Archives,
2005

January 4, 2005 [LINK]

GOP ethics reprieve

Thanks to a critical mass of courageous consciences in the Republican ranks on Capitol Hill, a proposed weakening of ethics rules -- aimed primarily at protecting Majority Leader Tom DeLay in case he is indicted -- was abandoned. Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), chairman of the House ethics committee, had denounced the proposed changes, putting his position and perhaps his career on the line. See Washington Post. Not that it's going to win any converts from the Democratic side, of course, but this stand for principle will earn the party credit among the more attentive voters and political observers. Three cheers! When you consider that the criminal charges being filed against DeLay in Texas are almost certainly politically motivated to some extent, the rule changes were understandable, if not justifiable. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Electoral college

In Monday's Post there was an ad on the Federal Page by the Committee to ReDefeat the President. They are challenging the Electoral College results on the grounds of (they say) fraudulent manipulation in Nevada, Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico. I got a kick out of the mail-in coupon for those wishing to donate: you either check "YES! I will help..." or "NO! You people need to get over it because God wants George W. Bush to be the president even if he got fewer votes than his opponent again." HO, HO, HO! I can't quite figure out, however, if that is how they really think most Bush voters think, or if they are just being sarcastic. I sure hope it's the latter... They will be among the lead organizers of the "CounterInaugural Ball" on January 20. (By the way, their Web site quotes "Audous Huxley" [sic]; it should be "Aldous Huxley." He, of course, was the author of Brave New World, where everyone was contentedly tranquilized by an all-powerful government, without any emotional ties to family members, or any moral compunctions about sexuality. In other words, a Democratic vision of utopia.)

January 5, 2005 [LINK]

GOP ethics relapse?

On the first day of the 109th Congress, the Republican House leadership pushed through a revision to that body's ethics rules that requires at least one member of each party to agree before any investigation can go forward. This marked a partial retreat from the principled stand that Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) had taken, and he now says he expects to lose his post as chairman of the House ethics committee. See Washington Post. It's certainly not the best way to start off a new year of legislating. Perhaps the Republicans are driving home the point that they have given up trying to work with the Democrats in Congress. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with going along with a hardball strategy if I were more confident that the congressional Republicans are serious about enacting comprehensive reforms to entitlements programs, fixing the medical liability insurance mess, etc. Radical reforms are not generally based on widespread consensus, and I happen to believe that stiff, unpopular measures aimed at making our economy more free and more market-friendly are absolutely necessary. Some toes will get stepped on in the process, and many Democrats will scream bloody murder. It's a shame.

January 6, 2005 [LINK]

It's official: Bush wins!

A day that used to be a ceremonial, purely symbolic reaffirmation of our democratic heritage was spoiled by raucous and bitter debates over alleged voting irregularities in Ohio and elsewhere. Congress' role in certifying the Electoral College votes used to be supremely anti-climactic, but like everything else these days, it's an excuse for a pointless verbal brawl. The (Barbara) "Boxer Rebellion," the transparent attempt to undermine the legitimacy of President Bush's reelection, will surely fire up the Democrat activists for the next election, though the cost in terms of relations between the parties on Capitol Hill may be very high. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) began his remarks on the House floor by saying "We are not here as partisans of one candidate or another..." Well, perhaps not, but the timing of the objections certainly seem odd. Look at it from a different perspective: If he were in fact pursuing a partisan agenda, wouldn't today be the perfect opportunity for grandstanding and annoying his opponents?

The monumental scale of the disingenuousness on display by the Democratic side is quite breathtaking. Another House Democrat went so far as to say the United States has forfeited any right to judge the electoral practices of other countries such as Ukraine. Do they really expect us to take them seriously? As for the merits of the dispute, the Democrats certainly could have picked a more suitable occasion for ironing out problems if they were really aiming for cooperative action. After Florida 2000 the issue of voting rights received a huge amount of attention, and there was ample opportunity to put in place enough safeguards to erase any doubts about the electoral process. I heard a particularly articulate response to the Democrats' complaints while listening to the debate on the TV in another room, so I went in to see who it was. Wouldn't you know, it was good ol' Majority Leader Tom DeLay from Texas! Perhaps I should give him more credit, but I still think his role in the Texas redistricting was inappropriate. Anyway, late in the afternoon, the lower chamber of Congress finally confirmed the November 2 election results by certifying the Electoral College votes. Hooray!?

