On An Ineradicable Stain

Dick, I'm not sure what "Ineradicable" means but I want to followup anyway.

You mentioned in your article that "Creationism is an attempt to vindicate the Genesis account and to reconcile science with the Bible. It starts with the assumption that Genesis is true, and rejects any hypotheses incompatible with this assumption."

I'd like to take that statement and run with it a bit if I may. I originally intended to post this on the Feedback page but thought better of it and decided it warranted a place front and center.

From E.W.Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible pages 351-352. I quote:

The world that then was" (Gen i. 2) - The accurate reading in the English of the A.V. [my note: Authorized Version] Gen.i. 2 will be sufficient to show there is something in the verse which needs explanation; and when we have explained it we shall find that it points to a wonderful exposition of the Creation, and provides a complete answer to all the cavils of Geologists.

This discovery would be impossible if the Revised Version were used, as the Revisers deliberately discarded the use of italics in certain cases, one of which was in the case of the verb "to be", which does not exist in Hebrew.

In Gen.i. 2 (A.V.) we read: "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Here, it will be seen that, the first "was" is in Roman type, while the second is in Italic type. This accuracy tells us that the latter verb, "was" represents the verb to be; and that the former "was" must represent a different verb, and not the verb "to be." This is the case; and the verb is (hayah), to become, come to pass.

That this is its meaning is clear from the very next verse (v. 3): "Let there be light, and there was light." Here the verb for "be" and "was" is hayah, and means become, while, in verse 4, the verb "was" is the verb to be, and is in italics.

The same use of "was" (Roman type) and "was" (Italic type) may be seen in verses 9 and 10; and in verses 11 and 12.

If we enquire further about the verb hayah we find it in Gen. ii. 7, "and man became a living soul; ch. iv. 14, "it shall come to pass"; ch. ix. 15, "the waters shall no more become a flood"; ch. xix. 26, Lot's wife "became a pillar of salt."

From all this we assuredly learn that Gen. i. 2 should read "and the earth BECAME without form."

Having made this discovery we now pursue it further; and we "search the Scriptures" to find out whether God has said anything else about the way in which He created the earth. And we find it in Isa. xlv. 18, Here the sentences are heaped together, in order to impress us with the fact that, He who created the earth, ought to know, and be able to tell us, how He made it. Note the words:

"Thus saith Jehova that created the heavens' Elohim himself that formed the earth, and made it; He hath established it, He created it not tohu."

But this word (tohu) is the very word which is translated "without form" in Gen. I. 2. So that, whatever tohu means, it is evident that God did not create the earth tohu. Therefore it must have become so, at some time, in some way, and from some cause which we are not told.

It is clear from this that in Gen. i. 1. we have the record concerning what is called in 2 Pet. iii. 6 "the world that then was." This earth, we are there told also, "being overflowed with water perished." This is exactly what is stated in Gen. i. 1,2.

So that at the end of the first verse we must put a very large full stop; or draw a line; or leave a blank space, so as to separate verse 1 from what follows in verse 2, which relates to "the heavens and earth which are now" (2 Pet. iii. 7), and which will continue, until the time comes for "the new heavens and the new earth" of 2 Pet. iii. 13, and of many other Scriptures.

When Geologists have settled how many years they require between the first and second verses of Gen. i. there is ample room for all they want, and a large margin beside.

Meanwhile, we may well conclude that all the fossils and remains which are found belonged to "the world that then was," and thus, at one stroke, remove all friction between Geology and Scripture.

Again, we ask, why assume that all the Geological phenomena pertain to the earth "which is now," when it is this very assumption which creates the difficulty? and compels us to ignore all the phenomena of God's Word mentioned above?

His Word is misinterpreted, and His works are misunderstood, and the difficulty thus created is charged against the Scriptures of Truth!

Given this information and its reconciliation of the geological record with the biblical account of creation, I am quite perplexed that there is so much apparent ignorance on the part of Christians regarding the issue.

