Howard Dean on Meet the Press

Tim Russert interviewed Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean this morning on Meet the Press. To put the kindest interpretation on it, Mr. Dean was unimpressive.

The theme that the Democrats are determined to plant in the public unconscious is that Bush is a liar and his administration is corrupt. This is itself mendacious, but for liberals truth is a virtue only when it suits one's purposes. If lying about an opponent's own truthfulness wins political battles then lie one must.

Bush lied, Mr. Dean tells us without actually using the word, because he withheld evidence that Saddam wasn't involved in the 9/11 attack. Never mind that Mr. Bush never claimed that he was involved, the fact is that he never said that he wasn't, Mr. Dean asserts, and that's the same as lying.

Bush lied, Mr. Dean insists, when he said last Friday that the Senate had access to the same evidence of Iraq's WMD that the White House had. Not only that, but the administration discounted evidence that contradicted their claim that Saddam possessed WMD. Mr. Dean's first assertion was dispelled by Chris Wallace today on Fox News Sunday when he reminded Senator Jay Rockefeller that, if anything, the intelligence the White House was given was more strongly slanted toward the conclusion that Saddam indeed had WMD than were the reports that the senators were given. This makes Democratic support of the war even less defensible than the administration's.

The second assertion, if true, is perfectly reasonable. You have evidence that a known killer is threatening your family. He's acting in a threatening manner. He shoots at your car and acts in every way as if what you've heard is true. He has a motive, revenge, and is cultivating friendships with the sorts of people who have done you harm in the past. Reports are that he's working on building weapons that will put your children at very serious risk should he obtain them. He's possessed and used such weapons in the past and has already made an attempt on your father's life.

Yet there are dissenting reports that cast some doubt on his intentions. If you have the responsibility of protecting your family what is the most prudent course of action? You ask him to open his home for inspection but, although he does, he clearly acts as if he's hiding something. You ask the police to enforce the law and restrain him, but they do nothing. You yourself must either act now or wait until you're 100% certain one way or the other.

Unfortunately, you can never be 100% certain that he's not out to get you, and by the time you're 100% certain that he is planning to kill you, it will, of course, be too late for your family. To act is to risk. Which risk should you take, especially given that it was clear that the world would be a safer place with this man's power to harm taken from him? Should you assume that he is a threat or should you wait when waiting could be disastrous?

It would have been irresponsible for the President to have done anything other than what he did do, given what he believed to be true at the time, and most Democrats felt exactly the same way.

Democrats tell the truth, Mr. Dean avers, Republicans lie. He says this with a straight face despite the prevarications of both President and Mrs. Clinton and many other Democrats since 1992, and despite the fact that the only real evidence of Republican lying is that a relatively minor figure, Lewis Libby, was indicted, not convicted, of lying to a special prosecutor about something that wasn't even a crime.

Mr. Russert asked Mr. Dean to tell us what the Democratic alternative is to Republican policy on Iraq, social security, the deficit, and health care. But the DNC chairman refused to answer. Democratic policy, he declared, is to obstruct whatever the president tries to do. "Our job," he announced, "is to stop the administration." No matter what the Republicans seek to do, no matter how right it may be for the country, it must be opposed. The Republicans cannot be allowed to get any credit in the eyes of the public for anything.

Is it enough, Russert asked, to just say "Trust us"? Mr. Dean replied by assuring us that when the time comes the Democrats will have a plan. The party will present their specific proposals after they have retaken the House and the Senate. Of course, this leaves unanswered the question why anyone should vote them into office without knowing what they plan to do once there.

Meanwhile, Mr. Dean intones, their policy is to be honest, which explains, we suppose, why they're increasingly trying to work religious language into their speeches. Perhaps they have just rediscovered that they have in fact been evangelical Christians all along but they had, until the results of the last election came in, forgotten it.

When asked about Samuel Alito, Mr. Dean replied that the judge is "well outside the mainstream," but he wouldn't say whether the Democrats should filibuster him. He wants to wait until after the hearings to decide whether he ought to be blocked, but then why not wait until after the hearings to conclude that he's out of the mainstream? If Mr. Dean already knows that Judge Alito is bad for America what does he need hearings for? Don't waffle, Mr. Dean, be honest.

Mr. Dean implied that the Republicans were hypocrites for insisting that Alito be given an up or down vote when they wouldn't allow such a vote for Harriet Miers. This is perhaps the most absurd thing the DNC chairman said in the entire interview. Harriet Miers would have been given a vote had she not withdrawn her nomination. The Senate didn't withdraw her, nor did the President, as far as we know. Even if he did, withdrawing one's own nomination is hardly the same as having one's nomination blocked by the opposing party's filibuster. The President has the constitutional right to make nominations and to withdraw them, the Senate minority has no similar right to deny the nominee a vote by filibustering the nomination.

Howard Dean is in an unenviable position. He cannot say what he really believes or thinks because it would be fatal to Democratic aspirations, so, since he can offer the nation no reason to vote for the Democrats, he must try to win by convincing people that they should vote against the Republicans. The only way he can do that is by relentlessly proclaiming that Republicans are evil incarnate. Perhaps he'll succeed, but if he does it will only be because he has embodied in himself the vices he unfairly imputes to his adversary.

A Bold Prediction

Earlier this year I predicted the bankruptcy of General Motors. Actually, I should have included Ford also. A year ago GM's stock was selling for $45 per share. Today it's at $24. At the same time, Ford was at $15 per share but closed the week falling below $8. I wouldn't be surprised to see either file for bankruptcy and be bought by China.

Here's another prediction: US will be at war with Iran in less than a year.