I checked the Carter Center Web site to see if they had any recent comments about the U.S. election or the Ohio recount. Not yet. Carter, you may recall (scroll down), approved last summer's referendum in Venezuela while claiming that the Florida 2000 elections were unfair. In fact, they still haven't weighed in on the hotly disputed Ukrainian elections, to my amazement. They are perhaps too busy monitoring elections in Palestine and Mozambique.

January 6, 2005 [LINK]

Tsunami: A view from France

In belgravia dispatch (via InstaPundit), Gregory Djerejian writes about French resentment that the U.S. is taking a lead role in the "humanitarian coalition." As for the "stinginess" accuastion, one of the posts on that belgravia dispatch page included a link (PDF) to a Defense Department list of U.S. forces that are involved in the tsunami relief operation. His blog post includes a cartoon from Le Monde portraying the U.S. as a presumptuous imperialist, and the text sarcastically implies that U.S. aerial photographic missions to survey the damage are part of a sinister Pentagon plot. That's absurd, and it's sad that so many French people think that way.

True, the past U.S. record in supporting the military regime of Suharto during and since the Vietnam War is a somewhat blemished one. Here's a twist, though: until the 1990s, U.S. policy toward Indonesia was accommodative of nationalist sentiment. It was during the Republican administration of Gerald Ford in 1975 that Henry Kissinger sent a signal tacitly approving Indonesia's takeover of the former Portuguese colony of East Timor. It was under the Clinton presidency, in contrast, that the U.S. pushed Indonesia to let go of that culturally distinct half-island, angering the military leaders and infuriating nationalist sensibilities there. That was one of the best-justified examples of Clinton's aggressive global reformism, most observers would say, and the outcome in East Timor is certainly better than Bosnia or Kosovo. Because the destruction from the tsunami was centered in the province of Aceh, where there has been a violent separatist movement for many years, many Americans are for the first time getting a faint inkling of the complex ethnic strife in that far-flung island "nation." Students who have been in my Global Politics class know all about the ethnic and religious makeup of Indonesia, or should...

I was proud of Colin Powell for forcefully correcting the faulty premise of Diane Sawyer's interview query, that the U.S. response to the disaster was alllegedly tardy and weak. Few statesmen can speak as authoritatively and convincingly as he can. Have I mentioned he will be missed? Yes, I have.

For a grimly humorous review of the insipid mainstream Western reaction to the tragedy, see "The 12 most stupid tsunami quotes " at chrenkoff.blogspot.com. Beware, there are some extremely lame platitudes and expressions of utter ignorance. One woman letter writer from Kansas bewailed the "tsunami" wrought by the Bush administration on this country. Were 150,000 people killed by Bush?

January 10, 2005 [LINK]

Schwarzenegger on Redistricting

California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has called for a major reform in the way legislative district boundaries are drawn, assigning the task to a panel of retired judges. This would bring back meaningful competition in legislative races, where incumbents nearly always win.

Schwarzenegger ... noted that of the 153 seats in the California Congressional delegation and Legislature that were on the ballot in November, not one changed party hands.

"What kind of a democracy is that?" he asked in his address.

"The current system is rigged to benefit the interests of those in office and not those who put them there," he said. "We must reform it."

SOURCE: New York Times (via Donald Sensing); an analysis in the Washington Post suggests that Schwarzenegger may forfeit the bipartisan support he has enjoyed up till now. Indeed, even some of the Republicans (the minority in California) are leery about tackling such a sacred cow. I'm starting to admire the ambition and vision of Schwarzenegger, who seems to have a more substantial policy agenda than Jesse Ventura. (A movie coming in the next few weeks which focuses on his sordid early career in show business may take some of the luster off his image.) Anyway, fighting gerrymandering is one of my favorite (long shot) causes, but if Republicans fail to grab hold of such opportunities for much-needed reforms, they will once again become a minority party nationwide within a few years. And our country would then become even less democratic, ironically.