If you're not fully persuaded by the message above, I would like to challenge you to pursue it further. Research the ample references Bullinger provides to substantiate his position. The argument of Creationism vs Evolution is a major issue of our day. If you are a Christian that believes in the Bible as the Word of God, shouldn't you have a scriptural basis for your conviction that can weather the storm of the enemy as it breaks across the bow?

An Ineradicable Stain

Our local paper, The York Dispatch, ran this column from the Tufts Daily a couple of weeks ago which several times repeats the claim that Intelligent Design is a religious belief. Today they carried another essay in which George Will repeats the same claim. One despairs of ever purging this misconception from the public mind, but the task is even more hopeless when public intellectuals insist on perpetuating it. It takes on the character of an ineradicable stain on the debate over Intelligent Design.

I submitted the following reply to the Dispatch whose editors have apparently decided to ignore though they have chosen not to share with me their reasons:

The editors made an unfortunate choice of columns in selecting The Creationists' Trojan Horse(11/1). Almost every assertion in the essay is either incorrect or misleading. Consider the claim, which appears regularly in both of our local papers, that Intelligent Design (ID) is religious. This judgment is simply false.

The fundamental assertion of Darwinism is that all of life has arisen solely as a consequence of blind, unguided, purposeless processes. ID is the denial of this claim. It asserts that purposeless processes are inadequate by themselves to account for what we find in the realm of living things and that one of the causal factors which must be invoked to fully account for life is intelligence. If the proposition that life is completely explicable in terms of blind, impersonal processes is a scientific claim then so is it's denial. If the proposition that life bears the impress of intelligent purpose is a religious claim then so is it's contrary.

Nevertheless, the insistent claims of its critics and the hopes of some of its advocates notwithstanding, ID is not a religious belief. It requires no commitment to belief in a god, it prescribes neither worship, rites, rituals, creeds, nor codes of conduct. It has no body of doctrine, no clergy, and no holy books. It simply holds that blind, unguided processes are inadequate by themselves to account for living things and that in some way intelligence must have played a role. This is hardly a religious assertion, and, unlike religious assertions, it may even lend itself to testing. If it could be shown, for instance, that some unintelligent, mechanistic process does indeed produce information, or an increase in information, if it could be plausibly and convincingly demonstrated that DNA or proteins could have arisen by chance through purely natural processes, then intelligent agency will have been shown to be a superfluous add-on, and ID would be effectively refuted.

It needs to be said, too, that contrary to much of what has been written in the papers, ID is not creationism. Creationism is an attempt to vindicate the Genesis account and to reconcile science with the Bible. It starts with the assumption that Genesis is true, and rejects any hypotheses incompatible with this assumption. In this respect, creationism is much more like Darwinism than it is like ID.

Darwinian evolution also begins with an assumption. In this case it's the assumption that only natural forces can be employed to account for living things. Any hypothesis that is incompatible with this assumption is rejected out of hand.

Both creationism and Darwinism, in other words, are inferences from an a priori metaphysical commitment and as such are mirror images of each other.

Indeed, ID is scarcely even related to creationism philosophically except insofar as both theories hold that an intelligence was involved in the emergence of life. To understand the vast difference between them one need only to realize that all of the book of Genesis could be proven wrong but, although creationism would be thoroughly devastated, the theory of ID would be unaffected. ID is not dependent upon Genesis or any other religious or metaphysical book or doctrine for its content.

ID starts with observations of living things and infers from the resulting empirical data that intelligence must have played a role in the development of life. As such, ID is an observation-based hypothesis and is therefore more scientific, in this sense, at least, than either of its competitors. Its inference that purpose and intentional design underlie life on earth is based not on a presupposition that there is a designer (though many ID theorists doubtless hold such a presupposition in their private lives), but rather upon several obvious facts about the world.

One of these facts is the abundance of information in living things. We have no experience of complex information being generated by purposeless processes, and thus its ubiquity (in DNA and proteins, for instance) leads to the inference that purpose plays a role in the design of life.

