains why, to much press coverage, the RNC stopped writing checks for Mike DeWine. DeWine enjoys a personal fundraising advantage over Brown that may allow him to prevail. But holding Senate "toss ups" will be the focus of the national dough, as holding just one will prove decisive. And DeWine's race leans to Brown.

Again, we believe that many indicators point to low turnout, in which case effective get-out-the-vote efforts will tip some elections. That's why we still hold elections.

Freed-Hardeman Forum: Baby Step, But Which Way?

The Christian Chronicle, a publication of the a capella Christian Churches, today offers a report on the "Contemporary Discussion," previously announced here, between David Faust and D. Ralph Gilmore at Freed-Hardeman University Saturday.

SWNID was unable to connect to the FHU server for streaming audio, but we understand from water-cooler conversation (metaphor alert: this conversation was not actually held in the proximity of a water cooler) that (a) aspects of discussion felt more than a little hostile to Dr. Faust, the most gentle of gentlemen, prompting him to voice his disappointment with the tone of certain remarks, including the introduction to the entire discussion; (b) email to Dr. Faust since the discussion has been markedly positive.

This accords with our SWNIDish reading of the Chronicle story. We note several remarks that suggest less than full willingness to engage the logic of Dr. Faust's observations and analogies. We leave it to our insightful and gentle readers to note these for themselves. We will note that citing Ephesians 5:19, specifying singing and making melody in the heart, to support a no-instruments position both illogically identifies the worshiper's internal state with one expression (singing with the voice) while excluding all others.

But we note as well that per the article at least one FHU student found his heart strangely warmed to consider alternative points of view.

We note further what is at stake in the kind of hermeneutics and ecclesiology that spawns the instrumental debate, specifically citing another story on the Chronicle web site. To wit: noninstrumental churches of Christ in developing countries are being split over such issues as whether singing during the observance of the Lord's supper is acceptable or whether congregations can send money to other organizations.

We cite with enthusiastic SWNIDish approval this remark, quoted in the article, from Dick Stephens, an a capella brother ministering in Malawi, one country hit by such controversies, who provides what we think is decisive perspective:

All of this is going on while people are starving to death, babies are dying of malnutrition . . . villages are not hearing the gospel and Muslims are trying to make deep inroads in Africa.

We fail to believe that the Lord Jesus died for the sake of establishing a church that would even consider debating such matters as whether to use instruments or send money from a congregation to an organization.

It is, of course, sharply ironic that some who strive to uphold the heritage of Thomas and Alexander Campbell should perpetuate the very thing that spawned their rethinking of established ecclesiologies, i.e. the exportation (from Scotland to Northern Ireland and then to America, in the Campbells' experience) of unspeakably minor church controversies and the demand that exclusionary positions be taken by all on said controversies..

And Don't Miss . . .

Peggy Noonan's column this week, which chronicles several recent incidents of leftists' bullying into silence the expression of views dissenting with the left, and which in closing asks the left to ask the question,

Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.

Strickland Warns of Blackwell's "65 Percent Solution"; SWNID Warns of Strickland's Slavish Devotion to Public Employee Unions

Yesterday's big news in Ohio's gubernatorial campaign was an event staged by Ted Strickland's handlers to bring the affable and vacuous Democrat together with fellow party members and representatives of teachers' unions to denounce Ken Blackwell's proposal that schools be directed to spend at least 65% of their budgets on classroom instruction.

All this, of course, is part of a very consistent elements of Strickland's campaign: the labeling of Ken Blackwell as a dangerous extremist. But more than that, it's a very consistent part of Strickland's politics: slavish devotion to the agenda of unions representing public employees.

Strickland, we undertand, has a 100% voting record with AFSCME, the major union of public employees who aren't teachers. Yesterday's event puts him in good stead, where he probably was already, with the AFT and NEA, the unions that stand for additional funding of the educational status quo in public schools. Restrictions like Blackwell's would stymie the career path of teachers looking to leave the classroom for the many administrative jobs created every year by the public education bureaucracy. The unions won't have that. So Strickland won't either.

At the risk of causing offense (like we care?), we will speak as an educator and administrator, albeit not in elementary and secondary education, but also as a consumer of elementary and secondary education. The idea that anyone would find onerous a requirement that less than two pennies out of three in a school's budget should go into actual instruction is to us breathtakingly absurd.

Education is about teaching. The longer we do it, the more we know it. That's why we refuse to quit teaching even though we administer. The suits need to be minimized; the teachers maximized.

But in that notion, there is something to fear, says Strickland, mouthpiece of the education trade union.

Fear Ken Blackwell, the extremist candidate who thinks that schools should spend almost two thirds of their money teaching!

Embrace Ted Strickland, the friend of the common AFT member, who will leave no public employee behind!

Price Hill Turnaround Near?

Price Hill, location of our Institution of Higher Education, has many current liabilities. But among its significant assets is the Price Hill Civic Club, a dedicated group of locals who band together to promote the general welfare.

Yesterday that meant giving Mayor Mallory a tour of "what's working" in Price Hill, namely:

• razing vacant buildings
• condemning and razing buildings that house nuisance tenants who produce lots of police runs
• local businesses with commitment and vision that serve the community
• surveillance cameras (Glenway Avenue will soon have thirty)

We vigorously applaud every such effort to improve this part of Our Fair City, as well as other parts. Keeping in mind the fundamental problem in Cincinnati of aged, substandard housing stock, we think that efforts like these can improve the quality of life for Cincinnati's citizens.

We'll go so far as to say that Price Hill is about to turn around. We concede that the turnaround may take awhile, like our lifetime plus ten years. But the fundamental factors that led to the neighborhood first being settled, i.e. its proximity to the central commerce and transportation center of the city, will make it resilient.

Insipid, Shrill and Bitter, Air America Now Bankrupt

It should come as no shock that Air America has filed for bankruptcy reorganization. The tone of programming was so uniformly awful, even repulsive, only the most dedicated liberals (yes, that's an oxymoron) could possibly listen.

Air America programming is everything that liberals think that conservative talk radio is, few of them having actually listened to conservative talk radio. Air America hosts are shrill and mean, dishing out ad hominems like M&Ms. Themes are utterly predictable and even more repetitive. The best conservatives manage to mix up some humor, much of it self-depreciating, and do cultural analysis along with politics. Air America is wall-to-wall screeds about the stupidity of President Chimpy W. Hitliar, Fascist Mastermind Dick Cheney, Evil Genius Karl Rove, and the end of constitutional freedoms.*

Most frustrating to us about Air America was the utter failure of Al Franken to manage a single funny moment. Franken once worked for the biggest comedy show on TV. Stuart Smalley, Franken's signature character, was amusing, back in the day. But if Franken was even grin-inducing once, it seems to have escaped the attention of all of America--Air, Ground, Water and Other Elements.

No, we didn't listen to Air America consistently. We lacked the fortitude. But many gentle readers would be surprised to know how many times we punched it up to give it a chance. And every time we found it had all the intellectual depth of a high school pep rally, but even less imagination and humor.

