Sen. Obama's suggestion that the U.S. not only should withdraw from Iraq, but consider sending troops to our ally, Pakistan--regardless of whether we are invited by the government there--has to rank as the oddest moment of the political drama so far this year.

That smell your nose is detecting may well be the Obama campaign going up in smoke.

Obama's natural base is the peace crowd. They don't want the United States to fight in Iraq. They really don't want to fight in Afghanistan. In Canada, where Parliament refused to send troops to Iraq but does have a small contingent in Afghanistan, the media and the opposition parties are now demanding that the troops be brought back from Afghanistan. That is the true voice of the peace crowd. They don't want to fight anywhere.

So how does that base react when their top presidential choice suggests sending troops, unbidden, into Pakistan?

This is such an obvious misstep on Obama's part that I would expect him to back off the "troops to Pakistan" line almost immediately. But, even so, he will have damaged his case.

They must be celebrating over at "Hillary '08" headquarters!

Third Avenue in downtown Seattle, especially in the blocks around Pike and Pine streets, is so dangerous that ordinary office workers are anxious for their safety when they go out to lunch. In winter, when dark settles at 4:30, female office workers go in twos to their cars or buses. There have been a number of murders and many muggings, some in broad daylight in a small area that is supposed to include some of the city's prime real estate.

Benaroya Hall, home to the Seattle Symphony, is one block from Third and Pike. The Pike Place Market--the city's most famous tourist draw--is two blocks away. Macy's is right on the corner of Third and Pine.

Downtown Seattle was once famously safe. Now, office workers and condo dwellers share stories of new crime incidents literally daily. A colleague reports that a sex act was performed behind a truck next to her bus stop at 8:15 this morning and, a few steps later on her walk to work, a vagrant physically threatened a stranger.

Another co-worker called 911 two days ago when a dangerous looking man appeared out of nowhere, his arm cocked to hit him. I personally have reported crack deals to the 911 operators (and crack smoking behind our building in "Crack Alley", as it is locally known), and one day witnessed a man suddenly knock another man down with a hard slug in the face. Others witnessed gang beatings and worse.

Periodically, police swoop in and rustle about, then go away. The crack dealers, pimps, and swaggering youth reassert themselves almost at once. Mentally ill people get into pedestrians' faces, gang members shout at each other from corner to corner, aggressive panhandlers accost tourists on their way from the big hotels and the Convention Center to Pike Place Market.

Co-workers who witnessed a shooting in front of Macy's two days ago said that a riot nearly erupted as gang members swarmed into the Third and Pine intersection to protest police arrest of four suspects. Many associates fear that another event could result in a riot for real. Seattle has not had one of those since the WTO protest demonstrations of 2000--a story that made international news.

Why has this situation developed? One contributing cause is found in the subsidized services in the area that are said to attract the underworld.

Another reason may be that the city seems to fasten huge media attention on supposed cases of police insensitivity, while explaining away crime.

Ordinary police officers have been quoted in the papers saying that they may get in trouble if they arrest someone, but will suffer no consequences if they fail to act at all. It takes community support to cause a man or woman to face physical danger, and the Seattle police often don't feel that support.

But Seattle also has a problem because any policing on Third Avenue is intermittent as well as irresolute. The excuse is made that we have a big city and the police can't be spared to cover just one area heavily.

Really? Is there some other area of high crime that is higher priority than this? Sure, Seattle may need more police officers, but it has 1280 now.

How many does it take to secure a three block area? Third Avenue's problems are notorious all over the city.

Another excuse offered is that if the Pike/Pine corridor on Third Avenue is policed heavily, the thugs and dealers will just move elsewhere.

Well, they won't move elsewhere if they are arrested and sent to prison where they belong.

Right now, Walgreens Drugs Store at Third and Pike has a policy (according to a store worker with whom I spoke) that shoplifters will not be prosecuted. That's right. Police will not even be called. The criminal simply is to be surrounded by a store guard and other staff. The goods he or she has stolen are to taken away and the miscreant warned not to return. Why this policy? "Because it doesn't do any good to call the police," I was told. The police will be slow to arrive and the resulting paperwork and court time are not worth the trouble and cost to the corporation.