Another fact upon which the design inference is based is the apparent teleology in the cosmos. That life is telic (i.e. evinces purpose) is in dispute. That the cosmos is telic is much more difficult to gainsay. Cosmologists can invoke no mechanism like natural selection to explain the exquisite fine-tuning of the physics that governs the cosmos. If the universe as a whole bears witness to having been intricately engineered for life, it is plausible to think that certain aspects of the universe, like the structures in living things, which certainly appear to be designed, actually are.

Indeed, we must keep in mind that the current debate is not about whether there actually is design in the biosphere. Everyone agrees that there is. The debate is over the source of that design. Is it nature blindly selecting for survival advantage, or is it an intelligence of some kind - a stoic "World Soul", a Platonic demiurge, an idealist "Absolute", or the God of classical theism? ID offers no opinion other than to rule out blind nature.

It must be stressed, finally, that ID does not conflict with evolution, the theory of descent by modification. It conflicts only with the Darwinian version of evolution which insists that descent is a thoroughly naturalistic, mechanistic process. Evolution is simply the view that organisms share common ancestors. It does not require one to believe that the process of descent from these ancestral forms was purely accidental or unintended.

Some may indeed wish to use ID as a wedge to get religion into schools, but ID should be judged on its merits and not on the motives of some of its proponents. There are some who insist, after all, that Darwinism be taught because they see it as a "Trojan Horse" for atheism. There are others who have used evolution to justify social Darwinism and even genocide. It would be an error to judge evolution on the basis of such misuses by its supporters, and it's equally wrong to judge ID by the misuses to which some of its adherents wish to put it.

For a good example of how the media totally confuses ID with creationism see this piece in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Constitutional Confusion

In commenting on Pat Robertson's anathemas upon the community of Dover, PA, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page juxtaposes two thoughts which are frequently voiced by critics of Intelligent Design, but which are mutually incompatible. He writes that the voters of Dover, by electing an entirely new school board, were, in effect, seeking to keep religion out of their school and maintain the separation of church and state. Page exclaims:

Ah, Dover. How dare you try to separate church and state!

A little later on in his essay, however, he utters this opinion, one commonly heard expressed by those who seek to banish ID from science classes:

Intelligent Design is ... more a matter of faith than science, more suitable in my view for a history or social studies class than for a course in real science.

Mr. Page seems to suffer from Constitutional confusion. If the separation of church and state is sufficient reason to keep ID out of science classes how can teaching it in a history or social science class be justified? Does he think that the putative great wall of separation surrounds only the science departments of our schools? If ID is suitable for a history class then the only reason that it would be unsuitable for a science class is that it's not good science, not that it violates the separation of church and state.

Follow Up

I did a little bit of research and found that the State Street Corporation is the largest holder of General Motors at 95,318,342 shares. They boast of being not only "the #1 servicer of U.S. pension plans" but also "investment manager of U.S. pension assets and a leading pension manager globally".

One has to ask themselves how safe their pension is if some or all of it is invested in GM. GM was down over 5% today...ouch!

If and when GM declares bankruptcy, what do the people whose pension fund is so heavily invested in GM do as their pension withers away to nothing?

Truly a sad scenario but one that could have been avoided if these people would have diversified their wealth as they accumulated it by transferring it into solid assets such as precious metals i.e. gold.

The moral of the story is, don't gamble your future well-being on shares of companies in the US whose profits are contingent on a booming US economy simply because the new "global economy" ensures that those days are over.

Is Santorum Finished?

RealClear Politics says that Senator Rick Santorum is finished in Pennsylvania. The latest polls show him trailing his challenger, Bob Casey, by 15 to 20 points.

If this is true it's certainly too bad, but Santorum has alienated much of his Republican base, and Casey neutralizes him among a large sector of the remainder of Pennsylvania voters. Santorum could count on his strong pro-life stance to garner him a lot of votes among pro-life Pennsylvanians, but he's now facing that rarest of breeds, a pro-life Democrat whose father was a popular pro-life governor of the state. Thus, Santorum's position on this issue is not the asset it was against previous opponents. Indeed, it hurts him among pro-choice voters who resent his outspoken advocacy of Terri Schiavo's right to live.