We believe that successful liberal talk radio is remotely possible. It will take something inventive enough to hook listeners of all persuasions, drawing not just conservatives from their own talkers but liberals from the rap and rock that presently numb their minds.

Maybe there's a funny liberal out there who can do it.

But we know this. Bill Maher, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams and Al Franken need not apply. None have been funny for years.

Maybe Sacha Baron Cohen?

_______________
*We don't know how Air America hosts square the end of freedom with their ability to broadcast freely, even when losing mass amounts of money.

For This Effect, We Can't Pick the Cause

We've been waiting to see whether the buzz would grow about the revelation that Senate Minority Leader and aspiring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accidentally misreported or deliberately hid a major real estate deal in Vegas.

It hasn't. But the Foley scandal still has legs.

Why? Here are the possibilities:

• Sex is more interesting than real estate.
• Democrats are expected to be dishonest, so Reid's story isn't news; whereas Republicans are expected to be moral, so the Foley scandal is news.
• The MSM desperately wants a Democrat Congress, or at least a competitive election.

We just can't decide.

Most Depressing Political News Since 1996: Warner Bows Out

Dimmed today were the prospects of our two-party system providing the body politic with a reasonable choice for Chief Executive in 2008. To wit: Mark Warner, the only moderate Democrat of electable stature, is dropping out of the presidential race.

Warner has been viewed as the most likely alternative to Hillary for the Dems. Now that mantle falls on the unlikely shoulders of Evan Bayh. Bayh has served terms as governor and senator in the Hoosier State (motto: the place you pass through between Ohio and Illinois). His primary electable characteristics have been good looks, an incoherent political philosophy that passes itself off as moderate pragmatism, and most importantly his magic surname inherited from his father, an Indiana senator of dubious reputation and accomplishment, but more importantly still from his mother, regarded by naive Hoosier voters as a secular saint for her loyalty to her philandering husband (sound familiar?) while undergoing treatment and ultimately succumbing to breast cancer.

Bayh will not play successfully on any national stage. Known in the Indianapolis legal community, amongst whom he practiced law before joining the family political business, as "Ken" to his wife's "Barbie," Bayh will be like John Edwards without the ideas (and if you're asking "what ideas?" about John Edwards, you get the idea).

So the Dems will either nominate Hillary or someone further to her left (and if you're asking if something to the left of Hillary is possible, you get the idea, but here you should shudder).

This almost certainly assures the republic of another Republican chief executive, unless the Rs make the mistake of nominating someone so closely identified with the Religious Right that he can be successfully tarred with the extremist brush. And since George Allen appears to have completed his self-destruction, that's likely not in the cards, if it ever was.

But SWNID, by all accounts a Republican sympathizer, does not rejoice in this outcome. The Rs desperately need the sharpening of their thinking and communication that comes from having nuanced opposition. That prospect evaporated today.

Step Toward John 17:21 Fulfillment to Be Taken Saturday

Cincinnati Christian University President, most recent North American Christian Convention Past President, and friend of SWNID David Faust will be participating in a "Contemporary Discussion" (translation: debate, but with niceness) at Freed-Hardeman University. His discussion partner (translation: debate opponent, but a nice one), will be Dr. D. Ralph Gilmore of FHU.

The topic of the discussion is “What Will It Take to Be ‘Together Again?’” Of course, the central issue is the use of instruments in worship. Dr. Gilmore expresses his desire for unity this way:

Although there are other differences in addition to the instrument, most would recognize that it is a major, if not the major, barrier. I would like for us to be able to worship together again and work together again. And I would like to think that, for the sake of unity, they (the Independent Christian Churches), would lay the instrument aside.

Gentle readers who would like to become gentle listeners for this occasion can do the streaming audio thing via the FHU web site. Discussion begins at 9 a.m. CDT (10 a.m. EDT, or 1400 GMT, for our global audience) on Saturday, October 14.

If You Can't Trust a Communist Monomaniacal Dictator, Who Can You Trust?

The Washington Times (owner: Sun Myung Moon) is reporting leaked preliminary intelligence that the NoKo nuke may have been a no-go.

It takes a high-explosive charge to compress the critical mass of a nuke to make the fission. And the preliminaries suggest that the high explosives went off, but the nuke didn't. In other words, Kim's bomb may have been a dud, rather like his missiles.

It's hard to believe that Kim's command economy is having difficulty with quality control, let alone the honesty of its publicity. And who wants to trust a South Korean cult leader to report on a North Korean cult leader?

But it could be true. Just maybe.

Osama and Franco: Still Dead?

We remain intrigued that the Osama-died-of-typhoid rumor has had no clear affirmation or denial, particularly from Osama.

Could it be that the old man is dead? And that the Bushies know it? And that the Evil Genius Karl Rove is waiting to reveal it as his crowning October surprise (after having engineered the whole NoKo nuke thing to get Foley off the front page)?

No, no, it couldn't be. If Osama were dead, CNN would tell us.

Ohio Gov: Strickland Holds Shrinking Lead, Blackwell Needs to Tell His Story

Underreported this weekend is the Rasmussen poll that shows one third of Ted Strickland's lead over Ken Blackwell having evaporated in the same week that the Foley scandal threatened Republicans nationwide.

That's how you tell the story when you want Blackwell to win. If you like Strickland, you note that Strickland remains twelve points up in Rasmussen and well ahead in every other poll.

Nevertheless, in our SWNIDish opinion, Strickland is not the sure thing that many think. But he will be unless Blackwell starts campaigning smart. To wit: the requisite mudslinging (and wouldn't you like to get the fees commanded by that one nicotine-larynxed guy who does all the voice-overs for the political hit jobs?) needs to be accompanied by consistent, repeated telling of the Ken Blackwell ghetto-to-statehouse story.

Lincoln didn't win by saying that Douglas was "bad for America's working families." His people told his story as a poor boy who split rails, read by firelight, copied lessons with a charred stick on a shovel, and studied law when he discovered Blackwell's law text in an unclaimed barrel that he bought for salvage. (Note that they stopped there and didn't finish with his role as corporate counsel for the Illinois Central Railroad.)

Voters at present are likely dissatisfied with all available choices. At this stage, their commitments are plastic. Meanwhile, Blackwell has one fine story to tell. If enough people know it, they'll find it hard to vote against him. Who doesn't see the appeal in the hard-working black kid from Cincinnati's West End who goes to college on a football scholarship, marries his high school sweetheart, and rises through the ranks to run for the chance to be Ohio's first African-American governor?

In four weeks, Blackwell may be able to convince enough voters that he's that person, and not the devil who has stolen elections, connived with the corrupt Republican establishment, and will bankrupt Ohio on the way to more stolen elections and more corruption.