That is how tolerance in a city descends slowly into chaos. At some point an incident will occur that is so appalling that public outrage finally will arise. Then I suppose the authorities will find that they can spare the patrolmen they need to cover Third Avenue, after all.

The article ("No Surrender") that ran in Sunday's Opinion Section of the Seattle Times will be no surprise to those who read this blog. It speaks for itself.

I just threw up my hands when I saw that the New York Times Review of Books had assigned Richard Dawkins to review Michael Behe's excellent new book, The Edge of Evolution. A more temperate soul, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things takes apart the Times's decision with greater care.

The tendentious Dawkins does not answer Behe, but merely vilifies him. This seems to be the standard Darwinist reply to scientific critics of their One True Faith. The mild surprise is not Dawkins, therefore, but the Times' rabid partisanship in asking him to review the book in the first place.

The Times is having its problems, as are most newspapers. As a lover of print media, I hate to see it. As someone who looks for objective news and balanced commentary, however, I observe that they are reaping what they sow. One reason that sensationalist radio and TV gain market is that papers like the Times are becoming indistinguishable from them in the quality of their product. And radio and TV demand less attention.

The stories I watch most closely from Iraq now are the ones that tend to get buried in the newspapers, or ignored altogether.

The New York Times reports online today that U. S. troops killed 32 Iraqis in attacks in the Sadr City area of Baghdad.

As you examine it, the American military reports that all or nearly all those killed were Shia terrorists, so this story Is not not bad news about deaths in Iraq, per se, but good news about terrorists terminated in combat. Other than having such terrorists surrender, I don't know how the news could be better. These are the folks we believe are getting material aid from Iran.

(To be fair, I don't know how prominently the N. Y. Times will run this story in the print edition.)

Meanwhile, Stratfor's subscription-only intelligence briefing reports that the Saudis are preparing to reopen their embassy in Baghdad. This is will help restore confidence in Iraq's future and provide closer means of cooperation in shutting down Al Qaida operatives from Saudi Arabia that have been coming in through Syria.

The U.S., we also learn, is talking with Syria and other of Iraq's neighbors, as well as the Saudis and Iranians. The Iraqis are doing so, too, of course. Of significance, again according to Stratfor, are Iraqi agreements with Turkey to cooperate in curbing the activities of the PKK Kurdish terrorists that roam over the international border and attack Turkish soldiers, police and even civilians. They are not supported by the Iraqis (or the other Kurds), but their mere existence within the Kurdish region of Iraq has stirred the passions of the Turkish military, among others. The Erdogan government in Turkey, backed by the U.S., is eager to stop the PKK provocations.

All of these diplomatic developments are positive accompaniments for the apparently improving military situation.

If there is much to cheer about in changing military fortunes in Iraq, that cannot necessarily be said of our "public diplomacy" efforts--the term given for good propaganda. The U.S. Created Al Hurra television to compete with Al Jazeera and to make up for the mushiness of Voice of America. The new U.S. funded station is based in Virginia but reports and broadcasts to the Middle East in Arabic.

The sad thing seems to be that the new effort has succumbed to the same kind of bland programming that people trained in Hollywood and Madison Avenue wrongly suppose matters in Iraq or elsewhere in Arabic lands. The same problem apparently obtains in U.S. programs aimed at Iran.

Of course, you will get higher ratings for pop culture than for hard news and opinion about the political and military realities of the region, but so, what? Arabs know all about our pop culture--too much, probably. They are tempted to it even as they are repulsed by it. Indeed, a sad condition of America's image overseas is that we represent the novel and sensational in both a good and bad way. Modernity (as expressed in the West's edgy entertainment) has visceral appeal even as it leaves a bitter aftertaste in traditional cultures. It may get viewers. What it does not get is understanding and allies for America.

I have heard quiet comments about this problem from friends in and out of the Bush Administration. Some point to particular appointees who are naïve or who are easily rolled by the bureaucrats. What I have not seen are very many careful analyses of what we are doing and not doing in this field. I cannot report on it myself, so I am just leaving out the names I have heard. I'm not a reporter.

But what about the people who ARE reporters?

The liberal media doesn't report on the effectiveness of U.S. public diplomacy because they don't see any significance to it or else don't especially want the U.S. to look better, in any case. But what is holding up the conservative media?