Where he's really paying a price, in our opinion, is among conservatives in general who were dismayed that Santorum endorsed fellow Republican senator Arlen Specter two years ago in his tough primary fight against conservative congressman Pat Toomey. It was the endorsement of Santorum and President Bush that persuaded enough Republicans to vote for the much distrusted Specter in the primary, enabling him to thinly defeat Toomey.

Then Santorum failed last month to back the Coburn amendments to the transportation bill which would have sliced a lot of pork out of the bill. This was an unconscionable lapse for someone who calls himself a conservative, and it did nothing to shore up support among rank and file Pennsylvania Republicans.

Add to the erosion of enthusiasm for Santorum the fact that Casey is the son of a popular governor in a blue state and the fact that the president's numbers right now are not particularly fat and Santorum's low poll numbers are not surprising. He has twelve months to turn things around, but its hard to imagine what could happen on the state level that would give him the opportunity to do that other than conducting a very vigorous campaign.

We're still waiting for Arlen Specter's endorsement. No doubt Santorum is, too.

Senator Blabbermouth

Bill Bennett calls for Senator Rockefeller to step down from his seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee for doing what he admitted doing to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Senator Rockefeller said the following:

I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq - that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

Bennett calls for "an investigation, now, into what exactly Senator Jay Rockefeller told Syria and just what Syria might have done with the information made available to them presumably before it was made available to the U.N., the Senate, or the American people."

He goes on to write that:

Senators and congressmen don't have to agree with their president's policies, and they should make the president robustly defend his policies - but they should not be acting as if they are the president or secretary of state; they should not be tipping off sometimes friends and definitive enemies about war plans that not even the president has yet made as policy. This is the true mockery of prewar intelligence, and Senator Rockefeller should fully explain his actions.

If Syria - or elements in Saudi Arabia - began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.

What is a guy this loose-lipped doing on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the first place, for heaven sakes? It's boneheaded blabbermouths like Rockefeller who are the reason Democrats have such difficulty convincing the American public that they can be trusted with our national defense.

Operation Steel Curtain Continues

The Fourth Rail has the latest on Operation Steel Curtain and the fighting in Ubaydi. The insurgency has less and less room to maneuver and they're finding that there are more and more competent Iraqi forces with which to contend. The dilemma they face is this: They cannot afford to drain their forces out of Iraq and relocate elsewhere because to lose Iraq is to lose not only a base of operations but also to suffer a psychological defeat in the minds of all Arab people. Arabs will run with the strong horse. A defeat in Iraq means that that horse isn't them.

On the other hand, they cannot afford to stay and fight because they're simply not winning. They're losing militarily and the only thing they're gaining is the everlasting enmity of the Iraqi people. Their only chance is that the Americans will weary of the fight and withdraw. They can hope that the "useful idiots" among the American political Left and media can somehow weaken George Bush to the point where he cannot continue the war. If so, the insurgents will snatch victory from defeat and Iraq will be theirs.

If Bush prevails against his domestic foes, however, then al Qaida will probably seek to set up shop in a nearby country from which they can continue to conduct a low-level insurgency in Iraq and Jordan. Their problem is that there aren't any obvious havens for them anymore. Syria and Iran might have welcomed them in the past but to do so now is to invite an unpleasant visit from the United States Air Force and there's no reason why either of those countries would want that. Iran, in particular, will be very reluctant to give our bombers an excuse to raid their airspace and an opportunity to drop an extra bunker buster or two on their nuclear facilities.

It's looking bleak indeed for the jihadis. On the bright side, though, they can anticipate a delightful sojourn shortly with their seventy two virgins.