Eerie Political Coincidence

Blogger "Benny," a John Edwards acolyte (and we'd guess that more people know the meaning of "acolyte" than remember John Edwards), objects to our recent assertion that the only thing keeping John Edwards from being forgotten entirely is the inability of Kerry supporters to remove the bumper stickers from their Saabs and Volvos. In his words:

I guess the professor forgot that John Edwards was in Cincinnati not too long ago doing a minimum rally and to help do a private fundraiser for John Cranley, who is running for Congress.... I guess Seldom Wrong is wrong here.

Sorry, Benny, but you just proved our point. Who knew that Edwards was here? No one! Who cared? Even fewer! Minimum rally indeed! What if they gave a rally and no one came? What do you call such a rally? Absolute minimum rally.

But here's what's really weird. We compare this picture of Edwards at the Cranley event ...

... to this one of an acquaintance of SWNID.

Lay aside the shifty eyes and telltale red nose of the former, and allow for the extreme wholesomeness of the latter, and you've got identical cousins separated at birth. It's all much, much too close for comfort.

Kim's Nukes: Bad for the USA, Awful for China

The North Korean nuclear test (motto: "the story that will make them forget Mark Foley") is being spun as a diplomatic and military dilemma for the United States. And it is.

But it's worse, in our SWNIDish opinion, for China.

Here's why:

• China used to be the only nuclear power in east Asia. Now there are two. Soon there will almost certainly be more, as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea will have to consider getting bombs in response.
• North Korea is the exclusive ally of China. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are loyal friends of the United States, not to mention shining examples of the benefits of capitalist democracy.
• These developments will drastically alter the balance of power on the Pacific Rim against China for the foreseeable future, while in the long run strengthening the position of the democracies, led by the US.
• If the Chinese try to shut down Kim and his boys (and any sanctions against the North Koreans will be as effective as China wants them to be), they'll have massive hordes of North Korean refugees in China. Worse for China, if North Korea collapses and is reunified with South Korea, the Chinese will face a stronger regional rival without a real ally in the region. So there's not much that they can do to change things.

This is, of course, also bad for North Korea (everything is, really). They're down to their last friend, and they just alienated that friend.

With all the sobering and frightening reality of nuclear proliferation, it's worth remembering that even nutcases like Kim have never had the nerve to risk nuclear retaliation. So while we'd prefer that he didn't have access to the technology, it can't, as Baroness Thatcher observed, be uninvented. He's got it, but that's worse for some governments than it is for the United States.

So what can the Chinese do? We wonder whether it lies within their grasp to foment a coup d'etat in Pyongyang, overthrow the nutcase Kim, and install a domesticated, pro-Chinese regime that will renounce nukes in exchange for a mutual defense pact with China.

Could this be why they put Jack Bauer on that freighter?

Ig Nobel Prizes: More Interesting Than Nobel Prizes

In this season of Nobel Prize announcements, we celebrate the recipients of the Ig Nobel awards. Given for research that "first makes people laugh, then makes them think," the Ig Nobels this year include research on why spaghetti breaks into multiple pieces, why dung beetles are really finicky eaters, and how high pitched sounds can be used to alert or repel teenagers with no effect whatsoever on adults.

Read about the Ig Nobels and be amazed at the breadth of human curiosity.

Light in the Darkness on College Admissions

Inside Higher Education (motto: "the cheekier, cheaper alternative to the Chronicle of Higher Education) is carrying a suitably cheeky and cheap article on the absurd state of elite college admissions. The author is Peter van Buskirk, a consultant and former admissions officer who, along with unsurprisingly touting his consulting services, makes some superbly trenchant remarks.

Here's one that applies to more than college admissions:

Rather, the frenzy that engulfs colleges and consumers alike is the product of a pervasive cultural phenomenon — a potent cocktail of social, emotional and behavioral ingredients that produces neurotic obsessions with having or being the “best.”

Indeed, ours has become a culture that values the best appliances, the best cars, the best vacations — and the best colleges, often at the expense of good values that would be more appropriate choices. And for each critical distinction we need to make, there is a consumer guide replete with research and rankings to make our jobs “easier.” In this instance, families are eager to buy what colleges are selling especially at colleges that hold the right amount of cachet. Much like a cultural virus, the frenzy associated with having or being the best has come to both transcend and permeate college campuses with tell-tale symptoms of paranoia and bold ambition.

And here's one that warms our SWNIDish heart:

Moreover, the propensity for focusing on top-tier colleges suggests that academic quality is reserved for a select few institutions (another of the fallacies that feeds the frenzy). Regrettably, a lot of the good and encouraging news of events taking place elsewhere in education fails to make the headlines. Educational success stories at colleges that lack cachet and innovations taking place at institutions outside of the limelight don’t seem to have the sex appeal to draw against the storied courtships involving the recruitment of students to elite institutions.

Unscientific Political Indicator Revealed

We hereby offer a word of caution about prognostications concerning the upcoming election. The basis of our warning is our use of a vitally important but wholly unscientific political indicator, one that we fancy is of our own making, though we are sure that someone else thought of it first.

We call it the Personal Political Endorsement Scale, or PPES. In sum, this scale measures the number of political yard signs, bumper stickers and buttons that voters display. Lots of these indicate lots of interest in the election. Few of these indicate little interest.

The SWNIDish neighborhood is considered a bellwether for Cincinnati politics, as its demographics match almost exactly those of the city as a whole. One generally sees signs and stickers for candidates of both parties at all levels in many yards and on many cars.

And we see virtually none these days. There's one yard in the neighborhood with a Blackwell sign (not the SWNID household, we are ashamed to say), and one with signs for the entire Democrat ticket (a house that always displays multiple signs for the Ds, and it's not the mayor's). Otherwise, there's nothing. "For sale" signs vastly outnumber political signs, and there aren't that many houses for sale, either.

We see the same around Our Fair City. Usually in Cincinnati, yard signs sprout like dandelions. But there are few to none compared to the typical crop. The same can be said for bumper stickers. There are more leftover 2004 stickers (the only thing preserving public memory of John Edwards, by the way) than current ones.

So the PPES is low. And low PPES means low interest in the election among voters.

And that's not surprising. First, the party in power looks tired and maybe a little creepy, but the party out of power looks incompetent. That hardly inspires voters. Then, advertising is so uniformly and predictably negative (thank you, McCain-Feingold, for cleaning up our campaigns), who but the rabidly committed would want to vote for either party's candidates?

So, remembering that 2004 had a remarkably high turnout, we predict a low turnout for 2006.

And that means that everything will depend on which side gets more of their folks out to vote.
The "ground war," as the professionals like to call it, will decide this one.

You heard it here first.

Three Must-Reads

Lilies don't need to be gilded. Certain essays don't need explanation or comment. Today we recommend three, with the briefest of tasty quotations:

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman succinctly updates the world on the economic lesson of Hong Kong and how it is prospectively being unlearned by the island's Chinese masters. From the gargantuan granddaddy of the free market: "The ultimate fate of China depends, I believe, on whether it continues to move in Hong Kong's direction faster than Hong Kong moves in China's.... [Hong Kong] provides a lasting model of good economic policy for others who wish to bring similar prosperity to their people."