Why? Well it might be because Iran is considered to be among the "axis of evil". It might be that evidence is discovered that implicates Iran in Iraq. Or, at least, these excuses could be used to justify the need for an offensive.

But there's another reason that we wouldn't hear about yet much more likely. From the link:

Iran's decision to set up an oil and associated derivatives market next year has generated a great deal of interest.

This is primarily because of Iran's reported intention to invoice energy contracts in euros rather than dollars.

The contention that this could unseat the dollar's dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated, but this has not stopped many commentators from linking America's current political disquiet with Iran to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB).

The proposal to set up the IOB was first put forward in Iran's Third Development Plan (2000-2005). Mohammad Javad Assemipour, who heads the project, has said that the exchange will strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and that it should be operational by March 2006.

...

It is primarily the US which stands to lose out from any move away from the petrodollar status quo, it is the world's largest importer of oil and a move away from invoicing oil in dollars to euros will undoubtedly have a negative effect on its economy.

Fewer nations would be willing to hold the dollar in reserve which would cause a significant devaluation and result in the loss seigniorage revenues. In addition, US energy-related companies stand to lose out as they will be unable to participate in the bourse due to the longstanding American trade embargo on Iran.

Saddam Hussein did essentially the same thing in Iraq when he demanded that Iraq oil be paid for with euros. Look where that got him.

Personally, I hope I'm wrong on both of these predictions because none of this would be good for the US.

Hit 'Em Again, Harder

President Bush has finally, mercifully, at long last, decided to defend himself and the legitimacy of the war against his political opponents who have smelled blood in the water for some time and feel free to say anything, no matter how much at variance with the truth, as long as it will weaken him still further.

The New York Times, for example, has been contemptible in its disregard for basic honesty in its journalism (see here).

But it's not just the Times. Bush has left a vacuum on matters relating to the war and its justification, and the dissemblers and opportunists have rushed in to fill it. As a result, his approval numbers until recently were in free fall.

As William Kristol says in a fine article in The Weekly Standard,

If the American people really come to a settled belief that Bush lied us into war, his presidency will be over. He won't have the basic level of trust needed to govern. His initiatives, domestic and foreign, will founder. Support for the war on terror will wane. The lie that Bush lied us into war threatens the Bush presidency in a way no ordinary political charge does. Bush needs to refute it--and to keep on refuting it--for his sake, for the nation's, and for the sake of the truth.

Bush believes in turning the other cheek to insults and falsehoods thrown his way. If he wants to do that in his personal life that's fine, but in politics turning the other cheek just gets you a broken jaw. The people who voted for him, the people who want to win the war on terror and succeed in Iraq, are depending on him to fight, not to concede the field to his enemies. He doesn't yield to al Qaida why should he yield to the Left-wing bomb throwers on Capitol Hill and in the NYT and WaPo?

Friday's speech was a great counter to the groin kicks the Left has been dishing out, but it's just one punch. He needs to be as relentless in pounding home the truth to the American public as he has been in waging war against the savages seeking control of the Arab world and the Muslim faith. It's only the determined, tireless, unyielding fighter who prevails in battle. The British failed to abort the American Revolution because their General Howe was not aggressive in pursuing Washington's army when he had them at severe disadvantage. Union General George McClellan dithered and allowed the Confederate forces time to resupply, move, and plan. Against the Democrats Bush needs to be more like U. S. Grant and less like George McClellan.

He needs to give us more of this:

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security.' That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that, whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

The Torture Debate

David Gerlernter, writing in the LA Times, of all places, gets the torture question exactly right:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-Ariz.) proposed legislation incorporating into U.S. law the Geneva Convention ban on mistreating prisoners. The bill, which bans cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, passed the Senate 90 to 9. To say it's got momentum is putting it mildly.

But President Bush says he will veto the bill unless the CIA is exempted. Vice President Cheney has led the administration's campaign for the exemption. It's a hard sell; pro-torture politicians are scarce around Washington.

But of course you don't have to be "pro-torture" to oppose the McCain amendment. That naive misunderstanding summarizes the threat posed by this good-hearted, wrong-headed legislation. Those who oppose the amendment don't think the CIA should be permitted to use torture or other rough interrogation techniques. What they think is that sometimes the CIA should be required to squeeze the truth out of prisoners. Not because the CIA wants to torture people, but because it may be the only option we've got.

McCain's amendment is a trap for the lazy minded. Whenever a position seems so obvious that you don't even have to stop and think - stop and think.

Americans will never be permitted to use torture as punishment or vengeance. A criminal might deserve to be tortured; we refuse to torture him nonetheless, because to do so degrades us. But if torturing a terrorist (or carrying out some other form of rough interrogation) is the only way to save innocent lives, we have no right to refuse.

Most human beings recoil from committing torture. But sometimes we have an obligation to do hard things for the good of the nation - as no man knows better than McCain, who fought for his country and suffered long years as a brutally mistreated POW.

But his amendment lets the CIA do what he refused to do. It lets the CIA take an easy out.

In 1982, the philosopher Michael Levin published an article challenging the popular view that the U.S. must never engage in torture. "Someday soon," he concluded, "a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them."

Suppose a nuclear bomb is primed to detonate somewhere in Manhattan, Levin wrote, and we've captured a terrorist who knows where the bomb is. But he won't talk. By forbidding torture, you inflict death on many thousands of innocents and endless suffering on the families of those who died at a terrorist's whim - and who might have lived had government done its ugly duty.

Those who defend McCain's amendment and attack Cheney and Bush feel a nice warm glow, as if they're basking in virtue, as in a hot tub, sipping Cabernet. But there is no virtue in joining a crowd, even if the crowd is right - and this one isn't.