The Cheeseheads Proliferate

A friend of mine who himself served relatively recently as a Resident Assistant on a University of Wisconsin campus was moved by Real Wisconsin Cheeseheads to relate his own remarkable experience at UW. It's a disturbing tale of inexcusable intolerance toward anyone who has the courage to dissent from the politically correct orthodoxy established by left-wing bureaucrats in contemporary universities:

Well, I read your blog titled "Real Wisconsin Cheeseheads" and I started to have flashbacks. Recall that I was an RA (or as they call it at UW-Madison, "House Fellow") from 2000-2002. In addition to dating the woman who would become my wife, at that time I was also a member of the UW-Madison College Republicans and part of the Knights of Columbus. At first I was quite excited when I found out that I got the House Fellow position. The post paid for my university housing, provided a food stipend, and also provided a nice paycheck for an out-of-state undergrad.

One of our principal responsibilities as House Fellows, according to our training (or as I called it the second time around - indoctrination) and official handbook, was to "promote an inclusive community" among the students living in the residence halls. I witnessed the ugly reality of that phrase throughout much of my junior year in 2001.

It turns out an "inclusive community" is only one that supports and promotes a homosexual lifestyle. One afternoon after class I returned to my dorm, but I first decided to go to check my House Fellow mail in our office for Tripp-Adams-Slichter Halls. Upon walking into the office, I immediately noticed what appeared to be a campaign button in my mailbox. There were actually two buttons - one with a rainbow on it, the other black with a pink triangle on it - both promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered (LGBT) activities and lifestyle.

I was informed by a letter in my mailbox that I was supposed to display these buttons prominently, either on my person, on my hall door, or on my backpack. I noticed that my immediate supervisor (or "Residence Life Coordinator") was in her office. I asked simply "do we have to wear these, are we required to wear these?" She responded no, but that we would have to talk about why at a later time. In her plain view, I put the buttons back in the bag that had at least 25 others and walked out of the office.

To make a long story short, that decision quickly made the rest of my year a personal living hell. I filed a discrimination complaint against a female co-worker (who happened to live directly above me in our dorm), citing her private and public displays of making me feel uncomfortable due to my race (Caucasian), gender (male), sexual orientation (heterosexual), religion (Roman Catholic), as well as political affiliation (conservative Republican).

Turns out that she was in the office with my supervisor when I asked about the buttons, and she took offense to my (in)action. Residence hall leaders surprisingly took my complaint seriously enough to hold a series of small, closed door meetings. The meetings at points got quite uncomfortable, as my co-worker submitted testimony that I later found out she gained by listening through the floor vents of her room. She found instances of my disciplining my own residents "disturbing displays of domineering, masculine power."

One incident in question? It was about 3:30am on a Thursday evening, a couple of my male residents were screaming drunk down the hall after returning from a night on the town. In response I just opened my door and stood there in my boxer shorts and muscle t-shirt. I said nothing, only stood there. They looked at my face and my bed hair, immediately apologized, and went to their room. We spoke the next morning on the incident when I returned from lecture, and they apologized again. I commented in my testimony that I thought it was a sign of "powerful, mutual respect" that I had built with my residences. It seems all my co-worker caught was the "powerful" part and took it from there.

That whole year I prayed a lot, and thank God I got through it. There were moments, though, when I actually called home to Pennsylvania fearful that I would lose my job. I kept my mouth shut about the situation around my non-House Fellow friends because most of them lived in the dorms. I could not tell my girlfriend anything, because she, too, lived in the same dorms that I did. My House Fellows, friends who I worked with, behind the scenes confided in me that I was right, but they did not feel comfortable sticking their necks out like they thought I was.

To make a long story short, the co-worker was politely asked to leave at the end of the year. I got transfered to another building with increased responsibilities, meaning instead of 50 residents the following year I had over 100 and the second largest student/House Fellow ratio on campus. By luck my immediate supervisor was moving to another residence hall location on campus.