Al Qaida knows full well that American public opinion is a second battleground for it. But so is opinion in the Middle East. If Iraqis and others learn what really is going on they are more likely to help the Americans. But if what they mainly get on TV are attacks on the U.S. by foreign radicals and hip hop from Americans, what are they supposed to
think?

A failure to take public diplomacy very seriously is a huge wartime disservice to our fighting men and women because it damages the cause of victory. The President himself has too much riding on the Iraq war to let this aspect of his strategy be affected by personal loyalties, or, worse, inattention.

It is hard to hear normally smart, even shrewd, Americans complain that the U.S. burden of the Iraq War is being carried too much by the armed forces and that civilian Americans are not being asked to sacrifice enough. It sounds so stirring, so morally upright; that is, until you think about it.

The two main ways people suggest that civilians sacrifice more are 1) higher taxes, and 2) reinstitution of the draft.

In the first case, we can afford to wage the war in Iraq without endangering our economy largely because the Bush tax cuts of 2002-3 have so successfully stimulated economic growth. Higher taxes might mean more "sacrifice," all right, but at this point they also probably would reduce economic growth and therefore reduce federal tax REVENUES.

If, as even many Democrats recognize now, we have to be in Iraq for a number of years, we need economic health. We can only manage a long war if it is a small war, and one that takes a relatively modest share of GNP each year. Big wars can't last long without exhausting the participants relatively quickly.

Bringing back the draft is another counterproductive idea. I understand why liberals would like to bring back the draft. It would give the government access to whole generations at a time and that would help build an even stronger expectation that it is government that properly gives direction to life. For that very reason, it mystifies me why any conservative would support a return to conscription.

Bring back the draft and the compulsion that goes with it, and you will totally debase the quality of our armed forces and lower the prestige of service. You further will open the military to the kind of discipline problems, including heavy drug use, that plagued the military in Vietnam. We read occasionally about some criminal in the military in Iraq (rapists, reckless killers, etc.), but the truth is that we have the best disciplined military force that has seen service in many generations. They have the pride of voluntarism and professional training.

Bring back the draft and you also will incite a new protest movement on campuses, and who needs that?

Therefore, what civilians need to do is to back the military and show appreciation for them. Since most of us are not called to much personal sacrifice, we should show the greatest solicitation for those volunteers who are shouldering most of the burden.

This is not World War II, where an all-out, society-wide effort was needed. The contest is not the same. Just consider the numbers of war-related deaths--many in World War II, relatively few now. Then we were able to overwhelm the foe in a conventional war. In this war against politicized Islamist terrorists, we must outwit, outperform and OUTLAST the foe. It is less about sacrifice and more about skill and resolve.

If you personally don't feel you are doing enough, I suggest that you contribute to the USO or any number of other causes that directly help servicemen and women.

On July 27, I commented on the liberal mindset that views terrorism as a law enforcement matter. Last Wednesday, a prime example of this reasoning appeared in a New York Times op-ed titled, "Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers". In the op-ed, Wesley Clark and his co-author, Kal Raustiala, say, "terrorism should be fought first with information exchange and law enforcement and then with more effective domestic security measures." Rather than designate terrorists as "unlawful combatants," Clark says they should be treated as "criminals."

Clark's initial observations make sense: The conventions of war, at least in the West, do indeed make a distinction between civilians and combatants. But he then makes a strange logical non sequitur. "That line is being blurred in the struggle against transnational terrorists," he says, before placing blame for the blurring at the feet of the Bush Administration. The problem with the argument? The blame doesn't lie with President Bush, but instead with those who actually have blurred the lines--the terrorists.

Terrorists, be they Irish Republican Army, Basque Separatists or Al Qaeda, exist by virtue of their indivisibility from the civilian populace in which they operate. By their very nature, they operate on asymmetrical terms: avoiding conventional warfare tactics in favor of guerrilla-style operations that allow them to strike before blending easily back into the population. Terrorists know that they'd lose a conventional war. So they instead disguise themselves among the population, shirk any semblance of conventional combatant forces such as uniforms, and blend in with the civilians who give them cover.