McCain is a bona fide hero. But there's nothing courageous in standing firm with virtually the whole cultural leadership of this nation and the Western world, under any circumstances. It's too easy. To take a principled stand that you know will make people loathe and vilify you - that's what integrity, leadership and moral courage are all about. This time Cheney is the hero. McCain is taking the easy out.

Of course, saying "never" instead of "almost never" is a trap that well-meaning, lazy people have been falling into for a long time. In a celebrated passage in "The Brothers Karamazov," Dostoevsky tells a story designed to end that error forever - about a rich, powerful general and an 8-year-old boy serf who "hurt the paw of the general's favorite hound." The next morning, the child is stripped naked. The general looses his pack of wolfhounds on the boy, who is torn to pieces before his mother's eyes.

What should be done to the general? The gentle monk Alyosha, who can't stand the thought of bloodshed, answers, "Shoot him." He has decided that capital punishment should be "almost never," not "never."

In the end, this column is indeed about willful, cheerful torture - committed not by the CIA but by terrorists whose bombs leave bewildered innocents maimed, blinded or wracked with pain for the rest of their lives, or ripped to pieces. Why? The torturers (or their friends) only smirk and tell us that "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Great").

We do not torture such terrorists to punish them. God forbid we should do as they do. But if torture (used with repugnance) can stop even one such atrocity, our duty is hideously plain.

It is the mark of unreflective minds that they so quickly declare motives and circumstances morally irrelevant. One need not be a relativist or subjectivist to see that, on the question of torture, why it is being contemplated is crucially important in determining whether it should be done.

Of course we should not torture as a general rule. No one argues with that. But before we turn a general rule into an absolute let's make sure we understand what it is we are proscribing and the possible circumstances under which we may regret having proscribed it.

Rove is Back

Add to Mr. Bush's powerful speech yesterday the news that Karl Rove is back from his psychological hiatus, and it may be that the White House has turned a corner. Anne Kornblut at the NYT writes:

"I've noticed a big difference," said one Republican in regular contact with Mr. Rove who declined to speak for attribution because the White House did not authorize it. "There's a spring in his step, more focus, more - something. Some sort of weight [is] off his shoulders." White House officials have insisted that the legal complications did not subtract from Mr. Rove's ability to do his job in recent weeks - disputing, among other things, that the botched response to Hurricane Katrina and the Harriet E. Miers nomination resulted from the political director's distractions. Nonetheless, Republican officials are now relieved to be able to demonstrate how engaged Mr. Rove is. Several have gone so far as to suggest that Mr. Rove's recovery is a harbinger of brighter days for the administration.

"I think he's focused on a lot of things - working to help people at the White House and talking to people on the Hill about the agenda next year, and he's certainly focused on the '06 elections," said Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who filled in for Mr. Rove at the Oct. 15 event for Jerry Kilgore, Virginia's attorney general.

In particular, several Republicans said, Mr. Rove drove the decision to recruit Judy Baar Topinka to run in the Illinois governor's race in 2006, a development this week that suddenly made the race competitive for Republicans. Although Mr. Rove is still leaving contact with candidates to his subordinates, especially Mr. Mehlman and Sarah Taylor, the White House political director, he is back to mapping out the nationwide strategy as he has in races past, several Republicans said.

"He was never as far out of it as people said he was, but he was distracted," said one Republican official, declining to speak for attribution because he does not speak officially for Mr. Rove. "Now he's not distracted anymore."

We're sure Howard Dean is happy for him over at the DNC.

Pause to Remember

On Veteran's Day we remember all those who fought so that others don't have to, and we honor those who served so that their countrymen and their descendents can be free to pursue their dreams.

In particular, on this Veteran's Day we want to remember our father, GM2c (Gunner's Mate 2nd Class) Richard L. Cleary (1918-1977) of the U.S.S. Vicksburg (CL-86) which served in the Pacific at Iwo Jima, Ulithi, and Okinawa during WWII and in Task Group 38.2 at the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay.

Richard L. Cleary was honorably discharged from the Navy on January 23rd, 1946. We are proud to be his sons.

Richard L. Cleary, Jr.

William S. Cleary

Predictions on the Dover Trial

The Dover Intelligent Design trial is over and we await judge John Jones' ruling which is expected by the end of the year. Meanwhile, we offer five predictions concerning these events:

1. Judge Jones will rule against the Dover school board on the grounds that the board did not meet the standards set in the 1971 Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman which establishes a three point test for the introduction of putative religious topics into public schools. He will, however, leave the question of the scientific status of ID unresolved.

The Lemon test states that any governmental action with respect to what is taught in public schools:

a. must have a legitimate secular purpose; b. must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and c. must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion

We predict Judge Jones will find that, based on statements made by board member William Buckingham - which he denied having made - the purpose of introducing ID into the school biology program was not secular.

2. The new Dover school board will certainly not appeal this decision. Even if the judge were to rule in favor of the district the incoming board has promised to remove the ID statement from the biology curriculum, so, as far as Dover Area School District is concerned, this battle is over.

3. Christianity will have received a black eye because of apparent dishonesty on the part of some on the Dover board who identify themselves as Christians but who appeared to lie about statements they had evidently made. They also appeared to prevaricate on the question of the source of funding for the purchase of the books Of Pandas and People.

4. Since the scientific status of ID will have been left unresolved, and since the validity of ID's claims are thankfully independent of the perceived integrity of some of its advocates, it will re-emerge in other districts across the country where school boards will be more careful to ensure that the rationale for implementing it meets the Lemon test. For those with an open mind on this issue, the arguments of ID advocates are simply too compelling to ignore. Like a cork it will keep popping back to the surface no matter how often its critics seek to push it out of sight.