I found over the deliberations, however, I had "gained a name" for myself among the residence hall leadership. One administrator in particular later made it his mission to provoke me into a fireable offense. After letting a trouble-making resident of mine off the hook for "only smoking marijuana," he admonished me for disciplining my residents according to "my conservative beliefs." He informed me that I "should have been doing better things like busting people for drinking" rather than "imposing my values" on my resident.

After informing him that marijuana possession is not just against housing regulations but also federal law, I asked him to explain to me what he meant by "conservative beliefs." Turns out that as an openly-gay activist, he considered conservatives hateful homophobes. I immediately informed him that my own beliefs did not reflect that characteristic, citing John Paul II "condemn the sin, not the sinner." I then went on for the next five minutes outlining my personal worldview, supporting my view with the words of such notables as Ronald Reagan, C.S. Lewis, St. Augustine, even G.K. Chesterton (although I doubted he ever heard of him).

I noticed that he increasingly blanched throughout, then turned very red in anger. He told me that the meeting was over. I ended the meeting by telling him that I guess I was not what he defined as his average "token conservative."

You know that I read Viewpoint on the rare occasion that I have time to separate myself from my Ph.D. work. This blog just spoke to me deeply. I felt that someone else needed to know the truth. You have my permission to post portions of this message if you would like.

One gets the feeling reading this sort of thing that if conservatives choose to attend a school like the University of Wisconsin they better either keep their mouth shut or have a parent who's a lawyer. It's deeply distressing that the very institutions which are supposed to be bastions of free speech and independent thinking are actually training grounds for censorship and petty tyranny. What kind of nation will our children inherit if people like some of those mentioned above ever ascend in large numbers to positions of political leadership?

Racial Suicide

Matt Rosenberg at City Journal shines a bright light on the failure of white liberals and black leadership to speak out against the pathological embrace of the Thug culture among black youth. His whole column is worth reading. Here's an excerpt:

[T]he black gangsta identity-the glorification of drug-dealing, crime, and serial sexual conquest, coupled with a blithe rationalization of fatherless black children-is what really deserves condemnation and concern, and not just in black barbershops, churches, and homes. Bill Cosby excepted, however, few have raised public concerns when blacks outfit themselves in the sartorial and ethical drapery of common street hustlers. Many young blacks walk around saying n**** this, n**** that, but then take offense when others borrow the attendant stylistic signifiers, which our culture foolishly condones and celebrates as black authenticity.

One would think that of all people it would be those most concerned about erasing the stereotypes of blacks as stupid and thuggish who would be most outraged by what regularly appears in our entertainment venues as typifying the black "experience." Young blacks who dress and speak as though they are proud of being inarticulate dopes, or who wish to project a menacing image, simply ratify the convictions of whites, who may know few blacks personally, that these are not people they particularly care to know or care to have living in their neighborhoods.

The silence of black leaders on the glorification of misogyny, criminality, and sexual licentiousness in black culture is doing both black society and the cause of racial harmony tremendous harm. They stand by while their young commit slow-motion suicide. Young people think this is the persona they should adopt in order to be authentically black, but that persona imprisons them in the dysfunctional ghetto of black failure. The road out of poverty is paved with the bricks of personal virtue and those bricks are not much in evidence in a lot of what is held up for young blacks to emulate today.

Real Wisconsin Cheeseheads

One of the more worrisome ideological developments of the last fifty years has been the increasing intolerance of religious expression among those who call themselves liberals. The University of Wisconsin has a reputation as one of the most liberal schools in the nation, and it's also, apparently, one of the most intolerant of individual religious liberty.

Even though the events described in this article are troubling, it is amusing to see how the champions of personal liberty tie themselves in logical pretzels trying to justify their censorship:

Every Tuesday last school year, Lance Steiger took a Bible to the basement of his dormitory at UW-Eau Claire and led a small group of friends in a discussion about a particular chapter or verse. Steiger, a resident assistant and a junior at the time, said he was never told he could not lead a Bible study in the dorm where he worked helping students adjust to college classes and campus life.