Reagan and Bush 41 staffer Peggy Noonan reviews Bob Woodward's State of Denial and--to her own surprise--reviews it appreciatively. From the impeccable Ms. Noonan: "History is human."

The always necessary Charles Krauthammer lays to rest the debate about the leaked and released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. His aphorism, which he humbly styles a truism: "During all wars we are by definition less safe -- and the surest way back to safety is victory."

The truth, as a strange character once said, is out there.

Americans Are Better Off Than They Were

We've had a bit of a discussion on this blog about whether incomes for most Americans are getting better, worse, or staying the same.

Today we defer on this subject to Bruce Bartlett at National Review Online. Bartlett notes that the most recent reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the percentage of American households with incomes below $25k/year (2005 dollars) has fallen to 27.1 from 27.6 in 2004 28.9 in 1995 (the glorious Clinton expansion), 30.5 in 1985 (the glorious Reagan expansion) and 33.1 percent in 1975 ("Memories of the Ford Administration" and Whip Inflation Now).

Meanwhile, households with annual incomes above $75k in 2005 dollars are at 28.3 percent in 2005, previously at 27.9 (2004 24.4 (1995) 20.2 (1985) and 14 (1975).

So what has made wages stagnate by other measures? The answer seems to be that a larger percentage of labor costs are devoted to benefits, especially health benefits.

And all of this does not account for the falling costs of many goods, especially those that utilize microelectronics or are produced with the same.

So Bartlett explains what this may mean politically:

In short, despite all the talk about the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor, the fact is that the percentage of households with low incomes has fallen and the percentage of those with high incomes has risen. This is perhaps the main reason why Democrats have had trouble getting traction on the income issue: There are fewer people in the income class to which they historically have directed their message. The more people there are in the $75,000-plus income category the more people there are who are receptive to the Republican message of low taxes.

And we say it's little wonder that Sherrod Brown's attempt to run on William Jennings Bryan-style economic populism isn't going very far. Even in blue-collar Ohio, there aren't enough people with declining standards of living to believe that Robin Hood economics are the way forward.

Foleygate Heats Up, But Who Turned on the Gas?

SWNID goes to church on Sunday mornings, so we never see the Sunday morning religious ritual of the political chattering classes, the Sunday AM interview shows. But we hear the post mortem of said shows, and it seems that yesterday they were all about whether the Rs had acted swiftly or surreptitiously when they learned about Rep. Foley's creepy emails to congressional pages.

As always, we'll weigh in with an opinion or two. Maybe three.

• If Wheaton alum Dennis Hastert had information that clearly indicated Foley's inappropriate interest in congressional pages and didn't act on it immediately, then he and his associates haven't learned what it means to be a Republican (first, that you have to have higher standards than Ds, and second, that Ds force you to live up to those higher standards and will clobber you if you stumble). And if that proves to be the case, it will be time for a cleaning out of the Republican leadership in the House.

• If this had happened to a Democrat, he would now be portrayed as a victim. We'd be told that the pages were over the legal age of consent, that the media and the Republicans were distorting what was going on, that the whole tone of discussion was homophobic and would encourage discrimination and hate crimes, that Rs were implying that all homosexuals are pedophiles and all pedophiles are homosexual, that Foley was being "outed," that the Rs are losing on policy so they're trying to make sex an issue again, that Foley and others only cruise for young men via email because the Rs create such a hostile atmosphere for homosexuals. It's worth remembering that Barney Frank (D-Cambridge, MA, including Harvard and MIT) remains a prominent member of the House Democratic Caucus sixteen years after he admitted using his influence as a congressman with the probation officer for one Stephen Gobie, a prostitute with whom Frank had consorted.

• If it is true that left-wing organizations have had information about Foley for months and have been sitting on it to maximize impact on the November elections, it won't look good for either party's commitment to protecting America's young people.

Update: Hastert insists that the really damaging information, the IMs, weren't known to him or others in the Republican leadership. He's demanding an investigation of who knew what when and why they took so long to notify anyone and why the someone was ABC News. So this will now become another kabuki theater about a reporter not revealing sources.

Boo, Blasphemous Index of Pre-Rapture Events! Hooray, Bible!

Our SWNIDish attention was recently drawn to the "Rapture Index." Styled by its author as a "Dow Jones Industrial Average of end time activity" or better as a "prophetic speedometer," the Rapture Index quantifies forty-four categories of events seen by its author--with many of his dispensationalist brethren, we assume--as precursors of the Secret Rapture of the Church and the beginning of the Great Tribulation.

We observe the following:

• The index currently stands at 156, which falls under the "fasten your seat belts" designation. We're not sure how effective seat belts will as protection in case of "rapture."
  
• The all-time low of 57 (well within the "slow prophetic activity" range) was December 12, 1993. We conclude that Clinton was more effective than anyone had imagined.
• The all-time high of 182 was September 24, 2001. We think we remember what brought that on.

So why do we boo this spiritual resource? Well, we think it's maybe mildly blasphemous to claim to do what Jesus said he couldn't. We admit that the author of the Rapture Index insists that he is in no way predicting the event. Rather, he says, his index indicates whether we are moving toward the end slowly or quickly. Well, we're not sure how that business of time moving fast or slowly actually works. So we're back to the conclusion that this thing offers at least a weak, relative prediction of the day and hour that Jesus says he himself doesn't know.

We'll leave it to others to repeat again all that is wrong exegetically and theologically with the dispensational eschatology that grips so many American evangelicals. But we will here assert our own Index of Jesus' Return.

Our scale runs from zero to one thousand. And it currently stands at one thousand. The world is a mess, what with wars, disasters, genocide, disease, crime, hatred, persecution and the designated-hitter rule. So the index is maxed out.

Actually, it's been stuck on one thousand for roughly a couple of millennia now, thanks to the perpetually messed-up state of things.

The God of Israel is fed up with the world. And he has been for a very long time. He won't tolerate it forever. All that keeps him from ending this mess now is his desire that all should turn to him.

"So when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates."

Rep. Foley Resigns Before Most People Know Why

Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned today just hours after ABC reported that he had sent sexually explicit instant messages to female congressional pages under the age of 18. Ironically, Rep. Foley was chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

We observe again two truths, the first seemingly permanent:

1. Politicians tend to be a corrupt lot, regardless of party or ideology.
2. Republicans, whatever their faults, have for the last couple of decades expected those proved to be bad apples to quit immediately, whereas Democrats have proved determined to rally around the indicted forever.

This episode raises to a new level Republican immediacy on dealing with scandals. Meanwhile, we remind Rep. William Jefferson to call his lawyer.

Update: Thanks to JB in CA for the correction: later reports note that the person in question was a 16-year-old boy and the medium in question was email.

Thanks to Guys Like Calvin Johnson

Yesterday my place of Christian Higher Education honored our city's public safety officers for their self-sacrificial work in serving others.