5. With Justices Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, the Lemon test, which seems to be fraught with difficulties, will be overturned.

You heard it all here first.

Can Europe Remain European?

Tony Blankley, author of The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? puts the French riots into their proper context:

Soon, the violence of the last two weeks will be seen as the opening of an event of world-historic significance.

Even when the current violence subsides - even when the French government attempts to placate its radical Muslim population by offering more welfare benefits and programs - it will not be the end of the story. A new benchmark of the possible will have been established. The flaccid and timorous response of the French government will only increase the radicalizing Muslim elements' contempt for Western cultural weakness.

As Paul Belien, writing from Brussels this weekend, observed: "It is not anger that is driving the insurgents to take it out on the secularized welfare states of Old Europe. It is hatred. Hatred caused not by injustice suffered, but stemming from a sense of superiority. The 'youths' do not blame the French, they despise them." As Mr. Belien reports, look what a typical radical Muslim leader, Dyab Abou Jahjah, the leader of the Brussels-based Arab European League, says: "We reject integration when it leads to assimilation. I don't believe in a host country. We are at home here and whatever we consider our culture to be also belongs to our chosen country. I'm in my country, not the country of the Westerners."

Or consider the statement of a German radical Islamist that I recounted in my book (based on a National Public Radio news-story broadcast): "Germany is an Islamic country. Islam is in the home, in schools. Germans will be outnumbered. We [Muslims] will say what we want. We'll live how we want. It's outrageous that Germans demand we speak their language. Our children will have our language, our laws, our culture."

The Muslims seek to reclaim their historic dominance of Europe not by invading with armies but with immigrants. They will soon become so numerous that the Europeans will either have to fight them (unlikely) or resign themselves to dhimmitude, a second class status relative to the dominant Islamic culture and rule. Europe is in a battle for survival and it is just beginning to wake up to the fact.

Hammer and Anvil

From The Fourth Rail:

The town of Karabilah, home to the tribe supportive of al Qaeda in Iraq, is now the focus of Operation Steel Curtain. Coalition forces moved into Karabilah yesterday afternoon, and the enemy's response is described as "limited resistance in the form of sporadic small arms fire and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)."

Steel Curtain began over the weekend in Husaybah, which sits directly on the Syrian border, when a combined Coalition force of 2,500 U.S. Marines, sailors and soldiers of Regimental Combat Team - 2 struck from the west and drove eastward through the city to the outskirts of Karabilah. Operations continue in Husaybah, in the form of patrols and targeted raids as the brunt of the force moves eastward. Two more al Qaeda leaders in the area were confirmed killed during air strikes just prior to the commencement of Steel Curtain; Asadallah, "a senior al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist leader and foreign fighter facilitator in the Husaybah area", and Abu Zahra, "a close associate of the current al Qaeda in Iraq Emir of Husaybah."

While Iraq's defense minister reported fighters fled from Husaybah to Syria at the beginning of the operation, military intelligence "indicates some insurgents might have abandoned Husaybah once Iraqi Army soldiers and U.S. Forces began clearing the city and fled into Karabilah." The Army Times noted two days ago the "insurgents are now squeezed into Karabilah, especially a triangle-shaped part of town ominously nicknamed the Shark Fin." If true, these terrorists are now sitting in a box, hemmed in by the Euphrates River to the north, RCT-2's assault force to the west, the Marines in the hills outside of Sa'dah to the east, and undoubtedly a screening force to the desert in the south.

Marines stationed to the west in Sa'dah are acting as the anvil to the strike force's hammer. Members of the Desert Protection Force may be working with the screening force in the south to identify desert trails and likely escape routes.

Like Husaybah, Coalition forces will establish a permanent presence in the town to prevent al Qaeda from filtering back into the city and reestablishing control as has happened in the past. It is now possible to maintain forces in these towns as the Iraqi Security Forces are increasing their capabilities to allow them to operate in western Iraq.

There's a satellite photo of the area at the link showing the deployment of American forces around Karabilah and the "Shark's Fin". The good news for the Jihadis is that it looks as though there'll be ample opportunities for martyrdom in the days ahead.

Who Lied?

The conventional wisdom has it that many lies have been told concerning the justifications for the war in Iraq. The wisdom is partly true. There's been much prevaricating on this question, but the dishonesty has been an exclusive property of the administration's critics.

Norman Podhoretz has an excellent essay in Commentary which lays the whole story on the table in all of its ugliness. One cannot read this column without feeling a combination of disgust and astonishment at the way the truth has been distorted and mangled in the attempt to discredit George Bush. The column is a bit too long to post here in its entirety, but it opens with these words:

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

Podhoretz's account is a "must-read" essay destined to be one of those pieces which gets quoted over and over as those who care about truth seek to undo the immense damage done by those for whom truth is only important when it happens to be on their side.

The Party of Ideas

The Democrats are the party of "no" and maintaining the status quo. The Republicans are the party of ideas and reform. If you doubt the latter part of this claim you might wish to read this article in the Weekly Standard.

<i>Contra</i> McCain

On the McCain amendment that would ban all use of torture by American forces we wrote this on the 26th of last month:

The McCain amendment to the spending bill says this: "No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." The amendment passed the senate 90 to 9 a couple of days ago, but it shouldn't have.

President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation and we hope he does, not because we don't think people suspected of terrorism should be given some protections from abusive treatment, but because this bill is so vaguely worded that it has the potential to severely cripple us in the fight against those who wish to destroy us.