But in July, he got a letter from school administrators warning him that if he continued to hold Bible studies in his dorm this year, he would face disciplinary action. The issue has spawned a flurry of heated exchanges between Steiger, school officials, civil liberties groups, and at least one U.S. representative who on Thursday called the university's position "outrageous and un-American."

The university forbids resident assistants from hosting religious or political activities in the dorms where they work to ensure that R.A.'s are accessible to all students, said spokesman Mike Rindo. Resident assistants are essentially state employees. They receive free room and board and a $675-per-semester stipend in exchange for nurturing and counseling dorm residents. "R.A.s are free to engage in these activities as long as they are not doing it in an environment where they have supervisory roles over other students," Rindo said.

In a Sept. 22 e-mail to Steiger, Deborah Newman, associate director of housing and residence life, elaborated on the university's position. "As a state employee, you and I have a responsibility to make sure we are providing an environment that does not put undue pressure on any member of our halls in terms of religion, political parties, etc.," Newman wrote. "As a 'leader' of a Bible study, one of the roles is to gather and encourage people to attend. These two roles have a strong possibility to conflict in your hall."

The university's position is backed by a similar written policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is supported by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison. "There's free speech, but this isn't free," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. "This amounts to taxpayer subsidy of worship."

Chris Ahmuty, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, said his organization is looking into the issue. Ahmuty agreed with the university's position that state employees should not be organizing religious or political events on work time or place. "The function of the R.A. is almost like a big brother or big sister," Ahmuty said. "When they're in the dorm they're an R.A. 24/7. . . . This isn't like a jail situation where students have no other alternative. They can go off campus."

Only a handful of the school's 120 resident assistants have been hosting Bible studies in the dorms, Rindo said. Steiger said he knows of more than 10 who either hold a class in their room or elsewhere in dorms. The school's policy, which also applies to political and ideological activities, is communicated to new resident assistants during a verbal orientation and is not in writing, Rindo said.

Steiger sees the ban as an infringement on his First Amendment rights. "I work for the school. It's my job, but I do have personal time. I should be able to talk about whatever I want to talk about in my own room. It's my home. It's where I live."

Steiger sought help with his cause from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based non-profit organization that defends freedom of speech, religious liberty and other rights. The organization sent a letter Oct. 10 to UW-Eau Claire's interim chancellor, Vicki Lord Larson, calling the ban on R.A.-led Bible studies unlawful and an "immoral restriction of religious liberty."

"Unless they're on the clock 168 hours a week, which they're not, they have dual capacity as do all state employees," said David French, president of the foundation. "They have private lives. . . . We're not talking about Bible studies as part of an official R.A. function. We're talking about on their own time a function that is completely optional."

The issue caught the attention Thursday of U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R-Green Bay), a UW-Eau Claire alumnus. Green wrote a letter to UW System president Kevin Reilly urging him to investigate policies at other University of Wisconsin campuses and to "rid the UW system of this deplorable mandate."

"The question is are we going to follow them when they go to bars? Are we going to conduct room-to-room searches to make sure nobody is praying?" Green said in an interview. "They do not surrender their Constitutional rights just because they're R.A.'s."

UW-Eau Claire officials said they are examining past and current policies and will respond to Steiger's complaint in the coming weeks.

Would all those lawyers and paper pushers who think it appropriate to deny Mr. Steiger the right to meet with fellow students to study the Bible also think it appropriate to deny him the right to meet with fellow students to study Marx or Mao? Would they argue that teachers in public schools should not be permitted to lead a Bible study on school property before school hours? Would they say that congressional Bible studies open to staffers are beyond the pale of constitutional liberties? If R.A.'s can't be ideologically active because they're school employees in a supervisory position over students, does the university hold its faculty to the same standard? It's rather doubtful, isn't it? Yet the case of Mr. Steiger is not substantively different than any of these.

