Drudge Retracts

Regarding our post based on the Matt Drudge report that Howard Dean worked to get New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin's white opponent elected in the Democratic primary, there has been a retraction, of sorts. After citing the DNC denials Drudge says:

The DRUDGE REPORT takes chairman Dean and his spokesman at their word.

I guess like TruthOut.org which two Sundays ago posted an article that claimed that Karl Rove was going to be indicted this past week and which they later retracted with the claim that "sometimes they get too far out ahead of the news cycle," it appears that Matt Drudge was a little bit ahead of the curve himself.

The Rove piece at TruthOut, by the way, was written by an admitted liar who has a history of drug addiction and mental illness. Not exactly the sort of person whose work you would expect to be carried by a blog called TruthOut.

National Review's Top 50

National Review's Michael Long and some friends have compiled a list of the top fifty conservative rock songs ever. I didn't even know there were that many conservative rock songs but NR claims to have found them.

Each day this week they're presenting one of the top five with an explanation of why it's included. Today the have number five and I think it'll surprise you. I've often thought that this song presented a moral message somewhat out of touch with the mainstream, but I was surprised to see it in the top five, especially since I don't think of it as an instance of rock music.

Anyway, go here to see what it is and to read the rationale for ranking it so high.

Why the Border Must be Closed

This sort of behaviour is hardly likely to foster good will between the contending sides in the illegal immigration issue:

A parting gunshot from a vehicle leaving Waffle House in West Asheville, NC shattered a window and caused a minor injury, police said. The shooting happened around 3:00 a.m. Saturday after a group of whites argued with a group of Hispanics at the 24-hour restaurant on Smokey Park Highway, Asheville police Lt. Wallace Welch said.

"The two groups were jawing back and forth with each other over citizenship issues and whatnot," Welch said. As the Hispanic group drove off, someone in the vehicle fired at least once into a large window near the front door, he said.

Whether from a ricocheted bullet or flying glass, Welch said, one man's arm was bleeding when police arrived. Police were looking for a white Dodge Intrepid that left the restaurant going west.

It's not clear yet, apparently, whether the driver of the Intrepid was insured.

Anyway, perhaps more significant is a letter passed along to me by a friend. The e-mail had no link so I can't vouch for the veracity of its major claims, but that hardly seems important since they would be easy enough to check out:

My wife is in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socio-economic and income levels. Most of the schools you are hearing about South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting are also Title 1 schools.

My wife tells me that 100% of the students in her school and other Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast, free lunch program. When I say free breakfast I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll... but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. She estimates that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones.

The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.

She was ordered to spend $700,000 on her department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; her budget was already substantial. She ended up buying new computers for their computer learning center. Half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America.

She has had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas"--whores--and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical, free education, free food, day care etc.. etc.. etc.. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demanding rights, privileges and entitlements?

To my bleeding-heart liberal friends who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs. Higher insurance, Medical facilities closing, higher medical , more crime , lower standards of education in our schools , overcrowding, new diseases etc.. etc.. etc.. For me--- I'll pay more for tomatoes.

We need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won't have the guts to enforce it. Does anyone in their right mind really think they will leave and return voluntarily?

There are many hardworking Hispanic/American citizens that contribute to our country and many that I consider my true friends. We should encourage and accept those Hispanics who have done it the right and legal way. It does, however, have everything to do with culture. A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate... and an American culture that has become so weak and politically correct that we don't have the will to do anything about it.

It's sentiments like these, held by a majority of Republican and Democratic voters alike, that are a major reason Bush's approval numbers are so low. Our government has allowed this situation to grow progressively worse for twenty years and now that the issue has finally gained some prominence the President sounds less than credible in his assurances that he'll fix the problem. He won't, because the only problem he sees in this mess is a political one. He knows the American people want action so he'll throw a few desultory jabs and feints and hope they'll be mollified.

The refusal to do anything substantive about illegal immigration may well precipitate the downfall of the Republican party. The Democrats won't do anything either, but since they're not in power at the moment they won't be held responsible for their ineptitude by the voters. They'll just sit back and reap the benefits of a Republican party base that is disenchanted with its political leadership.

Bush's lack of genuine concern about this issue is a boon to the Democratic party.

The Democrats' Master of Strategery

Howard Dean is no Karl Rove as this Drudge Report item makes clear:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) secretly placed political operatives in the city of New Orleans to work against the reelection efforts of incumbent Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean made the decision himself to back mayoral candidate and sitting Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu (D-LA), sources reveal.

Dean came to the decision to back the white challenger, over the African-American incumbent Nagin, despite concerns amongst senior black officials in the Party that the DNC should stay neutral.

The DNC teams actively worked to defeat Nagin under the auspice of the committee's voting rights program. The party's field efforts also coincided with a national effort by Democrat contributors to support Landrieu.

Landrieu had outraised Nagin by a wide margin - $3.3 million to $541,980. Preliminary campaign finance reports indicate many of Landrieu's contributions came from out of state white Democrat leaders and financiers, including a $1,000 contribution from Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) PAC.

The defeat of Mitch Landrieu is the latest setback for Dean's often criticized field operation. In his victory speech late Saturday night, Nagin praised President Bush.

"You and I have probably been the most vilified politicians in the country. But I want to thank you for moving that promise that you made in Jackson Square forward," Nagin said.