For example, what exactly constitutes "degrading treatment"? Is it imprisonment? Solitary confinement? Ridicule? Being yelled at? Unless the word "degrading" is clearly defined almost anything done to a detainee could be interpreted, and will be interpreted by ACLU lawyers, as degrading, and our courts and military will be bogged down for years trying to get clarification on what is permitted and what isn't.

The same criticism could be levelled at the use of words like "cruel" or "inhumane." Where is the line between cruel and not-cruel? Is giving detainees institutional food cruel? What about the use of fake menstrual blood, or the use of deception in general? Does cruelty depend upon motive or is it merely a function of the act itself? If an interrogator uses methods which might be deemed cruel because he has reason to believe that the detainee has information about a terrorist attempt to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel in New York, would that be prohibited? If so, why? These and other questions need to be answered before the president should affix his signature to such a bill.

The McCain amendment is one of those pieces of legislation that politicians vote for in order to look good by appearing to be doing good. They're no doubt hoping that Bush will save them from their fecklessness and veto this charade.

Rick Lowery at NRO has similar thoughts:

On the McCain amendment, the chief problem with it I think is a lack of clarity (this entire debate has suffered from a lack of clarity, since Bush critics like to pretend that if you don't believe members of al Qaeda deserve Geneva protection, you want to let Charles Graner run wild). If McCain and Co. mean to outlaw all stress techniques--and it seems they do--they should come right out explicitly and say it. Then, after the next attack, if there are people in our custody overseas who should have been squeezed, but weren't, we will all know where to look when the finger-pointing starts.

If they don't want to outlaw all stress techniques (the wiser position in my view), then please write into the amendment which techniques are permissible and which are un-American. Then everyone will have very bright lines to follow and we will have lots of congressional buy-in.

A blanket ban on torture is a feel-good measure which allows us to bask in the glow of moral euphoria, but which is in fact morally inane. The McCain amendment should not be passed until it is made perfectly clear exactly what is meant by the word "torture." If this is not done American courts will, as we noted above, be tied in knots for decades by lawyers for detainees who will argue that mere incarceration meets the standard of torture in this amendment.

The lack of clarity doesn't bother David Batstone at Sojourners, however. Batstone says unequivocally that "There are certain acts that a follower of Jesus simply cannot accept. Here is one: A Christian cannot justify the torture of a human being." Well, yes and no. It all depends on what is meant by torture and the reasons why it is employed, but Batstone is not interested in ethical shillyshallying. He insists that "Christians must oppose torture under any circumstances." If one asks why, Batstone replies that:

[W]e can all affirm scripture when it says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means, those means mark our own character.

In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Not only does Mr. Batstone commit the mistake of assuming that any instance of torture is evil, which is the very point in dispute, but he also cites the inexcusable behavior at Abu Ghraib as implicitly representative of all instances of torture or harsh treatment.

Yet just because some cases of causing a prisoner humiliation or pain are completely unjustifiable it doesn't follow that all cases are. The critical factor is the reasons for subjecting the prisoner to this treatment. If it is done simply out of anger, frustration, or as a sick form of entertainment then the act is surely evil. If, however, it is done for the purpose of saving lives and there is good reason to think that the detainee has information that will in fact save lives, then treatment which may be regarded by some as humiliating, degrading, or mentally or physically painful may be morally justified. Indeed, to believe that a prisoner has such information and to fail to extract it from him because of qualms about causing him discomfort is itself morally irresponsible.

Imagine, for example, that a young woman, your daughter, has been seized by jihadis in Iraq. A video is made by her kidnappers showing her, with a knife at her throat, pleading for her life. In tears and terrified nearly to death she struggles to relate how she has already suffered awful sexual abuse at the hands of her captors. Her abductors announce that she will be decapitated in 24 hours.

An insurgent has been arrested, however, whom the authorities have good reason to believe knows the whereabouts of your daughter, but he refuses to divulge the information. Forms of pressure that may fall afoul of the lofty ideals of the Geneva Accords are applied to persuade him to talk. They work and your daughter is rescued. Would you then take time out from your joy to condemn the interrogators who applied the pressure? Would Mr. Batstone? Would the knowledge of how she was rescued prevent you from thanking God for her deliverance? Would Mr. Batstone declare that the interrogators were morally evil to do what they did? Perhaps I simply have a blind spot on this, but I contend that the interrogators would have been morally delinquent if they could have done it and refused.

Mr. Batstone argues that we should "consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot imagine Jesus finding a single 'exemption' that would justify such an abuse of any individual made in God's image."

Setting aside the theological conflict this claim finds itself in with much of the New Testament which tells us that one day Christ will judge the world and that a lot of 'unexempted' people made in God's image are going to find themselves in significant torment of some kind, I'm not much impressed by the "What would Jesus do" argument. In the first place, Jesus wouldn't have needed to apply pressure to the man to get him to yield. He presumably has other resources at His disposal.

Secondly, the WWJD argument is of very little utility in many areas of our moral life. Just because we can't imagine Jesus doing something doesn't mean it's wrong for us to do it. It's difficult to imagine Jesus making passionate love, or getting involved in politics, or doing the job of a police officer who's working undercover and lying about who he is, or killing the enemy in combat. Indeed, what would Jesus do if he must either steal food or let his child starve, or if He must lie to the Gestapo to save the lives of Jews He is smuggling out of Nazi Europe? Just as it may be right in such life or death circumstances to lie or steal, so too it may be right in life or death circumstances to employ humiliation, deception, or pain.

People who argue as Mr. Batstone and Senator McCain do (I'm loath to be critical of the senator on this score given the horrible treatment he endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese) almost always confine themselves to sweeping generalities and almost never examine how the implementation of their ideas would actually work itself out in practice. Yet it's irresponsible to adopt the ideas without considering their likely consequences.