Today the Cincinnati Enquirer does the same with a fine article about Calvin Johnson, police sergeant at Cincinnati's District 3 (including CCU's Price Hill neighborhood) and head football coach at Western Hills High School.

We commend the article to gentle readers and commend Mr. Johnson to everyone.

Weirdest Combination of 2006: U. of Phoenix Accused of Pro-Mormon Bias

Of all the things we've ever seen together, we never thought we'd see these.

The University of Phoenix, the Wal-Mart of higher education, is the object of a class-action suit alleging religious bias.

It's pro-religious bias.

Pro-Mormon bias, to be exact.

The allegation is that employees in Phoenix's admissions office get better treatment if the are Mormons. Seems that a lot of the admissions executives are Mormons, and they're perceived as favoring their brothers and sisters in the faith.

So we nominate the combination of the University of Phoenix and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints as the Weirdest Combination of 2006. And we invite gentle readers to suggest other weird combinations.

National Intelligence Estimate: Machiavelli Redux

The Ds' attempt to disarm the Rs with a leak of the National Intelligence Estimate has backfired. Bush's declassification of a section of the report has turned the NIE into another Republican weapon against the Democrat rhetoric of surrender and appeasement.

Of course, all the NIE does is note that the Iraq war has inspired more to join the jihadists (the Ds' talking point) but that prevailing in Iraq will seriously reverse jihadist recruitment (the Rs' point). Both parties have their points here, but the Rs win politically because their point is grounded in hope while the Ds are grounded in despair.

There remains nothing new under the sun. This question is a variant on Machiavelli's classic question whether the prince is better off being loved or being feared (note to present and former students of SWNID: "yes" is often a good answer to questions with "or," and Machiavelli notes that being both loved and feared is the most excellent outcome, but he avers that both are not always possible). The answer is that for the prince love is nice but fear is necessary. Bush's comment that the Ds' reading of the NIE leak is "naive" reminds us that the adjective is synonymous with "not having read and understood Machiavelli."

The fact that this sophisticated intelligence document merely reflects a classic work of Western literature leads us to agree with the sentiment, though not every aspect of the diction, of Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

We should probably also fire whoever wrote this -- for producing a meaningless document full of empty bureaucratic twaddle. If the jihadists win, they'll have more prestige! And they will probably use the internets [sic]! Do tell. [Blasphemy deleted], if this is the quality of intelligence we're getting, no wonder we haven't won yet.

But there are some intelligence data out there, at least in raw form. The NY Sun has published a report of a letter from a senior Al-Qaida operative, captured with al-Zarqawi's ambush in June, loudly decrying the weakness of Al-Qaida and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll see if that other paper in NY picks up on this, giving permission to the rest of the media to cover it.

On Tempers Real and Actual

For those who think that Hot Springs' most famous citizen simply lost his temper with Chris Wallace, Vast Right Wing Conspirator Bill Kristol has an alternative.

Kristol suggests that the calculating Clinton blew up on Wallace to (a) help Democrats, who are perceived as weak on terror, in the November elections; (b) help Hillary; (c) intimidate other reporters who might ask the same questions.

Remembering that no politician takes a breath without calculating its political impact, least of all this one, we think Kristol might be on to something.

We just don't think it will work. Clinton's act is getting old. The very sight of him reminds too many people of things they'd like to forget, just as the sight of Bush does for many others.

That's probably bad for all Democrats, but it's especially bad for one who's had a lot of bad news lately.

UC Named Official NCAA Football Team of Democrat Party

After consecutive losses to Ohio State and Virginia Tech in which they unexpectedly led until finally succumbing to superior talent, the University of Cincinnati football team has defined itself as the Team that Loses by Less Than Expected.

And so it comes as no surprise today that Democrat chairman Howard Dean has named UC's football team the Offical NCAA Football Team of the Democratic Party.

"Understand this point," said Dean. "No one expected UC to do as well as they did. All the momentum lies with them. The American people have had enough of these big-time college football programs with their recruiting scandals and players who don't graduate. Right-wing media sportscasters may represent them as the best teams in America, but Americans know otherwise.

"Just like Paul Hackett, just like John Kerry, UC has beaten everyone's expectations as to how well they'll do," Dean explained. "That's the Democrat way. It's our strategy to retake the Congress and the White House, by continually losing elections by smaller margins than expected."

Asked to comment about the Democratic Party similarly endorsing an NFL team, Dean replied, "The first three weeks of the season leave us in a quandary on this point. In the NFL, we're looking for a former champion, like the Democrats, that can't reclaim its former glory. So we don't know whether to go with the Pittsburgh Steelers or the New England Patriots."

Short Take on Baylor God-Poll

Gentle readers interested in a succinct summary of the recent Baylor University poll of Americans' views of God, with cautious analysis, will find it at, of all places, the Christian Science Monitor. It's rife with the CSM's usual pale optimism, but leaves room for important observations like these:

The study found that even people within the same denomination hold different concepts of God - which may explain schisms over dogma. Evangelicals and black Protestants, however, hold the most uniform views (a majority sees God as authoritarian).

It also found that the "four Gods" track more closely with political and social attitudes than do traditional indicators such as church attendance. The study found, for instance, that the closer one moves toward the authoritarian model, the more likely one finds abortion and gay marriage are "always wrong."

Sociologist of religion Rodney Stark got clobbered a few years ago for suggesting that in the study of religion, what matters most is how adherents view god (with N. T. Wright, we use lower case here deliberately, since human views of deity[ies] vary so greatly that it's absurd to assume that everyone is really talking about the Same Being when we reference many or all such views). That such patent verities prove controversial reminds us of how much more significant the Baylor poll is than, say, the generic party-preference polling that occupies considerable media attention these days.

The Take on Slick W's Finger-Wag

Chris Wallace's interview with ex-POTUS and current rock star William Jefferson Clinton is now a matter of public record and public discourse.

To those like gentle reader Micah who feel that Clinton did his best to get Osama and has been mischaracterized by right-wing opponents, we urge a reading of Howard Kurtz, who does media and politics at WaPo, and Byron York, White House correspondent for the National Review.

The former is no right-winger, but he happily chronicles Chris Wallace's innocence of the charge of "right-wing hit job." The latter relies not on his own avowedly partisan evaluation but the sympathetic chronicle of Richard Clarke, Clinton national security staffer famous for resigning in protest from the Bush administration. Per Clarke, Clinton avoided confronting the military about its Osamic recalcitrance, to put it mildly.

Note well what we say here: neither President and neither party was sufficiently active against Islamofascism before 9/11. What bugs us and others on this score is not Clinton's failure but his incessant self-righteous posturing and self-serving, moralistic accusations against anyone who disagrees with him or suggests that he might have been less than fully correct about everything. He lacks standing on such matters.

Or more simply, we remember seeing that fat finger wagging at the camera when Clinton was in office, and it makes the same impression now that it did then.