Clark (correctly, I might add) then points out that terrorists differ from soldiers, or at least our soldiers, in that they intentionally target civilians. But he then makes another unwarranted logical move, arguing that because of this distinction, they should be treated as "criminals," not soldiers. Again, this just doesn't follow.

Al Qaeda may not be a nation in the traditional sense, and so our custom of declaring war may not seem to fit. But this is to ignore what Sun Tzu, ancient Chinese strategist and author of the Art of War, said was the one certainty of war: Wars are always changing, they are always about mutual adaptation. Even though the declaration of war traditionally applied only to nations, it's time for us to change that. It should now also apply to a newer, more amorphous enemy. Certain features of Al Qaeda, for example, lend to treating them as military combatants rather than as the mafia or triads.

First is their obvious use of violence as a means of attaining their end. Now, this alone won't guarantee that they should be treated as soldiers. Indeed, the mob, and even petty bank robbers, use violence. But one can recognize a qualitative difference in holding a person up at gunpoint during a bank robbery and crashing a plane into the World Trade Center. One is for a mere material end, the other has a political end in mind. Second, Al Qaeda operatives have all the trappings of the military. For example, it trains its operatives in military-like camps and equips them for missions, albeit of a more clandestine commando nature. Third, is the question of scope. The mafia or triads may build an empire with global reach but rarely try to shape the religion and structure of the civil society in which they operate. In contrast to Al Qaeda, these bona fide criminal organizations tend to be minimalists wanting to shape the laws only to the extent that they interfere with their business. Al Qaeda's goal-- the reinstitution of the Sharia law under a global caliphate--isn't nearly so modest. Law enforcement isn't designed to thwart visions of global conquest, something that you'd hope a former candidate for U.S. president might understand.

By treating terrorists as combatants, Clark argues, "we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts." This is absurd. Merely because you choose to oppose your enemy with martial means doesn't mean you accord them or their actions legitimacy, much less dignify them. To say so would mean that we accorded dignity to Nazi Germany when we opposed them with military power; if anything, the opposite seems true.

Although he never bothers to spell it out, Clark also says, "[t]he formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven." Clark may hesitate to expand on this in part because past successful fights against terrorists, like the British fight against the Malaysian insurgency, have been accomplished through a combination of military might, civil affairs and special operations.

Perhaps the most vacuous of Clark's claims is that labeling terrorists as combatants would make us impotent to prosecute them. He frames it as a paradox:

"While the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon."

Just because the enemy may strike a military target doesn't mean there wouldn't be repercussions for that. Indeed, the strikes on Pearl Harbor were strikes on military targets. But that didn't stop the U.S. from targeting Pearl Harbor's Japanese strategist, Admiral Yamamoto, and then shooting down his plane. Furthermore, all of this is to forget that we have employed a military tribunal system in previous wars that is explicitly designed to deal with enemy soldiers who fight by illegitimate means. Let us not kid ourselves: Just because the Nuremberg trials were set-up under the aegis of the Allies by the London Charter in no way changes the ad hoc nature of the historic proceedings. Even without international imprimatur military tribunals should be used to prosecute terrorists who act unlawfully, much like the military tribunals were used to prosecute German saboteurs in Ex parte Quirin.

Clark then raises a non-descript concern about our commitment to liberty and quotes the Supreme Court about "a deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to the extension of military control over civilians." I too share this concern, if it is founded, but in no way does fighting Al Qaeda with the military abroad endanger our commitment to the Posse Comitatus Act, which simply says that you shouldn't use the military against the citizens of this country.

Clark then raises what is perhaps his only valid concern in the entire article, the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens. On this much, Clark and I agree: Were we to find someone who is both a U.S. citizen and an alleged terrorist, like Ali al-Marri, I'd agree they should be prosecuted under our current judicial system for treason much like members of the Duquesne Spy Ring during World War II.

Finally, Clark closes by saying:

"Cases like this illustrate that in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration's approach to terrorism has created more problems than it has solved. We need to recognize that terrorists while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors."

You have to chuckle as the liberal media vent about the departure of Karl Rove--some in editorials or opinion columns, others letting their personal views color what are presented as news stories. It is almost as if someone is running off with their punching bag and they are trying to get in a few last belts before it's carried out the White House gates.