Charles Krauthammer also has some good things to say on this topic here.

Here We Go Again

Whatever the judge decides in the Dover trial it's clear that Intelligent Design won't be going away any time soon. Here's a couple of excerpts from an article on the mischief ID subversives are up to in Kansas:

TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 -- The Kansas Board of Education voted Tuesday that students will be expected to study doubts about modern Darwinian theory, a move that defied the nation's scientific establishment even as it gave voice to religious conservatives and others who question the theory of evolution.

By a 6 to 4 vote that supporters cheered as a victory for free speech and opponents denounced as shabby politics and worse science, the board said high school students should be told that aspects of widely accepted evolutionary theory are controversial. Among other points, the standards allege a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code."

One of the more peculiar comments in the WaPo's article was this from Francisco Ayala, an evolutionary biologist:

Intelligent design "does not provide any natural explanation that can be tested," said Ayala ....He said the Kansas standards "are an insult to science, an insult to education and an insult to the American Constitution."

Well, of course ID doesn't provide a natural explanation if "natural" is defined as excluding intelligence as a causal factor. Ayala's claim that ID can't be tested is also odd since critics of ID have worked arduously to explain how complex structures like bio-machines could have emerged solely by non-purposive mechanisms. Every time they come up with such an explanation they're attempting to falsify one of the basic claims of ID, the claim that there are no plausible mechanistic pathways for such an evolution.

Moreover, Ayala's hyperventilations about the insults suffered by science, education, and the Constitution are a bit melodramatic. ID is no more an insult to science than is string theory, but it is indeed an offense against the materialistic metaphysics which is presupposed by many scientists. Nor is it an insult to education to expect students to know what some of the shortcomings of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory are, and it is certainly not an insult to the document which enshrines free speech in this country to extend that cherished principle to challenges to accepted dogmas that are otherwise insulated from criticism by our public schools.

Here's a question: If, as the defenders of the status quo insist, the evidence for their position is overwhelming, and if ID is such a weak competitor, then what on earth are the defenders of Darwinism afraid of? We would think that they would relish the thought of having ID scrutinized in the classroom so that it can be thoroughly and definitively trounced by the massive might of Darwinian orthodoxy. Yet the establishment types act as if letting a little skepticism in the door would signal the collapse of their beloved theory, so like church censors they protect the fragile flower as though it were a sacred belief that no one dare question. It's as if they fear that in the competition for survival their view would be found to be less fit in the new environment than the more vigorous and attractive interloper. There's a certain justice in that.

Why It Doesn't Happen Here

Joel Kotkin puts his finger on why immigrants don't riot in the U.S. and why there is so much disaffection among immigrants in Europe. Kotkin's answer in a nutshell is that socialism and other Left-wing policies, especially heavy government regulation of business, have stifled European economies to the point where there simply aren't any jobs available for those who want work no matter how menial.

Here are some excerpts from Kotkin's essay:

Since the '70s, America has created 57 million new jobs, compared with just four million in Europe (with most of those jobs in government). In France and much of Western Europe, the economic system is weighted toward the already employed (the overwhelming majority native-born whites) and the growing mass of retirees. Those ensconced in state and corporate employment enjoy short weeks, early and well-funded retirement and first dibs on the public purse.

So although the retirement of large numbers of workers should be opening up new job opportunities, unemployment among the young has been rising: In France, joblessness among workers in their 20s exceeds 20%, twice the overall national rate. In immigrant banlieues, where the population is much younger, average unemployment reaches 40%, and higher among the young.

To make matters worse, the elaborate French welfare state--government spending accounts for roughly half of GDP compared with 36% in the U.S.--also forces high tax burdens on younger workers lucky enough to have a job, largely to pay for an escalating number of pensioners and benefit recipients. In this system, the incentives are to take it easy, live well and then retire. The bloat of privileged aging blocks out opportunity for the young.

Luckily, better-educated young Frenchmen and other Continental Europeans can opt out of the system by emigrating to more open economies in Ireland, the U.K. and, particularly, the U.S. This is clearly true in technological fields, where Europe's best brains leave in droves. Some 400,000 European Union science graduates currently reside in the U.S. Barely one in seven, according to a recent poll, intends to return.

Driven by the ambitious young, European immigration to the U.S. jumped by 16% during the '90s. Visa applications dropped after 9/11, but then increased last year by 10%. The total number of Europe-born immigrants increased by roughly 700,000 during the last three years, with a heavy inflow from the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, and Romania--as well as France. These new immigrants have been particularly drawn to the metropolitan centers of California, Florida and New York.

Particularly telling, immigrant business ownership [in the U.S.] has been surging far faster than among native-born Americans. Ironically, some of the highest rates for ethnic entrepreneurship in the U.S. belong to Muslim immigrants, along with Russians, Indians, Israelis and Koreans.

Perhaps nothing confirms immigrant upward mobility more than the fact that the majority have joined the white middle class in the suburbs--a geography properly associated here mostly with upward mobility.

It is almost inconceivable to see such flowerings of ethnic entrepreneurship in Continental Europe. Economic and regulatory policy plays a central role in stifling enterprise. Heavy-handed central planning tends to make property markets expensive and difficult to penetrate. Add to this an overall regulatory regime that makes it hard for small business to start or expand, and you have a recipe for economic stagnation and social turmoil.

What would help France most now would be to stimulate economic growth and lessen onerous regulation. Most critically, this would also open up entrepreneurial and employment opportunity for those now suffering more of a nightmare of closed options than anything resembling a European dream.