UPDATE: On the other hand, as most would argue, the Republicans would risk becoming a minority party as soon as 2006 if they were to take on too many high-risk "too hot to handle" issues, as Bush is doing with Social Security. It all depends on leadership at the top and communication between legislators and grass roots activists. If the GOP mobilizes its vast human resources in an effective manner and makes clear the connection between problems and proposed solutions, they can accomplish something truly historic during Bush's second term. However, if they sound the battle cry without having a clear strategy -- such as the Republicans in the Virginia legislature who were outmaneuvered by Governor Warner last year -- it will be like Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. Obviously, playing it safe and just tinkering with minor reforms is a very tempting option, but the underlying structural problems in our economy will get worse and worse unless something serious is done, and the Republicans would get blamed. So it's a question of either taking a calculated risk of losing in 2006 in order to achieve a monumental change in public policy on par with FDR's New Deal, or else clinging to power for the next two or three elections while frittering away the support of the conservative activists, thus setting the stage for a renewed march toward socialism under the Democrats.

January 11, 2005 [LINK]

White House payola?

Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the Education Department in exchange for saying favorable things about President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education initiative. Though probably legal, such expenditure of public funds does raise eyebrows. It reminds one of the radio station-record company payola scandals of the late 1950s and early 1960s, which left many disc jockeys with a black eye. Who will end up looking worse, the commentator or President Bush? The White House denies it had anything to do with the department's decision... Glenn Reynolds' techcentralstation.com column rightly condemns this instance of subsidized advocacy, but he also puts it in context. For example, FDR persuaded journalists to spread propaganda in favor of an expanded income tax during World War II, exploiting patriotic sentiment. (Does that ring a bell?) It might be said that all the anti-smoking, anti-drug, anti-teen sex "nanny-state" propaganda campaigns of recent years set a precedent for this sort of thing. It depends on whether you favor the particular policy initiative or not. To his credit, Williams at least showed unqualified contrition for this lapse:

"Even though I'm not a journalist -- I'm a commentator -- I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it." [SOURCE: cnn.com]

This is dreadful for conservative reformers, but there is a silver lining. Beyond the breach of trust itself lies the question of why did the White House feel the need to resort to state-subsidized propaganda. Isn't "No Child Left Behind" good enough on its own merits, or are the deep conceptual flaws in it? Apparently, it was thought that since Williams is African-American, black people in inner cities would be more receptive to Bush's unorthodox educational reform initiative. Here in Virginia, which is conservative, a number of school districts have asked to be exempted from the program, which they feel puts undue stress on students and teachers, for an uncertain benefit in terms of real learning. If I weren't skeptical of public schools' performance in general I might be more sympathetic. In any case, it does highlight the dilemma that emerges whenever the Federal government tries to promote some social objective across many states whose cultures and values vary widely. That used to be the bugaboo of liberal busybodies in Washington; now it's the burden of the President's increasingly questionable "compassionate conservativism."

January 11, 2005 [LINK]

Ra^thergate: the final chapter?

Perhaps it is fortunate for Republicans that the Williams scandal was followed so closely by a scandal tarnishing their adversaries, or the final episode of an old scandal, that is. As a result of the independent investigation of the infamous "60 Minutes" forged documents scandal last September, which was conducted by former attorney general Dick Thornburgh (R-PA), Mary Mapes and three other employees of CBS news have lost their jobs. Rush Limbaugh pointed out that Ms. Mapes already has been offered a job with some cable television news outfit. Dan Rather never apologized for attacking those who brought this scandal to light, and he never admitted anything worse than poor judgment. As the report indicates, however, Mapes and others at CBS were driven from the very beginning by a fierce zeal to find dirt on President Bush. In other words, CBS was consciously working to stop the reelection of the President. Politicized, discredited news will be Dan Rather's sorry legacy (even if he is not sorry himself) when he leaves in March.

January 11, 2005 [LINK]

Time to Spray DDT?

Nicholas Kristoff had an interesting, counterintuitive commentary on the link between environmental and social issues in the New York Times. Whereas public attention tends to focus on dramatic, photographic, discrete human tragedies, there are many bigger preventable causes of death in the world. He says, "Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are winning." He points out the kind of painful dilemma between competing values that many environmentalists would rather not face. Perhaps there is room for limited reliance on that toxic, bird-killing substance, as he urges, but it would only be appropriate in countries where state authority is widely respected. Because of ineffective government regulation, many people already are spraying DDT in many Third World countries. How much? Nobody knows.

January 14, 2005 [LINK]

Judge rules on Theory of Evolution

A federal judge in Atlanta has just issued a ruling that was aimed at curtailing religious meddling in public education, but which ironically strikes a blow against against scientific thinking.

In ruling that the stickers violate the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that labeling evolution a "theory" played on the popular definition of the word as a "hunch" and could confuse students.

According to The Associated Press, the stickers read,

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

[SOURCE: cnn.com]

To me, the innocuous words on that sticker are just straightforward common sense, a reasonable attempt to avoid friction between faith and reason. To Judge Cooper and many others, however, those words amount to a disingenuous "Trojan horse" that seeks to instill doubt about science in impressionable young minds, as part of a fundamentalist agenda of imposing Christian beliefs in schools and other public institutions. No doubt, many of the people who were behind the policy of putting those labels in textbooks are religious fundamentalists. Were they a majority among the activists? Did they say whether they really care about science during public debates on this matter? It's hard for outsiders to know. Personally, I would favor a strong reaffirmation of the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment, making it clear that no particular religious group can force its views on the general public. But to interpret the words on that sticker as being tantamount to the establishment of religion is so utterly far-fetched that it makes the idea of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark seem plausible by comparison.

Having some familiarity with education and with scholarly pursuits, this question is extremely important to me. Trying to disabuse students of the popular use of the word "theory" (cited by the Judge Cooper) is one of the most frustrating things I have had to deal with as a teacher. As I made clear to students in some of my classes at JMU last year, fossils and DNA samples are facts; evolution is a theory, that is, a generalized, testable explanation of how facts relate to each other. Calling something a theory does not mean it is lacks widespread support among experts, and anyone who disputes this is, wittingly or not, undermining scientific learning. A theory that stands up to empirical testing does not "become" a fact; it is, rather, established in the body of knowledge of a particular field until it is further refined, or until something better comes along. Hardly any learned person seriously questions the processes of genetic mutation or natural selection, or the general progression of life forms toward greater complexity and adaptive capacity over millions of years. Nevertheless, there is almost certainly some significant part of the Theory of Evolution that will eventually be found to be seriously flawed. (Otherwise, it would be called the Fact of Evolution.) Human reason and human perception are fallible, and always will be.

This should not even be an issue, but many secular-minded Americans simply refuse to acknowledge this fundamental distinction between theory and fact because of exaggerated or misplaced fear of the Religious Right. This makes me wonder whether there might be a certain nervousness or self-doubt among the secular segment of our population. How might we bridge the chasm of distrust that motivated the judge's ruling? First, by acknowledging that there are enemies of free thought and free scientific inquiry on both the Left and the Right. (The former danger should be painfully obvious to anyone who is at all familiar with campus political correctness; the latter is more subtle, usually manifested in public affairs campaigns funded by certain wealthy activists.) Second, by making sure that teachers are clear in the use of scientific terminology, resisting false popular notions. Third, by agreeing to uphold pluralism and open-mindedness in the public sphere, leaving a path open for those who, like St. Thomas Aquinas, seek to harmonize faith and reason. As long as the widespread mistaken belief that the First Amendment precludes any public role for religious faith persists, however, this task will not be easy.

---

January 14, 2005 [LINK]

UPDATE: Chaos or "Intelligent design"?

Today's Washington Post, reports that the co-author of one of the biology textbooks that had been affixed with the stickers in Cobb County, Georgia, Kenneth Miller of Brown University, is involved with a similar case. Parents in Dover, Pennsylvania are suing the school system over the required teaching of "intelligent design," which is apparently a new version of "creation science." That approach is -- quite obviously -- based on religion, not science. To most nature lovers like me, nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that all the wonders of the Great Outdoors and the Universe Beyond are the end result of nothing more than random events, devoid of any Higher Purpose or fundamental ordering principle. Under the conventional, common-sense scientific paradigm of Isaac Newton, there seems to be an ever-shrinking space for the role of a Supreme Being and thus, religion. Reason! Progress! Order! The depressing prospect that the universe may be a closed, deterministic realm of finite complexity, much like a jigsaw puzzle that will be completely solved one day, is one reason why Chaos theory is such an aesthetically appealing alternative, with the strong suggestion that there are yet-undiscovered principles of order in nature, which itself is continuing to unfold. A good example would be the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" as a mechanism for evolution, as elaborated by the late biologist Stephen Jay Gould. (He was a Yankees fan, if I recall correctly.) His refinement of evolutionary theory, which departs from Darwin in certain respects, may be a step toward uncovering such broader principles of order. I happen to believe that the laws of nature are an expression of God's will, but I have no problem with people who believe otherwise. As philosopher Karl Popper -- a strong advocate for an open, free society and open, free thinking -- wrote in The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism (1956), "the creativeness of life does not contradict the laws of physics." Amen.

In sum, as long as people keep their hearts and minds open and remember that science and religion are largely separate domains, the inherent tensions between faith and reason can be kept to within a tolerable level. Leaving behind comfortable old dogmas can be scary for some people, but the rewards of doing so can be sublime. The biggest and saddest irony about all this is that the advocates of "creationism" on one hand, and those who would shut out any consideration or discussion of religious heritage from the curriculum of public schools, on the other hand, are actually serving each others' purposes by setting up bogeymen to attack. This is a perfect example of the polarization in our fair land, leading toward an escalated "cultural war." But it doesn't have to be that way.

Just for fun, here is a suggested "secular/politically correct" alternative sticker for those textbooks:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a fact, not just a theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an compliant, obedient mind, memorized by rote, and uncritically absorbed."

January 17, 2005 [LINK]

Virginia General Assembly opens

Governor Mark Warner's "State of the Commonwealth" speech to the opening session of the Virginia General Assembly last week made a strong plea for bipartisan cooperation. The Democratic governor, an outsider who became a millionaire in the cell phone business, has shown himself to be more politically savvy than most people would have guessed. Early last year, it looked like the Republican majority in Richmond was going to have their way, but he outmaneuvered them and threatened a government shutdown until moderate Republicans relented, handing him a big victory. Having solid credentials as a businessman and as a "moderate southerner," Warner is often touted as a leading candidate for the vice presidential ticket in 2008, which may explain his present amicable posture.

State Senator Emmitt Hanger was one of the two legislators chosen to give the Republican response, and spoke very eloquently. He responded positively to Warner's offer, but cast doubt on the long-term budget projections, comparing them to early afternoon exit polls on November 2. (Ha!) Hanger took some heat from his own party for deciding to compromise with Warner and the Democrats during the big budget showdown in Richmond last June, when it appeared that the Commonwealth was in much bigger fiscal trouble than it in fact is. Since fiscal responsibility is a high priority for me, I agreed with Hanger's position then, and based on what I knew at the time, I would stand by that choice. Was Warner "cooking the books" to scare moderate Republicans into caving in, or was he just lucky that state tax revenues in recent months have outpaced expectations? Either way, "we won't get fooled again!"

The biggest issue in Richmond this year is what to do about the traffic mess on our highways. Interstate 81 is often a dangerous nightmare, with hoards of huge trucks clogging the two lanes much like cholesterol deposits clog a person's arteries. Delegate Ben Cline (R-Lexington) has come up with a solid, balanced long-term plan that aims at widening busy sections of main highways at the "choke points," such as hills, where trucks can't keep up the pace. (One alternative, very costly, would be to widen I-81 to three lanes across the entire state. Of course, that would just invite more truck traffic.) Cline's plan would also provide funds to encourage the use of railroads to haul trailers over long distances, which is an eminently sensible part of the solution. Will the trucking lobby try to stop that? What does the all-powerful Virginia Department of Transportation have to say about rail solutions? Unfortunately, no one seems to want to bite the bullet and raise taxes on gasoline, which is the only sure-fire way to ensure that there are sufficient funds for transportation needs in the long term. That measure, which I have long advocated, is no doubt unpopular in our fair "land of the spoiled," but it would also serve environmental and national security objectives.

January 17, 2005 [LINK]

Lawyers triumph in Maryland

On the other side of the Potomac River, meanwhile, the Maryland General Assembly overrode Governor Ehrlich's veto of a bill which will address the medical malpractice liability crisis by raising taxes and increasing state regulation. How typical of Democrats to come up with such a complicated scheme to make sure their main constituents (lawyers) keep raking in unjust dollars from bogus lawsuits, and how counterproductive in terms of health care quality! To his credit, Ehrlich stood firm against the bill. It does nothing to correct the fundamental structural imbalance which is behind the soaring cost of medical care nationwide: the absence or virtual absence of any demand-side cost containment by medical consumers who might otherwise be more budget-conscious but don't really care how much their medical bills are because insurance will cover the lion's share of it anyway. As long as employer contributions to health insurance premiums are not counted as taxable income, this implicit state subsidy will perpetuate the gap between what a person thinks he or she is paying for medical services, and what the full cost really is. This defeat has shaken Governor Ehrlich's already precarious position in Maryland.

January 17, 2005 [LINK]

More on evolution and theory

Donald Sensing mentioned my blog post on evolution from last Friday: "While it seems that Andrew isn't very clear about what "theory" means, it also seems the judge was a bit whacko in the rationale for his ruling." Since erasing any possible confusion on this vital definition was one of my main objectives, let me reiterate: A theory is "a generalized, testable explanation of how facts relate to each other." Any questions?

January 19, 2005 [LINK]

Bill O'Reilly on evolution

Donald Sensing talked about commentator (and misogynist?) Bill O'Reilly's rude treatment of a scientist who was talking about evolution yesterday. Here are the two cents I added to that discussion thread:

Very intelligent comments, but I almost wish someone were defending O'Reilly, whom I cannot honestly describe without violating the ground rules above. He is a discredit to conservatives, to TV, and to the male gender. Science and religion each have a separate domain, but proselytizers on both sides are vying for "hegemony." E.g., secularists have become so dogmatic that when someone (like me) calls evolution a theory, he or she is construed as trying to undermine it. NOT! The Pope once advised Stephen Hawking not to ponder what came before the Big Bang, for good reason. Speaking of the "Science Guy," I heard Bill Nye is doing a new TV show; boy, do we need him now!

On a related note, anyone who is interested in the philosophical or theological interpretations of Chaos theory, which I previously alluded to in passing, should read Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe (New York: Touchstone Books, 1989). My understanding is that Davies is an agnostic, but his writing is well worth the time of an curious person interested in such matters.

January 20, 2005 [LINK]

Inauguration Day 2005

President Bush appeared calm, rested, and dignified for today's ceremonies, with just a touch of the typical Bush unease. He has a tough rhetorical task: to reassure the public that the nation is reasonably safe, while exhorting the citizenry to stay on their guard and persevere in the long campaign against our shadowy foe. In case anyone hasn't been paying attention, he drilled home once again the central theme to justify his administration's forward policy in the struggle againt the Islamic terrorists, without quite naming them as such. A key passage in his inaugural address came fairly early:

We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder -- violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders and raise a mortal threat.

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. ... [SOURCE: cnn.com]

The speech was remarkable for its tight focus on this one driving theme. The President reminded Americans of the need for patience, but he stopped short of asking for across-the-board sacrifice. Instead, he appealed to the idealism and sense of honor of those citizens who have heard the call to duty, in or out of uniform. As for the inaugural festivities, some people suggested that celebration is not appropriate in a time of war, citing FDR's curtailment of parties for his fourth (!) inauguration in January [1945], but that probably reflected the fact that he was gravely ill by that time. Solemn reflection is surely called for. It was appropriate that our armed forces were given special honors at one of the inaugural balls, and President and Mrs. Bush even danced with soldiers, probably setting a unique precedent.

In the streets of Washington, hundreds of dissenters assembled in hopes of drawing attention or disrupting the ceremonies, but apparently achieved very little. The minimal level of violence is something to be thankful for.

January 20, 2005 [LINK]

Bill Thomas on Social Security

An article in Wednesday's Washington Post suggested that a defection may break out within the Republican Party over the Social Security issue. They quoted Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA) as saying that the President's plan is "a dead horse." (What "plan"? Bush has only laid out the general direction he wants to go thus far.) Thomas stated his main point in blunt terms:

"What I'm trying to get people to do is get out of the narrow moving around of the pieces inside the Social Security box," Thomas said at a forum on Bush's second term sponsored by the National Journal. "If we miss this opportunity . . . I think we will have missed an opportunity that may not present itself for another 20 years."

I happened to see most of that forum sponsored on C-SPAN yesterdat morning, and I came away with a somewhat different impression. I too have stressed how important it is to seize that "window of opportunity," before it vanishes, and Thomas seems to be one of the most committed to tackling tough issues on the Republican side. Also present at that forum was Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has earned a reputation as a political bruiser in Washington. Norquist emphasized the goal of enabling individual Americans to achieve their own financial freedom, as part of the vision of an "ownership society." Thomas noted that Norquist seems not to care whether the Social Security system goes belly up, and Norquist didn't try to deny it. My sense is that Norquist's focus on tax cutting blinds him to the urgency of other structural reforms, such as tort liability. The other discussants were Gene Sperling, a top economist under Clinton who agreed that some changes in Social Security are needed, and Celinda Lake, an activist from the Democrats' obstructionist wing who could scarcely contain her gleeful anticipation of regaining a majority in the House in the 2006 elections if, as she hopes, the Republican reform agenda crashes and burns. To his immense credit, Thomas emphatically scolded her irresponsible, hyperpartisan indifference to the public interest.

January 21, 2005 [LINK]

Krauthammer on geopolitics

Charles Krauthammer makes an interesting observation in today's Washington Post. On one hand, the prospects for democratic reform in such places as the Ukraine, Afghanistan, and even Iraq have been much greater than is usually recognized, suggesting a broad global shift in favor of U.S. interests and values. On the other hand, there is a growing, little-recognized strategic threat to the United States, apart from Al Qaeda and their similar terror groups. Krauthammer was

talking about the other, more subtle challenge to Pax Americana: the first stirrings of what might become an anti-American coalition involving at least two Great Powers.

He went on to focus on the growing strategic collaboration between Russia and China, including the recent announcement of Russian military exercises on Chinese soil, for the first time. Moreover,

China in turn is developing relationships with such virulently anti-American rogue states as Iran. Add such various self-styled, anti-imperialist flotsam as Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, and you have the beginnings of a significant "anti-hegemonic" bloc -- aimed at us.

Just like the good old days of the Cold War!? Nothing to panic about, but it's definitely something to watch. Here is a big irony about the perplexing renewed anger of the "Russian Bear" under the Putin administration: What prompted Moscow's growing alienation from Washington over the past several years was the (largely) needless expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, including the three Baltic States that used to be part of the U.S.S.R. In spite of strong warnings by Boris Yeltsin not to intrude into its traditional geopolitical sphere, the Clinton administration blithely pushed ahead with the "enlargement" of the Western Democratic realm as if there was no reason for Moscow to fear this severe shift in the European strategic balance. Advisers such as Anthony Lake, Joseph Nye, and Sandy Berger insisted that the world had forever left behind such "archaic" notions as balance of power politics. In fact, however, Clinton's brushing aside of Russia's objections was an insulting slap in the face to a country that has long been famous for its touchy nationalistic pride. In the eyes of most Russian elites, it voided what was left of Yeltsin's credibility, and made any Russian who favored more Western investment and political ties suspect as a traitor. And what did "enlargement" get us? A bigger but flabbier NATO that no longer has any real strategic consensus or common purpose. Aside from Poland, the Czech Republic, and perhaps Romania, which have been partners to some extent in the "coalition of the willing," the new members have not added to the security of the Western nations.

January 24, 2005 [LINK]

Church and state in Staunton?

Sunday's Washington Post had an article on a big controversy right here in the friendly, laid back town of Staunton. For 65 years, the public schools have had a "weekday religious education" (WRE) program for elementary students, but there is a move to cut the program back or eliminate it entirely. The nearby town of Harrisonburg (home of James Madison University) eliminated their WRE program last year, and other towns in the Shenandoah Valley are considering doing the same. Ironically, it is said that adhering to the Standards of Learning and "No Child Left Behind" initiatives (usually favored by conservatives) is getting more difficult because students are away from the classrooms for WRE, even though it only takes up one half hour per week. Several Supreme Court rulings in 1948 and 1952 forced the schools to remove these classes from the school premises, and since then WRE sessions have been held in nearby churches. No public funds are involved, and those conducting the sessions do so on a volunteer basis. At least 80 percent of students participate in WRE, and hundreds of pro-WRE parents have shown up at recent school board meetings to protest the proposed elimination of the program.

Like others who moved here after having lived in Northern Virginia, my eyebrows were raised when I first learned about this. I knew that the numerous churches throughout the town are indicative of a strong and widespread religious belief -- which may explain the low crime rate and general good vibes -- but [until recently] was unaware of WRE. My feelings on this issue are torn: On one hand, many college students these days have an abysmal knowledge of the religious history which is such a vital underpinning of Western Civilization. On the other hand, I sympathize with families who are affiliated with minority religions, as well as agnostics and atheists. Feeling left out can be a very painful experience for young children, though most people in Staunton cited in that Post story insist that non-participating students are not made to feel bad. Later in life, some students may end up questioning their own faith if they come to believe that it may have been forced upon them.

In my view, this is not really a church versus state issue, but rather a community versus individual issue. If a given community overwhelmingly supports an institution that reflects their own cultural values, it would be hard to deny them that right, as long as minority rights are respected. Indeed, there is some precedent for this: For example, in much of Utah the Mormon Church has a quasi-established status, and there is a small town inhabited by ultra-traditional Jews north of New York City in which the "public" schools teach Jewish religion. What most concerns me is that the WRE program goes beyond education per se, it promotes specifically Christian beliefs and Christian values, including group prayers. I wholeheartedly agree that promoting Christian beliefs and values is a good thing, but it depends who is doing the promoting. In my view, parents who object to such tacit "evangelizing" by public schools have a valid point, even though some seem to be objecting too stridently. I would feel more comfortable with the WRE program if the curriculum were broadened to include other religions, perhaps with interfaith prayers like they do at public ceremonies such as the inauguration. But that might be too confusing for tender young minds, which would then suggest that the whole concept is flawed. Whatever the Staunton School Board decides, I just hope that the Christian activists pushing WRE take into account the need to accommodate cultural diversity, which may be an overused cliche but is nonetheless absolutely essential for any community to thrive and grow. The Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute, which takes on major legal cases involving religious issues, may get involved with this case, and it may go all the way to the Supreme Court.

On a related note, that organization's head, John W. Whitehead, wrote an interesting piece, entitled The Gospel of Darwin: Its Sordid History. How many people know that Darwin believed that women were biologically inferior to men, and that his ideas were used to justify totalitarian ideologies? (Well, he was only human.) And speaking of evolution (GROAN!), today's Washington Post has an eminently sensible editorial on "intelligent design," and the bogus attempts by some activists to portray it as legitimate science.

January 24, 2005 [LINK]

Europe: the biggest "Blue state"

There has been much recent press coverage of the dismayed, stunned attitude much of Europe has toward the United States in the wake of President Bush's reelection and reinauguration. For example, see Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor. Apparently, Freedom is seen as a dangerous menace in many countries in which socialism or social democracy is the prevailing ideology, as if we might invade France to take away the six-week vacations their (white) citizens enjoy. Fear of U.S. "unilateralism" may simply reflect the refusal of people who have their heads in the sand to face up to the real threat in their own midst, that of radical Islam. The popular "war blog" Belmont Club has a nice interpretation of Euro-dismay:

It is perhaps the subconscious realization that it has awakened to a nightmare new world that drives the the Left's incredulous reaction to George Bush. ... The European ideologies of the last century have left the stream of history and will not, cannot acknowledge it.

Why anyone would look to such a dull, culturally and economically stagnant part of the world as Europe as a model for us to follow is beyond me.

---

January 24, 2005 [LINK]

Condi: Grace under pressure

One of the first requirements of being a good diplomat is having poise, which is often defined as "grace under pressure." In spite of a withering barrage of insults from Sen. Barbara Boxer during last week's confirmation hearings, Secretary of State designate Condoleeza Rice refused to buckle. Media critic Howard Kurtz asks a very pertinent question about that little Capitol Hill circus in the Washington Post: "Why on earth do senators who are supposed to be engaged in a serious "advise and consent" role spend so much of their allotted time giving endless speeches?" He counted the dozens of paragraphs of prepared text uttered by Democrat Senators Kerry, Biden, Sarbanes, and Dodd, which greatly surpassed what the Republican committee members had to say.

But all this paled compared to a 27-paragraph monologue by Barbara Boxer, who went way over her time limit in accusing Rice of changing the rationale for Iraq after the WMD thing didn't pan out, ending with:

"And you don't seem to be willing to . . . admit a mistake, or give any indication of what you're going to do to forcefully involve others. As a matter of fact, you've said more misstatements; that the territory of the terrorists has been shrinking when your own administration says it's now expanded to 60 countries. So I am deeply troubled."

That brought the day's sharpest exchange, when Rice forcefully defended herself, saying she has "never, ever lost respect for the truth" and didn't want anyone "impugning my credibility or my integrity."

Whatever point Boxer was trying to make about administration policy got lost in the disgraceful slurs. Even though her confirmation has been pointlessly delayed by the opposition party, Ms. Rice got off to a fine start in what will be one of the toughest jobs on the planet. Being young, articulate, and highly competent, one can imagine that she might aspire to even higher positions in the public sector...