Grim Reminder of the Past Also Welcome Reminder of Present

Fox News is showing a teaser, available also on YouTube, of its upcoming interview with St. William of Dogpatch. The specter of Slick W shaking his finger at the camera in moral indignation over the fecklessness of "right wingers" who dare criticize his presidential potency is, to say the least, a contrasting reminder of the fresh wind that has blown since January of 2001.

Latest Offense: NAE, YWAM Pray for Muslims

The AP is reporting this morning on Islamic reaction to a campaign initiated by Youth With a Mission and taken up by the National Association of Evangelicals to encourage Christians to pray for Muslims during Ramadan.

Predictably, the AP is noting that some Muslims are meeting the campaign with equanimity:

Jamal Badawi, an Islamic scholar and professor emeritus at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said he cannot deny Christians the right to pray for him, since he also prays that they embrace Islam.

But just as predictably, the bulk of reaction is reported to be negative:

Imam Yahya Hendi, Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University, said he believes that true followers of Jesus would not pray for conversion, but would instead demonstrate their faith through good works.

Kudos to AP reporter Rachel Zoll for making this important observation:

Like Christianity, Islam is a missionary faith, teaching that Muslims are following the true path and directing them to introduce others to their beliefs.

Of course, Muslims are not the only ones to express ironic objections to Christian missionary efforts. Just about all non-Christian groups do. Christianity is so essentially missionary, absolutist (cf. "For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human") and imperialistic (cf. "kingdom of God") that anything not manifesting those offensive characteristics is not Christianity, or at least isn't for very long.

But here's the irony about all objections to Christian missionary efforts, not just those offered by religious adherents who are also intent on converting the world. Let's say you don't believe in the Christian gospel. Maybe you're some kind of theist, maybe not. If not, you shouldn't think that there's anything persuasive about a god-message and certainly nothing effective about prayer. If you've got a god in your system, you still don't think that the Jesus-message is persuasive, and you certainly don't think that any god will listen to a prayer offered on Jesus' authority.

This, of course, is why Christian narratives are very glad to note the fearful responses offered by persistent unbelievers to Christian "proselytizing" (e.g. here and here). There's no need to fear something that has no power. The presence of fear is evidence of some belief in the power of the object of fear.

And so it is for offense as well. Especially when it comes from an adherent of a differently situated monotheistic, imperialistic, absolutist faith.

Christian readers should note well that this observation carries with it the corollary that the Christian faith provides a perpetual "fear not" for its adherents.

Great Promises Made Again

The AP this morning offers the following title: "Analysis: Democrats Vow to Get Tough." With less than seven weeks to go until the election, Ds are adopting the JFK playbook. Those who remember Camelot for what it was will remember that Kennedy ran against the ace anticommunist Nixon by (a) alleging a "missle gap" created by the Eisenhower administration that left the US underarmed against the nuclear USSR; (b) insisting that JFK would be a more effective anticommunist than Nixon.

The missle gap never existed, of course. In fact, it existed even less than WMD in Iraq, for Kennedy didn't even have the support of intelligence data, flawed or unflawed, for the allegation. As to the effectiveness of Kennedy the anticommunist, let's just say that in Cuba and Southeast Asia, things were much diceyer after 1961 than they had been under Ike's steady hand. We'll defer to Christopher Hitchens to evaluate further the Kennedy anticommunist legacy.

But enough history. Now to behavioral science. We nominate "Democrats vow to get tough" for permanent display in the Museum of Perpetually Unfulfilled Promises, along with:

• The check is in the mail.
• I'll respect you in the morning.
• Runs good.
• There's never been water in the basement.
• The assignment was done, but my computer crashed.
• I forgot to put in the quotation marks and footnotes before I printed the paper.
• I can quit anytime.
• Our tanning beds use the latest technology to eliminate the danger of skin cancer.
  
• Yes, we're living in the same apartment and sleeping in one bed, but we're not having sex.
• Using my system, you'll build wealth by buying real estate with no money down.
• That outfit does not make you look fat.
• I just drink socially.
• Our church is really committed to growth.
  
• Adding this formula to each tank of gas will improve your mileage by 20%.
• I just gamble for recreation.
  
• This machine will give you a lean, toned body in just fifteen minutes a day.
• I didn't inhale.
  
• I don't have a racist bone in my body.
  
• This is the natural product that the drug companies don't want you to know about.
• I can't believe that you're that old.
• I am not a crook.
  
• No, I don't think you're naive and credulous. What makes you think that?
  

Gentle readers may offer additional nominations in the comments. N.B. that brilliant singer/songwriter Dave Frishberg did all this first, and we swear that we didn't look up his classic lyrics until after we assembled our list.

French "Intelligence" Leak: Osama at Cave Temperature

The news services are abuzz with the rumor that terrorist godfather Osama bin Laden may have initialized biodegradation thanks to typhoid. If this is the case (and who knows what to make of a French intelligence [insert joke] leak of a Saudi intelligence report?), and if it can be to any degree confirmed in the next seven weeks, we hereby prognosticate the political fallout.

This will hurt the Ds on November 7 with their lukewarm strategy of nationalizing the congressional elections. Rs will say with some justification that their policy of dogged, unrelenting pursuit of terrorism continues to show incremental progress.

Ds will be forced to say something like: (a) the Rs didn't kill him; (b) the Rs made him an iconic martyr; (c) the Rs created a thousand Osamas before the first one died.

But this rhetoric will have little short-term effect because (a) dead is dead, and dying of typhoid in a filthy cave because one is not safe to travel and can't get even the most basic medical care is among the genuinely bad ways to die; (b) Osama is no less iconic dead than alive, and many more Muslims seem to be put off by the effects of Osama-style bloodletting these days; (c) the Ds drumbeat of defeatism takes awhile to root itself in the public consciousness by means of unrelenting repetition--longer than the time left before the election--and tends to be set back by any additional good news.

So while Republican and Bush administration strategy is to be unrelenting in the pursuit of terrorists, Democrat opposition strategy is to be unrelenting in interpreting every event as negative for US interests. Both strategies require considerable time to take effect. But the Rs have the advantage of being able to show tangible effects occasionally, while the Ds can only show passing effects in public opinion polls.

Dionne: Momentum with Rs

E. J. Dionne is perhaps the last surviving organism of what has been for a long time an endangered species: a readable and rational columnist from the political left. So it's no surprise that today he is writing that circumstances are now boosting Republican prospects in November.

However, we think Dionne is a little slow to pick up on how far things have gone up for the Rs and down for the Ds. He cites the generic-party-preference polls as still favoring the Ds and says that at this point in the cycle, that should mean that the Ds will win. But gentle readers will remember that polls of likely voters are now even, that generic party preference is never as important as sentiment toward the incumbent candidate in a congressional district, and that most polls since 1994 have overestimated Democrat voters (Zogby seems more or less alone in adjusting for this).