We wonder if anyone is listening over at The Nation and other Lefty precincts where the sorts of nostrums that have led Europe to become an economic dead man walking are incessantly promoted in the name of social justice. The young Muslims who are setting France ablaze are evidently not much impressed with socialist versions of economic justice.

We should point out, too, that as compelling as Kotkin's economic analysis is, there's no doubt another reason we don't see in the U.S. the sort of mass vandalism against property that France is suffering. That reason is that most Americans own a firearm, and any crowd of hooligans strutting down a street threatening to burn residents' automobiles is likely to be abruptly brought to account in a most unhappy fashion by the citizens whose cars are about to be torched. The prospect of a chest full of #6 lead shot is a powerful inducement to find less obnoxious ways to air one's grievances.

Of course, taking away this ability to defend one's property is another one of those nutty Left-wing policies whose utter foolishness is being made evident by events in France.

Behe's Testimony

Michael Behe talks about his testimony in the Dover ID trial here. His take on things is considerably at variance with the impression created by some in our local print media:

The Dover trial has wrapped up for now with Judge Jones announcing that he expects to rule before the end of the year.

As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen.

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers.

I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.

From what I read...about Scott Minnich's testimony, he seemed to have the same experience. I haven't the foggiest idea how the Judge will rule, but I think we got to show a lot of people that ID is a very serious idea.

Perhaps some day people will look back at all this and wonder how anyone could have seriously thought that biological structures were not designed. If so, it will be in large measure due to the efforts of people like Michael Behe.

Death Rate in Iraq

Andrew Sullivan notes that the KIA rate per month (53) in Iraq is the lowest of any major war we've ever fought. See the data for other wars here.

This is good news, of course, but it doesn't lessen the grief of the families who have lost a loved one fighting against terrorism and oppression in this war. Even so, it puts the media's fixation on the running tally of war dead in some perspective.

The Fate of the ROK

The World Tribune.com relays the bleak assessment of American military officers concerning the future of the Republic of South Korea:

[I]n the next one to five years the Combined Forces Command, responsible for U.S.-ROK operations and training, will be dissolved while the United Nations command, set up in 1950 at the outset of the Korean War, will move to Hawaii.

The implications are dire for South Korea's ability to cope with a crumbling, heavily-armed communist North Korea with powerful anti-U.S. allies in the neighborhood [according to a memo released by the officers].

The forecasts in the communication lead a list of major shifts that...officers view as the logical result of pressure on U.S. forces to leave this now prosperous nation, as well as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's program for downsizing and realigning U.S. forces in Korea.

The good news is that "the U.S. will maintain the so-called 'nuclear umbrella' and will meet its treaty obligations with a promised commitment of air and sea power if the ROK is attacked" - an arrangement that seems strikingly similar, however, to that made in the first half of 1950 when about 500 U.S. advisers remained in Korea to bear the brunt of the North Korean invasion that June.

However, "[t]he question will have to be asked," said the memo, "can the ROK deal with a collapsing NK regime unilaterally without international support." The officer responded in the next sentence: "It is highly unlikely that it can but it is not doing anything to prepare for it now."

The memo concluded with a downbeat history lesson in regional geopolitics.

"Korea will again be the shrimp among whales as the balance of power will be China/Russia on one side and U.S./Japan on the other. Will Korea be able to be the 'balancer' as envisioned by President Roh?"

"I think not," [the memo stated]. "It will have to cast its lot with one side or the other. Unfortunately economics and geography (as well as the Japanese colonial legacy) may rule and...Korea will be pushed into the China camp. The geo-political strategic implications for this...are obvious."

If North Korea is allowed to continue to develop its nuclear arsenal South Korea will be faced with three unpleasant options: 1) develop its own nukes, 2) rely on America for protection, or 3) capitulate. 1) is unlikely and 2) looks increasingly doubtful. If South Korea does yield to the North's bullies, Japan will have a much more difficult time resisting Sino-Korean pressure and intimidation. Much depends on South Korea's resolve, and America's. The key is getting nukes out of the North's hands. The world simply cannot allow them to continue to possess these weapaons.

Sudden Death

Bill Roggio relates how the coalition forces are handling IEDs in Ramadi:

The Coalition is constantly working to use technology to disrupt and neutralize the insurgency's ability to detonate their bombs remotely, the enemy adapts their tactics as well. This is the nature of war. But there is one area where the insurgency's innovations hit the wall: the physical deployment of IEDs. Depending on the size, nature and the deployment of the explosive, it can take quite a bit of time to "plant" a roadside bomb.

Marines in Ramadi are taking advantage of this limitation and are deploying sniper teams to observe and engage insurgents while they deploy their deadly cargo. Over the period of one day, sniper teams killed eight insurgents planting IEDs and wounded the ninth in four separate engagements. Multinational Forces West provides the blow by blow:

"In the first incident, a sniper team observed an insurgent digging a hole along a street that historically contained a high number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The sniper team engaged the insurgent with one round and was able to confirm one enemy killed in action.

"Shortly afterwards, a taxi pulled up and stopped between the body of the insurgent and the sniper team. Three insurgents exited the vehicle and began firing sporadically in all directions with AK-47s. The sniper team engaged all the three individuals and was able to confirm three additional enemy killed in action. At this point, a fourth insurgent got out of the taxi and began firing at the sniper team. The insurgent was engaged as well, but was able to escape in the taxi after being injured.

"In the second incident, a sniper team observed as a vehicle pulled up to a historical IED hole and two insurgents got out to inspect the hole. When the insurgents began pulling out ordnance from the trunk of their vehicle to place in the hole, the sniper team determined hostile intent and engaged both insurgents. The snipers were able to confirm two enemies killed in action.