Or maybe they think that they can't trust Karl Rove--at a mere 56 and still a political bull brimming with testosterone--to truly retire into some Texas buttercup field. They must try one last time for a disabling cut. They want him discredited, GONE. (For a more fitting story, see Grover Norquist's column for the Washington Post.) The attempts on his political life won't work, of course, and that must surely make Rove smile. Another Last Laugh for "the Architect."

Meanwhile, we have accompanying news accounts of all the other big name White House staff departures of the past year. You would think that the corridors of the West Wing were suddenly echoing with emptiness.

On a related topic, in the new issue of The Atlantic(September--not online), we are invited to voyeuristic enjoyment of an attack by former presidential speech writer Matthew Scully on his former colleague and superior, Chief Presidential Speech Writer Michael J. Gerson. The widely proclaimed Evangelical wordsmith, Gerson, is regarded as a fit target by The Atlantic because he has an undoubtedly self-serving memoir coming out and is a newly anointed columnist for The Washington Post.

I don't have a dog in The Atlantic fight. Gerson and Scully are both fine writers and probably fine men. But I wince to see Scully reveal instances of Gerson's supposed greedy pride of authorship while they were both in the White House. Scully probably has merit to his case against his one time friend. But reading it made me uncomfortable about both of them, like walking into an argument between a couple that doesn't concern you.

You see, there is an old fashioned idea of public service that holds that staff are not to be treated as principals and should not be regarded as such by outsiders. Nobody elected them. All their glory is reflected.

Oddly, it has to be said of Rove that he seems to have understood this old standard, because at least he employed it to avoid attention to himself. He was famously unavailable for interviews. He might have had better press if he had behaved otherwise, but it's doubtful that his boss would have benefited.

Speechwriters especially are supposed to be almost anonymous. I approve of that standard and think that conservatives at least should try to preserve it. It is unseemly for speech writers to talk about their elected boss as if he were almost incidental to their clever delineation of policy. It is a bit silly, too. Do these people think that because they write the literal words the busy president mouths that they have created his very ideas and programs?

Typical fulsome praise for the Boss aside (and fulsome praise is embarrassing to read, too!), are they aware that they are obviously posing as ventriloquists? At least let the President get out of office before you start taking credit for his achievements. (By the way, speechwriters never take responsibility for presidential mistakes--including verbal gaffes--do they?)

I have to admit that I don't come to this judgment about prideful political staff with a completely clean conscience. As a young man I was toasted in the Seattle media for the work I did writing position papers for two mayor candidates, both of whom lost. It only occurred to me later that foes of my candidates, including in the media, were using applause for me--the "idea man"--as a way to diminish by implication the candidates who hired me. Showing off was too much a pleasure to allow me to reflect enough on the reality. I tried to tell myself that my moment of fame was actually good for the candidates I worked for. But that was wrong. There are times when an aide should go public, as when he needs to defend the candidate or officeholder, or to elaborate on the principal's views. But those times should be rare.

In the Reagan White House it was the "pragmatists" like OMB Director David Stockman and Deputy Chief of Staff Richard Darman who most often leaked positive accounts of themselves to the media. The same stories were usually negative toward the President. Reagan conservatives tended to maintain discipline, and that included almost all the speechwriters.

The White House Writers Group is an organization originally composed of former Reagan White House Presidential speech writers and it's good to note that they are making a very nice living these days from their post-government prose. But while they were in the White House, the folks I know from that group didn't try to grab the spotlight. Their discretion didn't conduce to their fame, perhaps, but in my book it conduced to their honor.

So who is running the White House now? Well, guess what, he has an able vice president, but the true "eminence griese," the hidden hand of the Bush Administration turns out to be--fanfare, please--George W. Bush.

What a surprise.

Discovery Institute's third annual summer lecture series for interns and young professionals wrapped up last Tuesday. The Gorton Summer Lecture Series named for our distinguished board member and former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, introduces young people to the nature and ideals of public service.

This year the series examined a range of current political issues and their potential impact. Among others, speakers tangled with topics like: immigration reform, radical Islam, the "Fairness Doctrine," presidential politics, academic freedom, and how election campaigns operate. Four events were presented interview style, with Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman conducting three, and Director of Public Affairs for Cascadia, Mike Wussow, sitting in for one.