Republican candidates can take some measure of comfort in the thought that Mr. Dean is trying to do to them what he did to Ray Nagin. Meanwhile, we wonder how the media would play this story were the principals Republicans. If the RNC tried to undermine the candidacy of a black Republican mayor in order to get a white candidate elected the media would be in a frenzy. As it is there's scarcely a ripple of interest.

UPDATE: People at the DNC are claiming that Drudge's report is false. We'll see.

Title IX Running Amok

Like termites in the woodwork, our social engineers are busily gnawing away at every institution they can lay their ravenous little hands on. Christina Hoff Sommers highlights the absurdity and danger of placing bureaucratic power in the hands of ideologues:

It is common knowledge that American schoolboys are faring poorly compared with girls. The average 11th-grade boy has the writing skills of an 8th-grade girl. Boys receive a majority of the failing grades, while girls garner most of the honors.

Women earn 57% of bachelor's degrees, a gender gap that experts predict will widen. So what are the Department of Education and National Science Foundation doing about the problem of male underachievement?

Nothing. But they are conducting a review of math, physics and engineering programs at selected universities to root out supposed bias against women and girls. Their weapon is Title IX, which "is not just related to sports," says Stephanie Monroe, assistant secretary of Education for civil rights. "We're in the process right now of putting together our dockets." She assures us that these Title IX reviews are just business as usual for her department.

But why continue them in the face of massive evidence that it is now boys who are on the wrong side of the gender gap? It is still early in this new Title IX process, and any implementation would require the approval of the Bush administration. Let us hope that never happens.

For decades, feminist pressure groups have been asserting that campuses provide a "chilly climate" for women. That might have once been true, but it is not true now. Activists create the illusion of continuing bias by focusing on engineering, physics and math. It is true more men than women major in these subjects. But why blame the difference on bias?

Some history is required. Most professional schools were once unwelcoming to women. But that did not stop women from breaking down their doors. Women are approaching parity at schools of law and medicine, and they have surpassed men in biology and veterinary medicine.

Women made up only 5% of veterinary school students in the late 1960s; now, female applicants number 80%. If aspiring female cadets could storm The Citadel military school, why would would-be female mathematicians be frightened off by math geeks brandishing slide rules? Today, American women go where they want to go.

Government officials are fretting over something they cannot change. Women's relative lack of interest in electrical engineering and metallurgy is matched by men's lower participation in social work, early childhood education, psychology, languages and more. As feminist scholar Camille Paglia notes, women are less attracted to the "people-free zones." Mother Nature doesn't play by the rules of political correctness, no matter the amount of government intervention. But such government meddling could seriously reduce opportunities for men.

Title IX has removed barriers to women's participation in sports. But it has also caused great damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a destructive quota system. Many coaches have been unable to attract equal numbers of men and women to participate. To avoid government censure, funding loss and lawsuits, they often eliminate men's teams.

In effect, to achieve the illusion of equity, men's participation in sports is being calibrated to the level of female interest. The unhappy result is that men's wrestling, diving and gymnastic teams have been decimated, along with associated scholarship opportunities.

If the Education Department and National Science Foundation were strictly to impose Title IX compliance standards on academic science, we could see men's participation in math, physics, technology and engineering capped at the level of female interest. That would wreak havoc in fields that drive the economy and where the USA already lags other countries.

Not everyone finds that prospect worrisome. Debra Rolison of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory campaigns nationally for using Title IX to eliminate bias in academic science programs. She hails the campaign as a "not-yet-realized earthquake."

Precipitating an earthquake in academic science is a terrible idea. The Education Department should put aside its dockets and get serious about improving prospects for male and female students alike.

The argument that because there is a disparity between sexes in the math/sciences that therefore there must be discrimination afoot is ludicrous. What the government needs to do is show that qualified female students tried to select these majors and were disallowed. Failing that the government should keep its meddlesome paper pushers and lawyers somewhere where they can't hurt themselves or others.

The Islamic Hour

Herb London has a column in the Washington Times that offers important insight into, among other things, the Muslim riots in Europe and the recalcitrance we see in Tehran over their nuclear weapons program:

Only two of the world's religions believe they will come to dominate global allegiance: Christianity and Islam. The Crusades lasted so long and were so bloody because these religions were at odds for what each considered worldwide dominance. With this as a backdrop, it is worth asking why there were so many riots and so much chaos across the globe over cartoons that caricatured Prophet Muhammad and every real or perceived slight against Islam. After all, in the "Divine Comedy," Dante meets Muhammad suffering in the fires of hell. The Cathedral of Bologna has shown frescoes of Muhammad in an unfavorable light for centuries. Why then the extreme reaction to seemingly innocuous events?

In my judgment, Islamic clerics have decided "the final solution," the triumph of Islam over Christendom is near. Here is the contemporary Crusades fought on a new stage. There will be many battles fought over trifling issues, an insult or perceived incident, that triggers riots.

Why now? A belief is circulating in the Islamic world that a secular West no longer has the will to resist Islamic jihad. In fact, the compromises and willingness to accommodate Islamic factions in European societies are recognized as signs of weakness. The more open and liberal the society, the more likely it is to be a target for jihad. It is not coincidental that Denmark now faces daily riots or that the Netherlands was where a filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered on the streets. For Islamists the moment for a triumphalist campaign has arrived, a moment not unlike the jihad Muhammad launched against the three Jewish tribes in Arabia in the seventh century.