"In the two other incidents, sniper teams observed two masked men observing their positions at two separate times during the day. Both insurgents were engaged and confirmed killed."

The day's events in Ramadi highlight the fact that while technological solutions are force multipliers, they cannot replace the need for boots on the ground and well-placed trigger-pullers. The solution to the IED threat is, in the end, not better armor or more sophisticated signals disruption, but a permanent presence of security forces and well policed neighborhoods. The dramatic decrease in IED attacks along "Route Irish", the road running from Baghdad International Airport to the city proper, is a prime example of this.

As the Euphrates rat-lines grow more and more difficult for insurgents to transit from Syria to Baghdad, and as more Iraqi police and military come on-line, the frequency of car bombings and IED blasts will steadily diminish. The question at this point may well be not whether the war is being won, because it certainly appears to be, but whether it will stay won after the Americans withdraw.

Timetables, Apologies, and Scalps

This Jonah Goldberg column is worth posting in its entirety:

Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let's reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject. First, here's the president:

"If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. ... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction...? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."

Here is the vice president:

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world."

Here's the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. These were not off-the-cuff remarks but vetted statements by the two highest officials of the United States.

Clinton and Gore were not alone in their conviction that Saddam had WMDs. France thought so, too, as did Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the Democratic administration. The Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months.

Robert Einhorn, Clinton's deputy assistant secretary of state, told the Senate Governmental Affairs committee in March 2002 that Saddam could have nukes and the missiles capable of striking Europe "within four to five years" and would be able to deliver nukes in America via "non-conventional means." "If Iraq managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material," he said, "these threats could arrive much earlier."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller - the ranking Democratic on the Senate intelligence committee and now a full member of the "Bush lied" chorus - echoed Einhorn's assessment, adding, "I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat" and "we can no longer afford to wait for a smoking gun."

Sens. Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards all voted for the war.

Most of these Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the president. But now, in one of the most repugnant and craven partisan ploys in modern American history, Democrats have decided that they cannot accept their own responsibility in what they clearly consider to be a mistake. They cannot even criticize the CIA for yet another horribly botched job or stick to the ample areas where constructive criticism is warranted. Instead, the same CIA that liberals derided for years is now heroic, and Senate Minority Leader Reid has decided - now that the Fitzgerald investigation has fizzled - to dedicate his party to slandering the president.

Meanwhile, the Democrats cannot even admit they made a mistake supporting the war - except in that they believed Bush's "lies." But how could Bush have lied? How was he to know the intelligence was wrong? Without knowing that, he could not have lied. But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility that the very same intelligence that prompted Clinton to bomb Iraq also informed Bush's decision to topple Saddam. And they will not even concede that, after 9/11, the argument over WMDs wasn't the best - never mind the sole - argument for toppling Saddam but the easiest one.

"Never again" was the new rule after 9/11, and - after ousting the Taliban - Saddam was the next obvious target. He applauded the attack, funded suicide bombers, defied the international community and, we now know, pretended he had WMDs. Remember: "Regime change" became the official policy of the U.S. in 1998, not 2002. Post-9/11, where would you start?

But the Democrats don't care. They don't care about all the previous investigations or that the planet is watching this spectacle. Or that their shabby accusations feed the very worst theories about America's role in the world. Heck, Howard Dean is recycling the charges in fundraising letters. They don't care that Iraq is poised to become either one of America's greatest achievements or its worst debacles. They want timetables, apologies, and scalps.

But does anyone doubt that if there were no insurgency, with Iraq as far along in the democratic process as it is now, the Democrats would be boasting about their bipartisan support for the war and cackling about how Democrats were right about "nation-building" all along?

But they don't care. In their America, partisanship begins at the water's edge.

Indeed, and in their America integrity is subordinated to political success.

Racism on the Left

It may be hard to imagine outdoing the racism of the KKK, but the Democrats in Maryland where Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele is running for the U.S. Senate are ebulliently doing their best. The Washington Times writes:

When Michael Steele, a Republican, announced that he would seek the Senate seat long held by the popular liberal Democrat Paul Sarbanes, Marylanders should have welcomed his candidacy. He has shattered a considerable number of color barriers on the southern side of the Mason-Dixon line -- and he accomplished as much in a state where voters warm to Democrats and assail anyone attempting to whistle Dixie. But instead of encouraging a conservative-liberal, Democrat-Republican debate on the issues, Maryland Democrats have embarrassed themselves again.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has obtained Mr. Steele's personal credit report, without his consent, and other liberals have tossed mean racial slurs at him, characterizing him as a minstrel clown. We thought the gutter bigotry that first played itself out in the gubernatorial race had lost its glamour in Maryland. Alas, it has not. During that campaign, the white president of the Maryland Senate, Thomas Miller, called Mr. Steele "Uncle Tom." In a debate at the historically black college, Morgan State, Oreo cookies were thrown at Mr. Steele. The Baltimore Sun, Maryland's largest daily newspaper, indulged in a little race-baiting as well, declaring that Mr. Steele brought little to the governor-lieutenant governor team "but the color of his skin."

Imagine, if you can, that these slurs and insults were levelled against a black candidate by conservatives or Republicans. The outrage would occupy every inch of column space in all the major papers and cable news shows in the country. But the bigots are Democrats, black ones at that, directed at a conservative, so there is relative silence. Racist slurs are acceptable to liberals, evidently, as long as they are made in the service of the proper cause.

Michelle Malkin has much more on the story and the sheer hypocrisy of the left/liberals when it comes to race and racism.