The university policy is so intrusive, so utterly stupid, that one despairs when reflecting upon the fact that these people are administering a major educational institution. Hopefully, Mr. Steiger will take his case all the way to the Supreme Court, if need be, and the rest of the country will see what ninnys run the University of Wisconsin and what kind of a world liberals would create if, God forbid, they should ever have the power.

Senatorial Nincompoopery

Yet another Democrat comes across on the Sunday talk shows sounding like a nitwit. This time it was Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday. Read this astonishing exchange with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The - I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq - that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.

In other words, he thought Iraq posed an imminent threat because he thought George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war. Besides, he was only privy to the consensus view of the intelligence agencies about Saddam's intentions. If he'd have known some of the minority views then he would not have said that Iraq poses an imminent threat. To the extent that this is intelligible does it sound weasly, or what?

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: The Silberman Commission was absolutely prohibited by the President in his charge to them - he appointed them - from ever looking at the use of intelligence, whether it was misused, whether it was massaged to influence the American people to go along with a decision which he had long ago already decided to make.

You'll have to decipher this. I don't know what question Sen. Rockefeller is answering, but it's sure not the one Wallace was implying.

WALLACE: But didn't they come to that conclusion which I just stated, that the Presidential Daily Brief was in fact more alarmist and less nuanced than the intelligence you saw?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I don't know, because I never get to see, nor does Pat, the Presidential Daily Brief. All I know is that we don't get the intelligence that they do. We are called the Senate Intelligence Committee. We get a lot more than the rest of the Senate, but it was incomplete as to what the President gets, and it was obviously entirely wrong, which raises the question, why was it wrong?

There's no question here, Senator. It was wrong because, sing it with me now: Bush lied, people died.

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years and he could have it earlier."

WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.

WALLACE: Okay, but you had read that, and now we've read a declassified ...

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: But Chris, let's a...

WALLACE: Can I just ask my question sir, and then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was an agreement - a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing a nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the President did.

Oops. So even when Senator Rockefeller has seen the documents that reveal dissenting views among analysts he still asserts that "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years and he could have it earlier." He must have been very convinced by what he saw. Unshakeably convinced.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Because that - first of all, that National Intelligence Estimate was not called for by the Administration. It was called for by former Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dick Durbin. We didn't receive it until just a couple of days before we voted. Then we had to go read it and compare it to everything else that we thought we'd learned about intelligence, and I did make that statement. And I did make that vote. But, Chris, the important thing is that when I started looking at the weapons of mass destruction intelligence along with Pat Roberts, I went down to the floor, and I said I made a mistake. I would have never voted yes if I knew what I know today.

Of course not. If he had known then that Chris Wallace was going to throw this all back in his face and make him look like a simpleton on national television he certainly wouldn't have voted the way he did.

WALLACE: But a lot of people - that's not the point of the investigation, Senator.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

Since the Senate voted to authorize the use of force but didn't actually send the troops, why, then, its not the Senate's fault that we're at war. No sir. Bush sent those troops, not the senators who were beguiled by that evil Karl Rove into voting to authorize their deployment.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

This is a cry for help. Please stop me before I vote again. I can't help myself. I know I shouldn't vote this way, but Karl Rove has cast a spell on me.

WALLACE: You're not [responsible]?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

We are witnessing a United States Senator lose his grip on sanity here. The poor man (if a Rockefeller can be appropriately called "poor") is so desperate to dissociate himself from his record, and to pin the blame elsewhere, that he is devolving into incoherence.

WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam's nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.

Precisely. But when the esteemed nutjob senator does it he's "misled" by bad intelligence. When the Republican president acts similarly, on that same intelligence, he's "lying to the American people." Tell me, are there any intellectual qualifications to being a Democratic senator?

The Democratic strategy seems to be that, rather than try to offer a clear and cogent defense of one's position, a Democrat should overwhelm the questioner with so much muddleheaded mumbo-jumbo that the interviewer simply wears down and gives up. For some, perhaps, it's a conscious strategy that they have to work at. For Senator Rockefeller it seems to just come naturally.

Altogether now, one more time: Bush lied, people died....

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.