Still, we agree with Dionne that much will hinge on the direction of news just before the election (as in 1864, for instance). And so we affirm his closing paragraph:

The paradox is that the survival chances of a Republican Party led by a former oilman from Texas will depend in large part on whether gas prices keep falling.

D'Souza: Appeal to "Traditional" Muslims

Gentle reader Danny Joe points us to an essay by the always stimulating Dinesh D'Souza, who argues that, despite the reaction to the Pope's comments, most Muslims belong not to the "radical" category but the "traditional" category. The former D'Souza characterizes as violently opposed to Christianity, Judaism and the West, whereas the latter tends toward accommodation and toleration.

Hence, it must be the goal of Western policy not to drive people from the traditional camp to the radical one.

We agree. However, we're not sure that it's as simple a matter as merely avoiding inflammatory statements. The most egregious or foolhardy provocations should be eschewed. But radicals can find almost anything inflammatory, it seems.

With D'Souza we note that traditional Muslims have been reluctant to voice their dismay at the radicals' intolerance and violence. But from that we do not conclude that the traditionals have become radicals. Rather, we conclude that they are even more afraid of the bully of radicalism than is the West.

And for good reason. Traditionals who speak up will be the first targets. Just ask Salmon Rushdie.

We still conclude, therefore, that the only effective and humane response to radical Islamic intimidation is a robust assertion of human rights and the expansion of liberal democracy backed by the threat of military power. Only those Muslims who have the freedom from fear of reprisal can speak up for the containment of Islamic radicalism.

From another source we are reminded that not all Muslims are anti-American. Kosovar Muslims, liberated from the Serbs by American and Western European military force, recently held solemn public observances of the anniversary of 9/11. What makes them love America, and even William Jefferson Clinton? Liberty, and the nation that helped secure it for them.

Hanson Handicaps November: Advantage Rs

Proving once again that an education in the arts and sciences can pay off, classicist Victor Davis Hanson today offers a most trenchant analysis of November electoral prospects. Unlike just about every other person doing that, however, his is based not merely on the Republican rise in the generic Congressional preference polls or Bush's surging job approval figures. He's looking at circumstances and policies.

We quote briefly:

Democrats denounce the conduct of the war against terror. All well and good - but they also must explain how they would snatch Osama Bin Laden from his friendly tribes in Islamic and nuclear Pakistan. They rail against the Iraq war, but they cannot agree on when - not to mention whether - to depart. They lament appeasement of Iran, but they offer no military or political alternative to the ongoing multiparty negotiations.

The Democrats claim that Bush is not protecting us at home and is battling the wrong enemies abroad. But even of those sympathetic to such a message, how many believe that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are better suited to fight a war against terror? And where the president is vulnerable - illegal immigration, continual energy dependence, spiraling debt and profligate federal spending - the Democrats' solutions are even more at odds with public opinion.

Another Pronouncement on Papal Free Speech

We thank gentle reader MattC for forwarding to us a not-so-long-ago column by World's Smartest Person Christopher Hitchens, in which Hitch weighed in on the spineless response of Western governments, more specifically the Bush White House, to the violent response to the Danish cartoons. Response to the Pope has been, of course, no different, and underscores the need of the Islamists to keep their followers stirred up about something more or less constantly.

But to the sublime Hitchens. Here's a tasty morsel from the meal:

Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet who was only another male mammal is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

Hitch goes on to explain how, as a devotedly non-religious person, his principles derived from the Enlightenment still prevent him from reacting violently toward religious people.

We think that Hitch is unfair in lumping all religions together as sources of prejudice. Briefly we'll say that Christianity has at its core a message that critiques all human prejudices, including those harbored by Christianity's practitioners. But it would nevertheless be nice if religious people could extend the same treatment to nonadherents as Hitch does to adherents.

Chavez to UN: Bush "the Devil"; Bush to Demand Apology, Burn Chavez in Effigy

The AP reports from the UN that Hugo Chavez, buffoonish president of Venezuela, referred to American President George W. Bush as "the devil" in a speech to the General Assembly. The AP further reports that Chavez's remarks provoked giggles at some points and some applause from a few delegates at others. There's no indication as to whether Chavez's speech was better attended than the one yesterday by Iran's President Ahmadinejad, reportedly heard by only a few delegates willing to postpone their evening meal to learn that Iran's nukes are "peaceful" (like its rhetoric).

Meanwhile, SWNID has it from our usual sources that at the White House, President Bush has proclaimed that, following the example of Islamists, he will demand an apology from Chavez, express his disappointment at any statement of apology issued, adorn Marine One with signs reading "Chavez Go to Hell" and burn Chavez in effigy in the White House Rose Garden.

Rs Even With Ds in Gallup

It looks like James Carville may have to act on his remark that if Dems can win the Congress in 2006, they need to rethink the whole idea of their party.

Gallup reports that among likely voters, preference for Republicans and Democrats in Congress is even. Registered voters show a preference for Ds, but recent polls show that likelies matter more than registereds, and even the polls of likelies tend to overestimate Democrat votes.

Maybe worse for the Ds is that Bush's approval ratings are up to 44%, the highest in a year. So much for nationalizing the campaign. The Bushies look really tired these days, but momentum is pushing the elephants forward. Or maybe the donkeys are still stuck in the leftist mud.

Rs still may have some losses, and they've got a lot of work to do. But with lower energy prices, low unemployment, stable interest rates, and no plan from the left on Iraq or Islamofascism save surrender, it could be worse for the party in power.

Many November elections will be close. Turnout will be crucial. The Rs have been very strong on turnout for the last few cycles, conservative churches apparently having more ardent members than trade unions these days.

Still More Popapalooza

At WaPo Anne Applebaum offers this most apt observation about the reaction to Pope Benedict's quotation of a Byzantine emperor's negative remarks about violence in the religion of Islam:

But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech -- surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts -- and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News -- Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary -- "we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" -- but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or might have said if he had been given better advice.

All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them -- simultaneously?

As we've said before, Islamists are playing the role of Playground Bully, and the West continues to try to play the role of Nice Kid Who Avoids Trouble. The problem with that playground strategy is that it only works for awhile. Eventually, the Nice Kid has to tell everyone loudly and clearly that the bully is a bully and rally his resources to restrain the bully.

Nothing illustrates the failure to do that more than the West's criticism of the remarks of the gentle, scholarly priest who said something that riled up the bully. To change the metaphor, we've seen a lot of blaming of the victim in the abusive relationship here.

More on Benedict Versus Imams

The cartoon needs no comment. We thank the irrepressible Lucianne Goldberg for making it the lead picture on today's lucianne.com News Forum Home Page, always our first take on the morning's news.

Path to 9/11 Writer Speaks, But No One Listens

The Path to 9/11 appears to have been yet another ABC TV current-events dramatization about which the media huffed and puffed but which few actually watched.* Therefore, its legacy will depend more on the media buzz about its alleged unfairness to St. William of Dogpatch than its actual contents.