That the West considers this Islamic fanaticism a form of acting out over deplorable conditions faced by Muslims within their borders also plays to Islam's strength. Believing there must be a rational explanation for seemingly irrational behavior, Western leaders bend over backward to make accommodations. Rarely do leaders conclude the violence is fomented by religious zealotry no liberal concessions can mitigate.

The riots are aimed at breaking Western will. They are a tactic to test the fortitude of the West, to see if there is any religious devotion that can withstand the onslaught. If one considers the feeble response from European capitals, you would have to believe Islamic clerics are right. Rather than treat the riots as a frontal attack on Christianity, most leaders describe the incidents as aberrational, a function of high unemployment rates or poor housing conditions. Blinded by their liberalism, they cannot appreciate the nature of the assault.

I have heard European analysts say that the rantings of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be taken literally. But as I see it that is precisely what we should be doing. His call for martyrdom is in fact a plea for Armageddon. What he says is precisely what the mullahs believe. With Europe now in disarray on the policy front, with Hamas installed in the Palestinian territory, with Iran on the brink of nuclear weapons acquisition, the signs for the final solution are emerging.

Though the West chooses to deny this clash of civilizations, it is here and all the economic concessions will not make it go away. In fact, any concession is perceived as a reward for violence. There is a civilizational fatwa metastasizing around the globe in mosques from Hamburg to Tehran, from Nablus to Malmo and from the streets of Copenhagen to the streets of Islamabad. For Muslims, jihad is in the air and the more it manifests itself in orchestrated street theater, the more it will show the weakness of Christianity.

This is fast becoming the test of our age; the challenge to our civilization is now well into Act 1 of a three-act play. How it unfolds remains to be seen. But if the West cannot marshall the spiritual strength to resist, these contemporary Crusades will assuredly end in disaster.

We might add that the West is hoping that it can negotiate with the Islamic world about things like nuclear weapons, but such negotiations are doomed to fail. Negotiations are predicated on compromise and religious fanatics believe compromise, especially with infidels, to be the very worst sin they could commit. They are doing Allah's bidding, and thus they must stand firm and let Allah handle the consequences.

There is only one way to negotiate with fanatics like Ahmedinejad and that is through fear, intimidation, and strength. If Tehran believes for a minute that the U.S. lacks the will to take out its nuclear program the continuation of that program will be a certainty, and allowing nukes to fall into the hands of a man who believes he is called by God to bring about the end of the present world would be a disaster of unprecedented proportions.

Out on a Limb

I'm going to go out on a limb and state my theory - which I'm sure a lot of others share as well - as to what happened that night in Durham when the Duke Lacrosse team hired a dancer to entertain them. I suspect that there was a dispute over the terms of employment, the boys wanted more from her than she wanted to provide. Voices were raised, names were called, including the dreaded racial slurs, and she decided that she would retaliate by falsely accusing them of something that would pretty much wreck their lives.

The Duke athletes are certainly guilty of being swinish, but the allegation of rape grows thinner and thinner by the day. Nobody in this case is looking good. Not the boys, not the alleged victim, and certainly not the District Attorney, who seems determined to sacrifice these boys' lives on the altar of his political ambitions.

Chuckling at the Pompous

The insufferably self-important NYT columnist Thomas Friedman gets skewered here.

Flew's Move Toward Theism

Antony Flew, who formerly argued that miracles do not happen, recently participated in what many regard as little short of a miraculous event:

Biola University awarded Antony Flew, 83, formerly an outspoken debater for atheism, with the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. Flew, a British philosopher, drew much criticism for deciding in 2004 that natural sciences supply evidence for an intelligent designer. Biola granted the award for Flew's "lifelong commitment to free and open inquiry and to standing fast against intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."

Here's some background:

Antony Flew and Gary Habermas [a Christian philosopher and theologian]met in February 1985 in Dallas, Texas. The occasion was a series of debates between atheists and theists, featuring many influential philosophers, scientists, and other scholars.

A short time later, in May 1985, Flew and Habermas debated at Liberty University before a large audience. The topic that night was the resurrection of Jesus. Although Flew was arguably the world's foremost philosophical atheist, he had intriguingly also earned the distinction of being one of the chief philosophical commentators on the topic of miracles. Habermas specialized on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. Thus, the ensuing dialogue on the historical evidence for the central Christian claim was a natural outgrowth of their research.

Over the next twenty years, Flew and Habermas developed a friendship, writing dozens of letters, talking often, and dialoguing twice more on the resurrection. In April 2000 they participated in a live debate on the Inspiration Television Network, moderated by John Ankerberg. In January 2003 they again dialogued on the resurrection at California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo.

During a couple telephone discussions shortly after their last dialogue, Flew explained to Habermas that he was considering becoming a theist. While Flew did not change his position at that time, he concluded that certain philosophical and scientific considerations were causing him to do some serious rethinking. He characterized his position as that of atheism standing in tension with several huge question marks.

Then, a year later, in January 2004, Flew informed Habermas that he had indeed become a theist. While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true. In Flew's words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."

There is a fascinating record of a lengthy dialogue between Habermas and Flew at the link. In it Flew makes it clear that he is not so much a theist as he is a deist, but the fact that he is no longer an atheist is all by itself a very remarkable thing.

All Religions Aren't the Same

There's been much in the news in the last couple of years that causes us to take a doubtful view of the merits of Islam. Here's a good reason to be likewise repelled by Hinduism:

Her parents told her the devadasi marriage ceremony was just a religious ritual, but she quickly learned otherwise. Six months after the "wedding," Ningamma was back in the temple, serving the first of countless men ... and ultimately contracting HIV.

Today, she has much in common with the other women in the room. They are all former devadasi, all HIV-positive, all serving World Vision as peer counselors to current and former temple prostitutes. And they all have a common purpose: to end a tragic Hindu tradition that began centuries ago.

Originally, devadasi were celibate dancing girls used in temple ceremonies. They entertained members of the ruling class. But sometime around the 6th Century, the practice of "dedicating" girls to Hindu gods became prevalent.

What was once a high-caste and socially honorable responsibility eventually degenerated into another variant of the world's oldest profession. Despite being outlawed, the practice of ritualized prostitution continues, though to escape detection the "dedications" or "weddings" often occur in the middle of the night or in private homes. Humanitarian organizations estimate as many as 5,000 Indian girls become devadasi each year.

Ningamma relates that during her life as a devadasi it was impossible to say "no" to any man. "My parents told me, 'If you stop, god will punish you,'" she says.

But even without such pressure it can be hard to persuade devadasi to seek alternate employment. Many make as much as 5000 rupees (about $120) for a day's work, which easily trumps the few dollars they could make as a seamstress.

So what gives Ningamma and the other former devadasi the strength or motivation to serve as peer counselors? "We've learned lessons and we want to pass on what we have learned," she says, looking around the room as other women nod in agreement. "Why should girls be sacrificed and traumatized?"

When atheistic communists commit atrocities they're acting consistently with their belief that there is no right or wrong except insofar as the act promotes the revolution. When Muslims commit atrocities they're acting consistently with their belief that Allah wants them to butcher infidels. When Hindus commit atrocities they are acting consistently with their belief that the gods desire the service of young women.

When Christians commit atrocities they're violating everything their religion and their Lord teaches about love, mercy, and justice.

Taliban "Offensive"

Counterterrorism Blog does the MSM's job for it and puts the recent Taliban action in Afghanistan into some perspective:

The news reports of a major Taliban offensive in southeastern Afghanistan are inaccurate, as Coalition offensives and Taliban attacks have been lumped together to give the impression of a coordinated Taliban assault in multiple provinces. A reading of the various reports indicates that while the Taliban has launched a major strike on a police station and government center in Helmand province and a small scale attack on a police patrol in Ghazni, as well as two suicide attacks against U.S. contractors in Herat and an Afghan army base in Ghazni, the fighting in Kandahar was initiated by Afghan and Coalition security forces during planned operations. Over 100 have been reported killed during the fighting, with 87 being Taliban. Well over half of those killed were killed during the Coalition offensives in Kandahar.

There were two separate major engagements in Kandahar province, and both were initiated by the Coalition. Coalition forces conducted a raid and subsequent air strikes against a Taliban safe haven in the village of Azizi. As many as 27 Taliban are believed to have been killed during the operation. A joint Canadian and Afghan security force conducted a sweep in the Panjwai district of Kandahar, and killed 18 Taliban and captured 26 in the process. One Canadian officer was killed and three Afghan police were wounded during the operation.

The fighting in Musa Qala in Helmand province is a bonafide major Taliban attack. The Associated Press reports an "estimated 300-400 militants with assault rifles and machine guns attacked a police and government headquarters" in Musa Qala. The Afghan police provided reinforcements to the beleaguered police station, fought off the Taliban force, reestablished control over the region, and killed 40 Taliban and took thirteen casualties of their own. Two police patrols were ambushed in Ghazni, and resulted in the death of two policemen. There is no evidence the attacks were coordinated. And they certainly weren't coordinated to occur in conjunction with Coalition operations.

During the fighting of the past few days, the Coalition may have scored a major victory. The BBC's Alastair Leithead reports Mullah Dadullah, the Taliban's most senior commander, has been captured, however the military has yet to confirm this report. The Jamestown Foundation describes Mullah Dadullah as "The Military Mastermind of the Taliban Insurgency" as well as "a member of the 10-man leading council of Taliban insurgents." Dadullah reportedly escaped the U.S. and Northern Alliance onslaught of the Taliban regime in the winter of 2002 and surfaced in South Waziristan, Pakistan, where he raised funds and organized the Taliban insurgency. Dadullah would be a treasure trove of information on the Taliban's operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Qari Naeem, the Taliban commander of Ghazni province, was also killed.

The Taliban were expected to launch some sort of initiative this spring, but so far it seems that they lack the resources to be more than just an irritant to the Karzai government.

Post-Modern Prophet

Pat Robertson sounds more like a charlatan everytime we read about him. He professes to be hearing God speak to him about the future but he's not sure he's actually hearing God clearly. How convenient:

In another in a series of notable pronouncements, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year. Robertson has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded.

Robertson said the revelations about this year's weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January. "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

Perhaps God needs to enunciate more clearly or speak more loudly, Pat's hearing no longer being what it once was. Or perhaps Pat's just blowing smoke in the faces of the gullible. After all, did the Old Testament prophets preface their anathemas with "If I heard God right"? Did they use such namby-pamby constructions as bad things "may well" happen? If God is really speaking to Pat why is God speaking so ambiguously? Is God himself unsure of what he thinks is going to occur?

It strikes me as highly unlikely that God talks to Pat Robertson, or anyone else for that matter, but it's just plain impossible to imagine that, if God does talk to someone, he chooses to engage in idle chatter.

Storms on American coasts are inevitable. Why would God bother to tell Pat that they're going to happen? Why would Pat bother to tell us that they're going to happen? A Northwestern tsunami also has a certain probability. Of course one "may well" happen. Everybody already knows that. If Robertson wants us to believe that God speaks to him he needs to stop equivocating and come right out with a definite prediction.

If Pat ever relates that God has told him that a tsunami will occur at a prescribed place, date, and time, then he will have my attention and then we'll be able to discern whether God really is talking to him. Until then it seems safe to say that, at best, Pat is a victim of a hyperactive imagination coupled to a spiritually pompous ego.

Ward Churchill: Fraud

FrontPage Mag has a post mortem of the recent findings in the case of Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado prof who came to national attention via a speech in which he compared 9/11 victims to nazis and who was subsequently investigated for professional malfeasance. The findings of the investigating committee are discussed at the link, but the short version is that he is guilty, inter alia, of plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication of research. The recommendation of one of the investigators is that he be fired. The others recommended a long suspension.

The most interesting part of the FrontPage article is the following:

Among the report's observations is this:

"Although many of his writings, including nearly all those discussed in this report, address historical and/or legal issues, he does not have formal training at the graduate level in those fields. Professors writing on the topics he addresses would typically have a Ph.D. in history or a law degree; Professor Churchill's graduate degree is an M.A. in Communications Theory."

This is obviously something that did not take a report to divulge. It was known by the entire Ethnic Studies department which hired him, voted him tenure, voted him a full professorship and then voted him its chairman. As one professor commented on InsideHighered.com:

"The wider implications of the Ward Churchill verdict are stunning. Given the egregious findings here by a distinguished panel of professors, the question is not merely Ward Churchill's writings alone. The question is: how was it that this charlatan was promoted three times, first to tenure and associate professor, then to full professor-and finally to CHAIR of the Department of Ethnic Studies at Colorado?

"The first two promotions could ONLY have happened via the receipt of approval letters from prominent people in the Ethnic Studies field. This process must have been carried out twice, first for tenure then for full professor, and must have involved at least six and probably as many as ten prominent professors of Ethnic Studies. Yet they noticed no problems. What does that say about them as scholars? What does it say about Ethnic Studies as a valid intellectual field? In fact, the Report appears to indicate (p. 5) that Ethnic Studies is not held to the same scholarly standards as other, more traditional fields of intellectual endeavor in the humanities and social sciences. I cannot figure out whether the Report also means to imply that Ethnic Studies SHOULD not be held to those same standards. I hope that is not what the authors of the Report mean.

"Furthermore, - but this would be the most difficult thing to do - those administrators at Colorado who approved Ward Churchill's tenure and associate professorship, who then approved Ward Churchill's promotion to full professor, and who then and finally approved Ward Churchill's elevation to Departmental Chair all deserved to be disciplined. THEY are as culpable as the politically corrupt or incompetent scholars who approved Churchill's career all along the line via the writing of positive external-review letters at the time of his promotions. But these administrators will be the most protected by the system. I know someone who, when interviewing for a job at Colorado in 1997, was told that Churchill was a fraud, and that everyone knew it. The university, according to the Report, was in receipt of major complaints against Churchill as early as 1996.

"So, who DIDN'T know Churchill was a fraud? Yet he was promoted to full professor AFTER 1997, and then eventually to Chair of his Department. One needs to investigate why. Were they physically afraid of him? Were they afraid of the criticism they would receive from his supporters if they objected? Were they so supportive (or afraid) of his politics that this trumped any doubts about his worth as a scholar?"

Since the sixties most colleges and universities have instituted what might be called boutique departments. Their discipline is neither rigorous nor well-defined and caters to left-wing professors and students who wish to have their presuppositions about the wickedness of the straight Western white man (SWWM) confirmed. Gender studies, African-American studies, Ethnic studies, Queer studies, etc. are all pretty much a waste of time, unless the objective is to fuel hostility and divisiveness, but the administrations of the colleges offer them as a way to keep the militant lefties pacified. They are for many radicalized students what the basket-weaving courses used to be for the school's athletes.

Churchill is a product of a trend in which scholarship doesn't matter nearly as much as ideological correctness. Churchill could pillory the SWWM with a panache and afflatus that appealed to his callow students, and that was the only qualification he needed to gain the favor of his peers and to advance up the ladder.

PushMe-PullYou in the Senate

The Senate comes across in this news item like the PushMe-PullYou in the old Dr. Doolittle movie. The PushMe-PullYou was a horse-like animal whose rear half was just like its front half. Thus, if both halves were trying to move forward at the same time they cancelled each other out:

The Senate agreed to give millions of illegal immigrants a shot at U.S. citizenship and backed construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday, but prospects for legislation clearing Congress were clouded by a withering attack against President Bush by a prominent House Republican.

The vote to build what supporters called a "real fence" _ as distinct from the virtual fence already incorporated in the legislation _ was 83-16. The fence would be built in areas "most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens," as determined by federal officials. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., estimated the cost at roughly $3.2 million per mile, more than $900 million for 300 miles.

The provision includes a call for construction of 500 miles of vehicle barriers, adding to a system currently in place. It marked the first significant victory for conservatives eager to leave their stamp on a measure that looks increasingly like it is headed toward Senate passage.

Construction would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," Sessions said. He said border areas where barriers are in place have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime.

The House legislation...would make all illegal aliens subject to prosecution as felons and [it] calls for construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border - more than twice as long as the barrier the Senate backed during the day.

Like the PushMe-PullYou the Senate is moving in the right direction, though not far enough, by approving some 370 miles of fence. But they're moving in the wrong direction by putting illegal immigrants on a track toward citizenship. This is a slap at all who have gone through the process of becoming citizens the right way.

The House has a better fence proposal but, though we are not unsympathetic with the reasoning behind it, it's probably not practical to insist upon prosecuting and deporting all illegals. In our view, current illegals should be neither sought out for prosecution nor granted citizenship. Legal sanctions should instead be directed at the employers who hire illegals. As jobs dry up and citizenship is not an option the illegals will gradually diminish in number.

Sullivan's Complaint

Andrew Sullivan writes:

The absolute demands of fundamentalist faith make the West's tradition of civil compromise impossible; and they constantly push the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, as religious purists outdo each other in proving their righteousness - whether it be keeping comatose patients alive for decades or defining a zygote as a full human person. Hence our politics has degenerated into a "culture war." Wars are what happens when politics become impossible. And that is the corrosive effect of Christianism; and why it must be resisted - for the sake of American discourse and for the sake of a vibrant, humble apolitical Christianity.

In other words you can believe whatever you want but just don't base your politics on it. I wonder if Andrew would call Martin Luther King a Christianist, or William Wilberforce. I wonder if he'd castigate Jim Wallis at Sojourners for preaching that one's inner faith needs to bear outward fruit in the politics we adopt. I wonder if he condemns Jesse Jackson for basing his politics on his Christian convictions. Probably not. These Christians all support(ed) causes with which Sullivan agrees so he never really gets around to criticizing them.

It's the Christians who endorse policies with which he doesn't agree that win his opprobrium and merit the epithet Christianist. He recognizes that it is politically concerned Christians who are the greatest impediment to the homosexual agenda, of which he is a prominent advocate, and therefore the easiest way to get that agenda enacted is to delegitimize the most formidable opposition by burdening it with a silly and awkward pejorative.

Anyway, Andrew should check his history. The culture war has come about not because Christians have tried to impose laws and standards that never before existed but because secularists have tried to strip society of the laws and standards which had governed our social life for decades, or even centuries, and in the case of marriage, millenia.

The culture war exists because people like Sullivan seek to exclude anyone whose political opinions are based upon their religious beliefs from the public square. It is that attempt to win the public debate by discrediting the basis for one's opponents' opinions that generates the social and political ill-will that Sullivan laments.

UPDATE: Joe Carter reprises Sullivan's argument in Time magazine (which was titled My Problem With Christianism) with this piece titled My Problem With Sullivanism. It's great fun.

Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom

The People's Republic of China is certainly no place for people to live, at least not if they yearn for basic human rights and freedoms:

A Chinese Internet writer was jailed for 12 years on Tuesday for "subversion of state power" after backing a movement by exiled dissidents to hold free elections, his lawyer said.

Yang Tianshui, 45, who has been in custody since last December, did not plan to appeal, a protest against a trial he felt was illegal, his lawyer, Li Jianqiang, said. Yang is one of several Internet writers and journalists being tried this month, amid what analysts say is a tightening of controls on media and freedom of expression.

Yang was charged after posting essays on the Internet in support of the "Velvet Action of China", a movement named for the "Velvet Revolution" that peacefully overthrew communist rule in the former Czechoslovakia.

He previously served 10 years on "counter-revolution" charges for condemning the military crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators on Tiananmen Square, the Committee to Protect Journalists said. He was released in 2000.

The tough sentence comes a day after the lawyer for New York Times researcher Zhao Yan said the case against him had been revived, dashing hopes for his imminent release. He has been held since September 2004.

Of course, the People's Republic is a communist state, and despite the gushings of apologists like Noam Chomsky and others on the left, communists take a very attenuated view of things like human dignity and individual liberty. Communist political philosophy expresses little concern for such trifles. They do make up for the lack, though, in their fondness for cruelty.

The Clash of Civilizations

Dennis Prager disabuses anyone who believes that the war on terror is going to be like a slightly longer version of the invasion of Grenada. His column is important reading for anyone interested in the Islamic mindset, but it's absolutely crucial for anyone who thinks that the GWOT should be handled as if it were a police matter. The heart of his piece is this:

Nevertheless, one can say that from its inception, Islam has been imperialist. My working definition of imperialism is that of University of London professor Efraim Karsh, whose recent book, "Islamic Imperialism" (Yale University Press), is one of the few indispensable books on Islam.

Karsh defines imperialism as "conquering foreign lands and subjugating their populations." Whenever possible, Muslims from the time of Muhammad have done that. Now, the Church also subjugated peoples to Christianity, and Europe suffered from prolonged religious wars. But as Karsh notes, from its inception, Christianity acknowledged a separation of the religious and the political, rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

No such division was allowed for in Islam. That is why the nation-state developed in the Christian world but not in the Muslim world. The Muslim states of the Middle East, for example, are creations of Western (secular) imperialism or pre-date Islam (Egypt, for example); and they are foreign concepts to most Middle Eastern Muslims, who recognize themselves much more as part of the ummah, the Muslim community, than as Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians, etc.

Nor is Islamic imperialism only a function of Muslim behavior rather than Muslim theology. Karsh opens his book citing the statements of four Muslim figures.

The Prophet Muhammad in his farewell address: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.'"

Saladin (great 12th-century founder of the Ayyubid dynasty that included Ayyubid Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and much of present-day Saudi Arabia): "I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah."

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (father of the Islamic revolution in Iran): "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world."

Osama bin Laden in November 2001: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say 'there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.'"

No one should have a problem with Muslims wanting the whole world Muslim. After all, Christians would like the whole world to come to Christ. What should matter to all people is the answer to one question: What are you prepared to do to bring the world to your religion? For virtually every living Christian, the answer is through modeling and verbal persuasion (and Jews never believed the world needs to be Jewish).

But by the most conservative estimates, 10 percent of Muslims are in sympathy with the bin Laden way. That means at least 100 million people are prepared to murder (and apparently torture) in Allah's name. And given the history of Islamic imperialism and its roots in Muslim theology, hundreds of millions more are probably fellow travelers. Hence the almost unanimous Muslim governments' support for the genocidal Islamic regime in Sudan.

Millions of Muslims are determined to force us and our children to choose between the Koran and the sword. Those who deny we're in a war in which our survival as a nation, a culture, and individual persons is at stake are deluding themselves.

Impulse Shopping

Evidently Iran is not much concerned with customer service:

Venezuela is considering selling its fleet of U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to another country, perhaps Iran, in response to a U.S. ban on arms sales to President Hugo Chavez's government, a military official said Tuesday.

Gen. Alberto Muller, a senior adviser to Chavez, told The Associated Press he had recommended to the defense minister that Venezuela consider selling the 21 jets to another country. Muller said he thought it was worthwhile to consider "the feasibility of a negotiation with Iran for the sale of those planes."

Even before the U.S. announced the ban on arms sales Monday, Washington had stopped selling Venezuela sensitive upgrades for the F- 16s.

Chavez has previously warned he could share the U.S. jets with Cuba if Washington does not supply parts for the planes. He also has said he may look into buying fighter jets from Russia or China instead.

We can understand why Chavez wants to unload them since they're useless without spare parts, but we can't figure out why Iran, without access to parts, would want to buy them.

Besides, what does Iran expect to use them for? Oil exploration? Surely, the Iranians don't think those planes would be in any way a counter to American air power. The Iranian pilots who fly those F-16s against American fighters, assuming they'd even be able to get the planes off the ground, would be either very brave or very stupid.

There's Lots Going Right in Iraq

Bill Crawford has his latest summary of good news from Iraq up at National Review Online. The military stuff is especially interesting but even more important is the list of highlights from the Brooking's Institute study that he closes his report with:

1. Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.

2. Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.

3. Actionable tips from Iraqis have increased every month this year. In January, 4,025 tips were received; February, 4,235; and March, 4,578.

4. On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

5. Crude oil production reached 2.14 million barrels a day (MBD) in April of this year. It had dropped to 0.3 MBD in May of 2003.

6. Revenues from oil export have only slightly increased from prewar levels of $0.2 billion, to $0.62 billion in April.

7. Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts, and was originally expected to be met in 2004.

8. The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60 percent, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40 percent.

9. The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.

10. Iraqi military casualties were 201 in April of 2006, after peaking at 304 in July of 2005.

11. As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.

12. Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.

13. As of January 2006, 64 percent of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.

14. Also as of January 2006, 77 percent said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

15. In May of 2003, Iraqi security forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.

16. The breakdown of foreign terrorists by country of origin is interesting. The largest number come from Algeria, at 20 percent. The next two countries are Syria and Yemen, at 18 percent and 17 percent, respectively.

17. The number of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq was estimated at between 300 and 500 in January 2004. That number increased in April of this year, to between 700 and 2,000.

18. From May 2003 and April 2006, between 1,000 and 3,000 anti-Iraqi forces have been killed each month.

You won't hear any of that on the evening news, and one wonders why that is. It seems as if the institutional media just can't bring themselves to report anything positive about Iraq for fear that Bush will get the credit, the Republicans will do well in November, and the temptation to use force in Iran will be reinforced. Of course, their job is to report the news and to let us decide what it means, but they don't see it that way. They evidently see their role as shaping public opinion to conform to the Democratic party's ideology. It's one reason why so few people trust them as a reliable source of news anymore.

Sam Harris' Trilemma

Sam Harris, atheist and author of The End of Faith, is a very bright guy, but he seems to have allowed himself to wander into a dilemma, or more correctly, a trilemma. How he does this is explained below. Meanwhile, BeliefNet's Laura Sheahen has an interview with him in which he scores some direct hits against Islam, raises several tough questions for Christians, and, as we suggested, also reveals some deep shortcomings in his atheism.

In the interview he asserts that if religion were to disappear we'd be a step closer to universal harmony:

L.S. : You're saying we should be part of the human race, not part of any particular religious or national group?

S.H. : Yeah. It is still fashionable to believe that how you organize yourself religiously in this life may matter for eternity. Unless we can erode the prestige of that kind of thinking, we're not going to be able to undermine these divisions in our world.

This reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's claim that the collapse of communism had brought us to the "end of history". Fukuyama didn't foresee, apparently, the rise of global Islam, nor did he consider that it's human nature to order the world along the lines of us vs. them. If no one held to religious beliefs walls between people would be erected with the bricks of political ideology, or race, or nationalism, but there would still be walls and there would still be group conflict.

Harris urges us to be rational, to base our judgments and beliefs on evidence, and to get over our archaic belief in God and an afterlife. These beliefs, he argues, are the source of many of our conflicts and problems, but what is the evidence that man's problems stem mainly from belief in God? After all, it wasn't theism that made the twentieth century the bloodiest in history. It was state atheism, the pinnacle of the rational approach to human affairs that Harris touts.

Harris criticizes Islam for its violence and fundamentalist Christianity for its irrationality, but his real target is belief in God. Yet he cannot really argue against theism, so he tries to get at it by attacking the more outlandish expressions of that belief. He says, for instance, that:

"We need to lift the taboos that currently prevent us from criticizing religious irrationality."

What taboos are these? Where in the Western world are there any restrictions placed upon those who wish to criticize Christianity? He's correct that Islamic countries have a real problem with open criticism, but that's a complaint against Islam, not against religion in general, and certainly not against belief in God.

L.S. : What is the alternative? If there's no God who orders things, some people would say there's chaos, it's all random, their life is meaningless. There really is despair out there--especially about evolution.

S.H. : You don't have to believe in God to have the most extraordinary, mystical experience. Personally, I've spent two years on meditation retreats just meditating in silence for 12-18 hours a day.

You can try to be a mystic, like Meister Eckhart in the Christian tradition, without believing Jesus was born of a virgin. You can realize the value of community and compassion and love of your neighbor without ever presupposing anything on insufficient evidence.

Well, yes, but what is the evidence that valuing community and loving one's neighbor are morally right? Harris accepts these principles as obligatory, but where do they come from? Not the Bible, he asserts:

S.H. : There are many ironies here. The [sacred texts] themselves are very poor guides to morality. The only way you find goodness in good books is because you recognize it. They're based on your own ethical intuitions. In the New Testament, Jesus is talking about the Golden Rule--a great, wise, compassionate distillation of ethics. You're doing that based on your intuition.

Harris is now digging himself into the trilemma we mentioned earlier. We know, he insists, that it is right to love our neighbor through intuition, but what if someone has nastier intuitions than does Sam Harris? Why are Harris' intuitions right and Saddam Hussein's intuitions, for example, wrong? How do we judge between them except by holding both sets of intuitions up to a higher standard for comparison?

Yet for Harris there is no higher standard, so all we're left with is a social consensus - the intuitions of the majority are to be imposed upon the rest of us. Whatever the majority decides to be right, is right. This has bizarre consequences. It means, for example, that if a man is in the minority on some matter then he is ab defino wrong. He cannot be right because right is whatever the majority intuits.

Hopefully, also, you recognize that stoning someone to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night, or beating your child with a rod, as it recommends in Proverbs, and which millions of Christians do in our country, that's not a good thing. You know that based on your own intuitions and the evolving human conversation about what is ethical and most conducive to human happiness.

And if one doesn't recognize this, as many Muslims obviously don't, what reason can Harris give us for concluding that they are wrong? All he can say is that he doesn't like this sort of behavior. He can't say it's wrong in any meaningful sense. Indeed, he can't say that anything at all is wrong.

Moreover, as we noted above, if he were in the minority on this issue then he would have to accept that he is the one who is in error, not the Muslims.

We can agree that famine in Africa is intolerable to us for perfectly compassionate and rational and modern reasons that have nothing to do with [religious] beliefs. We just have to believe that it is unethical that people are starving to death while we are throwing out half of our meals.

Harris simply assumes that people will agree with him that it's wrong to let people starve, and most people, without thinking about it much, would agree with him, but they do so because they've inherited the moral capital of Christianity. It's this moral capital that has informed their intuitions and which they draw upon to make their judgments.

Nevertheless, if there is no transcendent moral authority, no God, then there simply is no right or wrong and Harris' assumption that there is, is not only an irrational leap of faith, but it is quite simply incorrect. There is no reason whatsoever why it would be morally wrong for me to waste all the food I please, even if the starving children were crouched at my table. It might be repugnant to Mr. Harris' intuitions, but that hardly makes it wrong.

Now we see the trilemma Mr. Harris and other non-theists must confront. If they're going to enjoin us to abandon the irrationality of religion and embrace the "rational" life they exemplify, then they should themselves forego the irrationality of moral judgment in a godless world and embrace moral nihilism. That is the logical endpoint of their atheism.

If, on the other hand, they wish to hold onto moral categories and language then they need to acknowledge that either they're guilty of a gross inconsistency by accepting the existence of right and wrong by blind faith, or they should grant that their conviction that right and wrong do in fact exist is prima facie evidence for the existence of a transcendent moral lawgiver.

In short, their atheism leads to either 1) moral nihilism, or 2) an irrational acceptance of an arbitrary, purely subjective moral standard, or 3) a recognition that there is indeed evidence that the God of theism exists. As far as I can see there are no other options available to him. It's a tough spot to be in, to be sure, but that's where atheism takes those who accept it.