You can view streaming video of the four events by clicking the TVW images below. We would like to thank all of our speakers, and most importantly, all of the young people and other attendees who turned out! Planning will begin for next year's series very soon, and we hope you'll stay tuned. (More photos coming soon.)

August 7, 2007
Law and Public Policy
Featuring Attorney General Rob McKenna

August 3, 2007
Poli-Sci and the Liberal Professorate
Featuring Dr. Mathew Manweller

July 19, 2007
Talk Radio & Politics
Featuring Talk Show Host Kirby Wilbur

June 26, 2007
The Meaning and Ideals of Public Service
Featuring Former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton

In May Mary Ellen Tiffany Gilder, a medical student in Albany, New York, published in this space a devastating critique of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, drawing on public research. Ms Gilder, a daughter of Discovery Senior Fellow George Gilder, is saluted for her global warming analysis in Steve Forbes' lead column in the new Forbes magazine (September 3 issue: "Fantasy Fears").

The line of Forbes' I like the best: "Scientists who arrive at an opposing conclusion (from Gore's) are ostracized and often denied grants. Universities won't hire them or, if they are already tenured, will make sure they don't get promoted." Any scientific critic of Darwinian theory can sympathize!

You can read or re-read Mary Ellen ("Melly") Gilder's original paper--"Good News, Mr. Gore, the Apocalypse Has Been Postponed"--on our site.

One motivation for writing the paper apparently was Melly's conviction that exaggerated or wrong scientific analyses could wind up hurting the world's poor, as happened with DDT studies relative to malaria forty years ago. Ms. Gilder's medical training and deep Christian faith has propelled her into medical missionary work in South East Asia in recent years, some of it in dangerous territory.

Not only is Melly Gilder intent on serving the needy and neglected, this lovely young woman clearly has the same kind of talent and trained writing skills as her father, George--and her mother, Cornelia Brooke Gilder, a distinguished historic preservationist who champions the remarkable built environment of the Berkshire Mountains of Western Massachusetts.

The New York Times carries an apparently objective story about gender science controversy and the persecution (I'll use the word) of a scientist at Northwestern whose views differ from the mainstream of political
correctness.

This is increasingly familiar territory. All sorts of academic pressures and tricks are used to bring non-pc scientists into line, and failing that, to get them fired or demoted or ostracized (e.g., no research grants). We see it on the global warming issue (as the previous Discovery Blog item attests) and, of course, in cosmology (the persecution of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State) and biology (too many cases to mention in regards to Darwin critics and/or supporters of intelligent design). It is also practiced in areas like embryonic stem cell research and anything to do with abortion.

If you have not read C.S. Lewis' novel, That Hideous Strength, with its description of the superficially benign government research group, "N.I.C.E." (National Institute for Coordinated Experiments"), this is a good time to enjoy a read. Lewis was ahead of the times on this as well as other moral issues.

And it is a moral issue. It is an issue particularly for the media, most of whom are influenced by the trend in such journals as Columbia Journalism Review that recommend that reporters not bother providing "balance" on science stories where "a consensus of science exists" and not to allow dissenters on scientific issues to appear on op-ed pages.

The results are abundant. The Times itself today carries an oblique reference to Michael Behe's new analysis of the limits of Darwinian evolution by science reporter Ken Chang. While he critiques his argument, it appears Chang did not consider it seriously enough to interview Behe. And when it came time for publish a review of Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, the Times not only chose a sure-fire hit piece by Richard
Dawkins, but allowed Dawkins to descend into an almost totally ad hominem assault that avoided science. (Dawkins of course would never debate Behe.)

We have seen this before in history, though not on so many subjects at once. The Darwin-inspired eugenics movement is one example, but so are repeated cases in medical history where new cures were spurned for years--and medical innovators tormented or destroyed--before their views ultimately triumphed. Something similar happened with Big Bang Theory.

Meanwhile, trendy scientific theories without any supporting evidence (string theory, multi-verses, etc.) are perfectly okay to teach and advocate for the clear reason that they serve one overriding, objection-demolishing purpose: to advance philosophical materialism.

A few days ago I sat in one of the rooms where the producers of a new film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," were screening a trailer and passing the word to interested individuals and groups. It's the same pre-release publicity approach used recently for other Hollywood offerings, including documentaries. My emotion was almost as much one of relief as excitement. It is going to be a terrific film treatment of the whole controversy, and far fairer than any we have encountered.

For two years we have known that the Hollywood actor/critic/comedian/writer Ben Stein was making a film with a company called Premise Media that would inspect the controversy over Darwinian theory and intelligent design. Let's just say that some people at Discovery Institute were eager to cooperate, others more cautious. We have been burned so often by sweet-talking film-makers and television people who wanted to hear about "the science" and to hear our "side" of the controversy, only to be appalled by the one-sided, selectively edited final products that resulted.

All right, it's not written in stone, but only on Doubleday's finest rag and linen stock (all recyclable, don't you know?), still David Klinghoffer's new book, Shattered Tablets: Why we Ignore the Ten Commandments at Our Peril, is provoking religious and anti-religious fervor among both conservatives and liberals. That means you really have to read it.

The book is officially "out" only as of this week, yet National Review Online already is carrying a funny interview of David on the subject of his new work. The byplay between David, a senior fellow in Discovery Institute's Religion and Public Life program and a one-time book editor at NR, and Kathryn Lopez, Online's editor, is particularly amusing if you know something of the NR staff. (Are they going to allow their self-ordained Evangelizing Agnostic, John Derbyshire, to review Shattered Tablets?)

The book also stimulated a column a couple of days ago by Danny Westneat in The Seattle Times (it singes our man, but doesn't burn him), while a fine tribute by Rod Deher just ran in The Dallas Morning News.

Many months ago I argued with David about his book's jeremiads against Seattle, our mutual home town. I am a bit more accepting of the religiously lazy and latitudinarian locals than is David, but having witnessed lately a huge increase of intimidating street crime outside our downtown office building, I have to admit the aptness of David's depiction of Third and Pike as an example of the breakdown in respect for authority. In fact, Shattered Tablets makes a lot of good, relevant points. You don't have to agree with all of them, or any of them, but David Klinghoffer is nothing if not a prophet deserving of attention.

Here's a final thought. In very recent times traditional Jews like Klinghoffer, Christian evangelicals and conservative Catholics have been coming together on a number of public issues, often joined by thoughtful Stoics who don't embrace any particular faith, but appreciate those who do and, like the rest of us, cherish the religious concepts of ordered liberty that make Western Civilization exceptional. If it weren't for the strident atheists who have been demanding more and more secularization and seeking to punish religious people, this development might not be taking place. Call it coincidence, call it Providence, nothing quite like it has happened before. That is one reason why Shattered Tablets is likely to enjoy a broad and deep audience.

Rich Karlgaard, the dapper and insightful publisher of Forbes (under Steve Forbes), has an amusing column on the way to read business news ("Only the Bad News is Fit to Print").

Sadly, even business news is afflicted with a bias toward the negative and a tendency to report opinion as fact.

Obviously, we can apply the same device to examine, say, The New York Times.

This blog is subtitled, "All the Views that Fit." It's a pun, of course, but also has the merit of candor.

It has long seemed to me that if Muslims are as motivated by religious devotion as we hear, and are as responsive to clear directives from their clerics as we hear, then responsible Sunni and Shia clerics might be expected to come down hard and publicly on terrorists. After all, suicide is supposed to be counter to the Quran, and killing innocent civilians--especially other Muslims--in wartime or any other time is strictly forbidden. But both these tactics are every day tools of the Al Qaida terrorists and even the Shia militia. Most clerics simply leave the topic alone, however.

Once upon a time, before the First World War, the Caliph in Constantinople--under protection of the Ottomans--maintained explicit policies of tolerance that preserved religious peace and even allowed large Christian and Jewish communities to flourish in the Middle East. Religious terrorism was suppressed as strongly as possible. It was one of the unintended consequences of the fall of the Ottomans that such central religious authority disappeared, and with it the policies it supported eroded.

An oped article in Saturday's Wall Street Journal by former Reagan national security adviser Robert McFarlane indicates that I am not alone in wondering about the strange absence of anti-terrorism fatwas until now. The good news McFarlane reports is that major progress in getting both Sunnis and Shia to issue such directives is underway.

It isn't easy, of course. Shia imams are afraid that if they outright ban violence by Shia, the Sunnis will take advantage of the situation, and vice versa. They also fear as individuals that if they oppose the terrorists, they themselves--and their mosques--will be targeted. However, they all may recognize the folly of the present situation now and perhaps the U.S. and Iraqi governments are figuring out adequate means to protect clerics who are willing to issue tough religious bans (fatwas).

Let's hope so. Let's hope, further, that the Saudis will bring the Wahabbis into the process. There is nothing that can accomplish the same with the Iranians at this point, but if Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf joins in the issuance of anti-terrorist fatwas, it will undercut the Iranians, for there is no Shia figure of comparable authority to Sistani in Iran.

Of course, the nasty truth about the "Muslim" violence in the Middle East (especially including Hezbollah and Hamas) is that they are politically-propelled in essence. They merely exploit religion. But at least if the religious leaders finally take concerted action against the terrorists, and condemn them, the promises about "72 virgins" and all that
will be harder to sell to the poor fools the terrorists recruit for suicide missions. Shame, not glory, should be the fate of families and friends of terrorist killers.

One final thought: The McFarlane story, if correct, has far more news significance than it has received so far--a below-the-fold oped in a Saturday edition of the Journal. Where are all the regular reporters on this important development?

I will celebrate the day I learn that it is safe for foreigners (e.g.,
Americans) to walk the shopping streets of Baghdad. That was not possible
when I visited in September, 2004 and it is not possible now, even though a
highly guarded Sen. John McCain conspicuously bought a carpet at a Baghdad
bazaar a couple of months ago. But the good senator was heavily guarded.

At my hotel three years ago, almost marooned, I had meetings with a few
Iraqis who could come to see me in safety. I had a particularly memorable
dinner with Ali Fadhil, one of the original founders of the now-famous,
award-winning (and still authoritative) blog, Iraq the
Model. His brothers have made the blog the kind of thing
that is quoted by the mainstream media because of its authenticity and
immediacy.

Ali, a doctor, writes that he is coming to America this fall to do
post-graduate work in psychology at SUNY in New York. I plan to reciprocate
his visit in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, Ali's brothers continue to produce their excellent insights
into all things Iraqi. Below I have reprinted the story of how the road
through the once-deadly Anbar province is now passable and safe, at least
for Iraqis. This is a huge step forward and you can tell from Omar Fadhil's
report how delighted he is.

I look forward to the day when people like me are able to shop on Haifa
Street and not have to worry about being kidnapped for ransom, or killed!
When it is that safe, I want to go back. Dinner in the garden of Iraqi
friends has been promised. At the end of a day of desert heat, a cool
evening and a home-made Middle Eastern meal will be a joy.

But only when it can be enjoyed in peace. May that day come soon.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Crossing Anbar

It's supply and demand 101, this change in cost reflects a change in demand
on the two ends of the route suggesting that a good percentage of Iraqis who
flooded Syria in the beginning of the summer season were just trying to
escape the summer heat and enjoy a simple vacation, like my family did.
It doesn't mean a refugees issue doesn't exist, but it does mean that Iraqis
could sometimes be just normal tourists...

The Seattle Times thinks former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton, who also was a four term elected Attorney General for the State of Washington and more recently served on the National Commission on 9/11, would make an excellent new Attorney General. They are right; it's a great idea.

I have known Slade for forty years. He is a dynamo--articulate, scholarly, and eminently practical. When he was AG for Washington his opponents once satirized him in a political cartoon as a school marm with a ruler. Actually, it was an unintended compliment, since everyone knows him as a man of no-nonsense integrity, which is exactly what you want as a top law enforcement official.

The Times suggests that if President Bush nominated him to replace Alberto Gonzales he could be confirmed easily by the U.S. Senate, many of whose members know him personally. That's true, but it might make better sense to avoid another long confirmation process and make a recess appointment that could take effect right away. After all, there is only a year and four months left of the Bush Administration and the need for leadership at the Department of Justice is now, not later this fall.