As one of the millions who found Manning v. Manning more interesting that September Sunday evening, I am therefore glad to read on OpinionJournal the testimony of the movie's writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, who offers compelling complaint that his own life and actions, not Clinton's, are the ones that have been misrepresented.

We tease gentle readers with a quotation:

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment.

And so the question now is really not whether the movie unfairly blamed Clinton (like there's anything bad that hasn't already been said about him). It is whether the American electorate has the political will to vote for continuing action against Islamist terror.

_______________
*Fellow middle-aged Americans will remember The Day After as probably the first of this genre.

Islamists to Pope: Say We Love Peace or We'll Kill You

By now we assume that everyone has made the observation that the Islamist reaction to Pope Benedict's quotation of an ancient, negative reference to Islam confirms the upshot of the quotation. But no one has made the observation better than the sublime Richard John Neuhaus over at First Things. With the warning the Neuhaus describes his rambling essay as a "potpourri," we still urge gentle readers to avail themselves of the entire contents.

In particular, we commend this alleged letter from a Muslim, quoted by Neuhaus:

Dear Pope Benedict XVI:

We Muslims are not at all violent, not that you said we were, but who needs to read your speech when the local imam, who hasn’t read it either, can tell us what it says? Since peaceful efforts to convince you of our commitment to peace have failed, we hope that the mass riots, burnt effigies, cries of “Death to the Pope!” and a smattering of grenades in assorted churches will exorcise every ghost of the rumor that we are violent, and prove that Mohammed pitched a tent big enough to include interfaith camels. It is hoped that you will rescind your position, even if it wasn’t yours to begin with, lest our peacefulness escalate even further.

And Neuhaus supplies historical perspective by various means, including this quotation from historian William Doino:

The deliberate, explicit targeting of innocent human beings, via terrorism, and the celebration of their deaths; the ritual execution, torture, and beheading of helpless hostages; the routine, often blatant violation of human rights, especially against women (including mutilation of their genitals)—it’s difficult to find anything quite like this throughout religious history, including the worst abuses of Christians, when you at least had other Christians, often popes, rebuking and condemning them for their crimes, and calling for reform, which eventually came about.

SWNID Doeppelgaenger Gets Taranto Hat Tip

Gentle readers are doubtless aware of our fealty to James Taranto, author and editor of the OpinionJournal daily feature "Best of the Web Today." We consider Taranto the model blogger, though what he produces is not, strictly speaking, a blog.

So we were pleased yesterday that our doeppelgaenger, a fellow with whom we share the same first name, was given a coveted Taranto hat tip (follow the title link and search carefully the "thanks to" list at the bottom). Specifically, he supplied to Taranto a link to a story with a humorously ambiguous title: "Rare White Buffalo Born To Wis. Farm For 3rd Time." Taranto supplied the clever (and biblical!) heading, "Try Explaining This to Nicodemus."

With this achievement, our doeppelgaenger says that he can now live with a contented sense of achievement.

Yesterday's "Best of the Web" is worth reading on its own for the clever list of views of God compiled by Taranto's devoted readers. E.g.:

• Common-law God. Since the beginning of time has assumed sole responsibility for Godlike acts, but has not legally been established as "God."
  
• Customer service God. "Press 1 for the Father, 2 for the Son, 3 for the Holy Spirit."
  Unitarian God. Nice enough guy, but doesn't really seem to believe in himself.
  
• Progressive God. Has outgrown the simplistic belief in his own literal existence, considers himself spiritual but not religious.
  
• Liberal God. Commands man to "be fruitless and divide"; is completely self-absorbed yet doesn't believe in himself; wants you to stop sinning but doesn't have an alternative; can't stop yelling, "Satan lied, people died!"
  
• Peace activist God. He's sending you to hell, but he supports the sinners!
  
• Cindy Sheehan God. Wants George W. Bush to tell him what "noble cause" his Son died for.
  
• Chairman God. Sets the agenda, but doesn't get involved in day-to-day operations.
  
• Micromanager God. Not a sparrow falls but he needs a report on why, with guidance on what to do about it.

Our doeppelgaenger can claim no credit for contributing any of these. He wishes he had.

Krauthammer: Understand Today What Will Happen Within a Year

Clear-eyed Charles Krauthammer today summarizes the costs of a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. They are high.

But he notes this as well, an apt point for all who believe that inaction is safe: "These are the costs. There is no denying them. However, equally undeniable is the cost of doing nothing."

The cost of doing nothing is (a) Iran's complete domination of the Middle East and its oil reserves; (b) nuclear weapons in the hands of a government with an ideology that makes their use attractive; (c) the consequent threat of annihilation for any city in the world.

How much time do we have to think about this? Krauthammer suggests one year.

So we suggest reading the article today.

PCUSA Misses Opportunities with New Trinity Language

We thank the many gentle readers who in recent weeks have sent us links to delicious items for our SWNIDish comments. We apologize that having an actual life outside of cyberspace prevents us from taking more of these opportunities.

But with a hat tip to JB in CA, here is an item, late but still significant, that we cannot ignore.

The Presbyterian Church in the USA has debated the use of revised language for the Trinity. Among suggestions are "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb," "Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace," "Fire That Consumes, Sword That Divides and Storm That Melts Mountains," "Giver, Gift and Giving," and "Speaker, Word and Breath." It is also reported that "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" is already in wide use.

So why would any Christian or quasi-Christian group want to do this? Reasons are as predictable as they are straightforward:

• God is bigger than our concepts and shouldn't be put in a box.
• Some people find the gender issues in Father and Son problematic.
• Other metaphors don't help people understand the Trinity.

So what of it? First, we're heartened that many Presbyterians simply think that the new language sounds dumb. We agree. It would appear that every clever, vaguely religious-sounding list of three is eligible for consideration. So how about these trios, all of them capable of connecting with some demographic segment?

• Earth, Wind and Fire
• Winkin', Blinkin' and Nod
• Moe, Larry and Curly
• Burger, Fries and Coke
• Tinker to Evers to Chance (bonus points for those who can identify the reference)
• John, Paul, George and Ringo (why not four?)

We invite gentle readers to leave their own suggestions in the comments.

As recently reported by LarkNews (attention: Satire Alert!), the PCUSA has launched an ambitious campaign to lose only 5% of its membership in the coming decade. Doubtless these additional innovations will aid that program.

The real problem with all this, however, is not public relations, at least not exactly. It's unChristian views of God.

As Elizabeth Achtemeier has argued cogently and decisively, Israel rejected predominantly feminine language for God because of its association with fertility cults. The whole "womb" thing demonstrates how right Achtemeier was that this tendency is not just an ancient one.

There's a different kind of problem with other formulations. Those that name physical objects tend toward pantheism. Those that name actions tend toward modalism. Those that arbitrarily lift elements of biblical narrative leave listeners with an understanding of biblical interpretation that is ... how to put this delicately? ... confused.

There's a reason that some of us think it's wise to stay close to what Christians have done from the beginning. Among many other things, it's a handy way to avoid really bad stuff.

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen!