Obama vs. history

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

Rising star should explain economic views

December 19, 2006

There are darn good reasons that millions of Americans are in full swoon over Sen. Barack Obama and the prospect that the Illinois Democrat will seek the White House in 2008. Just as in the 1976 presidential race, when Jimmy Carter's vow to be an honest, moral leader fit the Zeitgeist of a nation disillusioned by Watergate and Vietnam, Obama's message of outreach and hope make him uniquely attractive to a public weary of our nasty, polarized political debate.

But his appeal is not just of a surface variety. Obama's books and speeches offer a seductive vision of a better America, one in which the energy we spend fighting each other is devoted to actually solving problems. He calls for acknowledging the best arguments on all sides of a debate and resisting the impulse to demonize those with whom we disagree.

No one else talks like this. Instead, we see Karl Rove implying that voting for Democrats is traitorous, or Obama's fellow Chicago Democrat – Rep. Rahm Emanuel – gleefully urging Republicans to perform anatomical impossibilities on election night after Democrats regained control of the House.

For all these reasons and more, Obama's emergence as a national figure is welcome. Nevertheless, at some point – say, before he seeks the presidency – Obama must offer far more substantive explanations of his stands on the issues, especially the economy.

There is a fight going on now for the soul of the Democratic Party. One side, led by former President Bill Clinton, says the answer to rising economic insecurity lies in improving and subsidizing worker training to make it easier to switch careers, making health insurance far more portable and creating a better safety net for those temporarily displaced in our churning economy.

The other side, led by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, says the answer is protectionism and punishing U.S. companies that choose to invest or expand abroad or do not pay their workers enough.

With his opposition to many trade deals and his Wal-Mart bashing, Obama has tentatively allied himself with the latter camp, all the while depicting himself as a thoughtful centrist. But there is nothing thoughtful about ignoring the vast evidence that free trade and relatively unfettered capitalism have made America prosperous – or arguing that a company whose low prices help millions of families make ends meet and which has no trouble filling jobs should abandon its business model and become an adjunct welfare agency.

If Barack Obama is sincere when he says it is imperative to have honest, good-faith debates on the big issues, at some point he will need to explain how on earth he concluded that governments do a better job than the free market in creating jobs and wealth.

In his research, he might want to ponder this place called Europe. It's a continent-sized example of how protectionism and government regulation kill jobs, depress growth and hurt most the people such policies are supposed to help.

How about it, senator? Any interest in a road trip?

---

me@rescam.org

The good and the bad in Afghanistan

By Craig Charney and Gary Langer

Charney is president of Charney Research, the polling firm that conducted the poll discussed here. Langer is director of polling for ABC News.

December 19, 2006

There is a note of panic in American views of Afghanistan today. “All the indicators for Afghanistan have headed south,” the Los Angeles Times editorialized. Outside Kabul, “much of the rest of Afghanistan appears to be failing again,” Newsweek reports. Sen. John Kerry warns: We are “losing Afghanistan.”

These views reflect the belief that Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government is hemorrhaging support as the Taliban makes a comeback. Karzai is called the “mayor of Kabul,” his government lacking authority outside the capital and plagued by corruption. Western troops backing him are said to face widespread hostility.

Yet the full picture in Afghanistan's rugged terrain is more complex. A nationwide ABC News/BBC World Service survey of 1,036 Afghans last month found both good signs and bad.

The Taliban, while active, lacks popular support. Although Karzai's honeymoon is over, he retains majority backing. The Afghan state is relatively weak, but it is present – and popular – in most of the country. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a country where the populace favors the U.S. and allied military presence.

There's no upsurge of support for the Taliban. Just 10 percent of Afghans hold a favorable opinion of the Muslim extremists, almost unchanged from 2005 and 2004. Taliban supporters are concentrated in the southeast and east, conservative regions bordering ethnically similar parts of Pakistan, where the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies have moved their camps and leaders.

This year Taliban forces, flush with trainees, materiel, and bomb designs and tactics learned from al-Qaeda in Iraq, surged into nearby regions – the southwest, heart of the illegal opium trade; the center-east, which includes Kabul; and the warlord-ridden northwest. Today, 64 percent of Afghans report some Taliban activity in their own area. While 58 percent still call security better now than before the Taliban's ouster in 2001, this figure has fallen by 17 points since last year.

The Taliban's reappearance is cause for grave concern – and not only to Americans. Afghans overwhelmingly prefer Karzai's government to the Taliban, 88 percent to 3 percent. But 57 percent call the Taliban the biggest danger facing the country – up sharply from 41 percent last year. Its growing presence is broadly unwanted.

Weak state institutions are indeed a key Afghan problem. Where government agencies are strongest, 71 percent of Afghans say things are going in the right direction. Where they are weakest, only 39 percent do. As Gen. Karl Eikenberry, U.S. commander in Kabul, says, the main challenge is not the enemy's strength but the state's weakness.

Yet, even after 33 years of coups and war, reports of the demise of the Afghan state are exaggerated. Seven in 10 Afghans say Karzai's government has a strong presence where they live; even more say this of provincial governments and the police.

While corruption is common – 55 percent call it a big problem – the state is functioning and appreciated in key respects. Big majorities trust it to provide security. Seven in 10 Afghans live within two miles of a school and a clinic. Three in five boys are in school, as are two in five girls.

Despite criticism of police corruption and training, the police, too, are making an impact. The Taliban are reported present only half as often where the force is strong as where it is weak. Most Afghans say they'd report crimes to the police.

The foreign soldiers supporting local police and troops are widely appreciated. Three Afghans in four are grateful for the American, British and Canadian troops in their country. An overwhelming majority (88 percent) say the U.S. invasion that overthrew the Taliban was a good thing. And three out of five Afghans want U.S. troops to stay until security is restored (though that's down from 70 percent last year). Approval for U.S. forces and Karzai has to be seen in the context of what came before: They may not be so great, but the Taliban were so bad. Nonetheless, the 77 percent U.S. approval rate in Afghanistan can hardly be described as flat-out failure.

But the negatives cannot be minimized. Worsening security and a moribund economy have hammered the optimism that followed peace, reconstruction and Afghanistan's first democratic elections, in 2004. Last year 77 percent said their country was headed in the right direction; now 55 percent do. Karzai's approval rating has dropped from 83 percent to 68 percent. Reflecting painfully slow growth, acceptance of opium poppy cultivation jumped in the past year.

Afghanistan's problems are real and deepening. They demand major military, reconstruction and diplomatic efforts before dashed expectations turn into active discontent. But the situation is hardly catastrophic. Enough positives remain to serve as a foundation for success. If America is to succeed in Afghanistan, however, we will have to understand it first.

---

me@rescam.org

More Troops Needed To Do The Job:

---

Once again, high court rebukes 9th Circuit

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 20, 2006

Not for the first time, the Supreme Court has decided that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco leaped to an unwarranted conclusion. Not for the first time, the Supreme Court made that decision unanimously. In cases appealed to the high court, the 9th Circuit holds the record for federal appellate courts in number of reversals, number of unanimous reversals and number of summary reversals, which the court didn't bother to explain.

In 2005 alone, the Supreme Court heard 19 cases appealed from the 9th Circuit. It reversed 16 of them. In 10 of them, liberal justices joined conservative justices to make the reversals of the 9th Circuit rulings unanimous.

This is the court that threw out “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruled that localities must provide shelter beds for all its homeless or let them sleep unimpeded on the street, and wanted jurors to be more persuasively instructed that they can spare a defendant the death penalty because he had a horrid childhood.

In the latest case, a 9th Circuit panel was sure it was right.

A California man appealed his murder conviction on grounds that the family of the victim wore small buttons bearing his picture in the courtroom, thereby prejudicing the jury and denying him a fair trial. A California appellate court disagreed, ruling that button-wearing could be unacceptable and should be discouraged – but that the “simple photograph of (the victim) was unlikely to have been taken as a sign of anything other than the normal grief occasioned by the loss of (a) family member,” not as marking the defendant guilty. The California Supreme Court let that ruling stand.

The defendant switched to the federal courts. The federal district court ruled against him. But the 9th Circuit panel was prepared: In 1990 it had reversed a rape conviction, saying “Women Against Rape” buttons worn by several women during the trial had skewed the verdict. Citing that precedent, and a Supreme Court ruling that states cannot require defendants to wear prison garb or shackles during their trials because it is “inherently prejudicial” to them, the panel overturned the murder conviction.

Since 1996, however, federal courts may hear appeals of state court decisions only if the state courts have unreasonably applied, or ruled contrary to, federal law as established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court, has prohibited only prejudicial government conduct. It has established no federal law on spectator conduct in the courtroom. And it's Supreme Court precedent, not 9th Circuit precedent, that counts.

Anticipating that rebuke, 9th Circuit Judge Andrew W. Kleinfeld had written in a dissenting opinion concerning this case: “The panel's error is symptomatic of a deeper problem than its misapplication of Supreme Court precedent to spectators' photo buttons. ... Our panel has arrogated to our court power that we do not legitimately possess.” For his liberal colleagues reportedly proud of stepping on Supreme Court toes, it won't be the last time.

---

me@rescam.org

Keeping Christmas controversies in perspective

By Glenn C. Smith; a constitutional law professor at California Western School of Law.

December 20, 2006

Respecting the religious traditions of an increasingly diverse America while avoiding government-favored orthodoxy is always a tall order. Ironically, during the Christmas season, which millions hope will be a time of “peace on earth, goodwill toward men,” it can be especially difficult to keep perspective, civility, and nuance in play.

In part, this is because the holidays seem to become the “silly season” for some public officials. Faced with a constitutional duty to avoid governmental endorsement of particular religious points of view, some officials (including some lower-court judges) needlessly over-correct. A much-publicized recent example was the initial decision of Seattle's airport officials to remove holiday Christmas trees, rather than think seriously about how they could also display a Hanukkah menorah.

The search for Christmas common sense becomes even more difficult when prominent public advocates and media commentators stoke these fires of controversy. Recent commentaries have too often combined alarmist warnings about a “war on Christmas” with misrepresentations of relevant legal principles and simplistic all-or-nothing positions.

San Diegans wishing to avoid the extremism of some public officials and pundits would do well to keep three basic points in mind.

First, any discussion of the constitutionality of Christmas displays and observances must begin with an appreciation of the sophisticated balancing act required by the Constitution's First Amendment. One of its clauses obligates governments to respect religious free exercise, which would prevent government from “banning Christmas,” as some advocates worry. Another (anti-establishment) clause, however, prohibits governments from using public money and authority to support particular religious institutions and beliefs.

These constitutional cross-currents can be successfully navigated if one owns up to the nature of the voyage. Thus, the oft-repeated statement by some commentators that the Constitution does not guarantee “freedom from religion” is inaccurate on its face and oversimplifies the relevant questions.

An important implication flows from these basic constitutional principles: Ultimately, it does not matter that the vast majority of Americans are Christians who celebrate Christmas. The framers intended all of the Bill of Rights protections, including the religion clauses of the First Amendment, to protect against the “tyranny of the majority.” The Constitution gives no more power to majorities than to minorities to have government place its stamp of approval on their religious beliefs and rituals.

A second key point to remember is that, although honoring constitutional commands about religion takes sensitive judgment, decades of judicial line-drawing offer generally useful and common-sensical guideposts. Especially important to Christians is the substantial room offered by current legal rules for “keeping Christ in Christmas.”

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the Constitution permits historically important religious works, traditions and symbols (including Christian paintings and texts) to be included in the nation's museums, libraries and artistic venues. Indeed, this year's Postal Service holiday stamp offerings include a “Christmas” stamp reprinting a painting of Mary and Jesus.

Current legal doctrines, properly understood, also allow room for Christmas carols and traditions in the nation's public schools. Celebrations of Jesus' birth can be studied in various courses for their cultural significance and included at school assemblies and music events as long as the context does not imply an official approval of the Christian message.

Even in classic public forums, such as city halls and parks, guiding precedents permit nativity scenes and other Christian depictions to be included in broader holiday displays (especially when the seasonal symbols of other religions are included).

Thus, although gray areas inevitably remain, relevant decisions generally stake out a discernible boundary between unconstitutional endorsements of Christian teachings and valid accommodations of Christmas falling short of such endorsement.

A third core point is increasingly worthy of emphasis as controversies grow about how private entities deal with Christmas. For example, whether retailers should replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays” is now the subject of rhetorical battles and customer boycotts.

The “Happy Holidays” usage seems preferable for situations in which message senders do not know the religious beliefs of recipients. It appears to be a courteous and inclusive way to respect varying cultures and religions. Still, many would no doubt disagree. The important point, however, is that the United States Constitution has nothing directly to say about such controversies (although one side can claim a greater loyalty to the advisory spirit of the document). The Constitution restricts how governmental bodies interact with Christmas displays and traditions; it does not regulate the holiday practices of private entities such as Wal-Mart. The issue gets confused, and passions get needlessly inflamed, when the public and private handling of Christmas get lumped together.

As Christmas controversies continue, I hope that my fellow Christian readers will keep the above points in mind, thereby receiving an extra Christmas present this season – the gift of peace of mind and perspective.

---

me@rescam.org

Once again, high court rebukes 9th Circuit

This is why they are called The 9th Circus Court.

wow prison uniforms are getting into line with fashion huh?

---

me@rescam.org

2006: The year of perpetual outrage

By Michelle Malkin; author of “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.”

December 21, 2006

It began with the Danish cartoons. It ended with the flying imams. Two-thousand-six was a banner year for the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. Twelve turbulent months of fist-waving, embassy-burning, fatwa-issuing mayhem, intimidation and murder resounded with the ululations of the aggrieved. All this in the name of defending Islam from “insult.” Let's review.

In late January, masked Palestinian gunmen took over a European Union office in Gaza City to protest the publication of a dozen cartoons about Islam, Muhammad, and self-censorship in the Danish newspaper the Jyllands-Posten. They stormed the building, burned Danish flags, and spearheaded an international boycott of Denmark's products across the Muslim world.

The rage was manufactured pretext. The cartoons had been published four months earlier with little fanfare. It wasn't until a delegation of instigating Danish imams toured Egypt with the cartoons – plus a few inflammatory fake ones, including an old image of a French hog-calling contest participant deceptively portrayed as “anti-Muslim” – that the fire started burning. Think the mainstream media will remember that? Not likely. They fell for the ruse and were slow to acknowledge it after American bloggers and Danish television exposed the scheme.

What was really behind Cartoon Rage? Muslim bullies were attempting to pressure Denmark over the International Atomic Energy Agency's decision to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for continuing with its nuclear research program. The chairmanship of the council was passing to Denmark at the time.

Alas, Western journalists, analysts and apologists were too clouded by their cowardice and conciliation to see through the smoke. More than 800 were injured in the ensuing riots, and 130 people paid with their lives. The innocents included Italian Catholic priest Andrea Santoro, who was shot to death in Turkey on Feb. 5, by a teenage boy enraged by the illustrations. The Muslim gunman shouted, “Allahu Akbar!” as he murdered Father Santoro while the priest knelt praying in his church. Several brave moderate Muslim editors who stood up to the madness were jailed, fined and convicted of crimes related to insulting Islam. The Danish cartoonists remain in hiding.

The world soon tired of Cartoon Rage, but the “peaceful” Muslim ragers were just warming up. They found excuses large and small to riot and threaten Western infidels. In India, they protested the magazine publication of a picture of a playing card showing an image of Mecca and also burned Valentine's Day cards. An insult to Islam, they screamed. In Spain, they protested a Madrid store for selling a postcard with a mosque on it with the words “We slept here.” An insult to Islam, they protested. In Pakistan, they burned down a KFC restaurant, a Pizza Hut, and toppled Ronald McDonald. In Jakarta, they smashed the offices of Playboy magazine. You know why.

In June, the trial against lioness journalist Oriana Fallaci for insulting Islam commenced in Bergamo, Italy. She had been charged by professional Muslim rager Adel Smith of the Muslim Union of Italy of “vilipendio” – vilifying Islam – in her post-9/11 books slamming jihad. A judge had refused to throw out the case. She faced a pile of death threats and accusations of “Islamophobia” for speaking truth to Islamo power.

Fallaci's death from cancer during the fifth anniversary week of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks pre-empted the trial in Italy, but her passing did nothing to pre-empt the eternal rage of the perpetually outraged. The day she died, the grievance-mongers were shaking their fists and calling for the head of Pope Benedict XVI for his speech that made reference to a 14th century conversation touching on holy war and jihad. For engaging in open, honest intellectual and spiritual debate, he was condemned, lit afire in effigy, and targeted anew. The ragers bombed Christian churches in Gaza City and Nablus. They murdered Italian Sister Leonella Sgorbati, an elderly Catholic nun shot in the back by a Somalian jihadist stoked by Pope Rage. “Whoever offends our Prophet Muhammad should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim,” a Somalian cleric had declared. The Vatican made nice with Muslim leaders.

New outrages are always in bloom. In late September, it was a Berlin production of Mozart's “Idomeneo” that featured the decapitated head of Muhammad. A week later, it was a banyan tree attacked by Indonesian Muslims who wanted to disprove its mystical powers. A few days after that, it was former British foreign secretary Jack Straw, who had the audacity to make the very obvious observation that full Muslim veils impede communications between women and Westerners. Offensive! Disturbing! An insult to Islam!

Not to be outdone, a delegation of extortionist imams boarded a U.S. Airways flight in Minneapolis in November and tried to manufacture an international human rights incident. They clamored for a boycott and threatened to sue.

The good news: The fire did not catch here this time. The bad news: As Oriana Fallaci warned before her death: “The hate for the West swells like a fire fed by the wind. The clash between us and them is not a military one. It is a cultural one, a religious one, and the worst is still to come.”

---

me@rescam.org

Who stole Christmas?

By Michael Lerner

Lerner, a rabbi, is editor of Tikkun Magazine (www.Tikkun.org), and national chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives (www.spiritualprogressives.org).

December 22, 2006

Some leaders of the Christian right have decided to make an issue of the secularization of Christmas, objecting to the move by Macy's and other retailers to wish their shoppers “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings” instead of the traditional “Merry Christmas.” They accuse secularists in general and, on some of the right-wing talk shows, Jews in particular, of undermining Christmas.

The assault has been led by Bill O'Reilly, the most popular cable commentator, who told millions of viewers that there was a systematic assault on Christmas by secularists. When challenged by a Jewish caller who said he felt uncomfortable being subject to frequent attempts to convert him by Christians at his college, O'Reilly responded:

“All right. Well, what I'm tellin' you, is I think you're takin' it too seriously. You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on – if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a country founded on Judeo – and that's your guys' – Christian, that's my guys' philosophy. But overwhelmingly, America is Christian. And the holiday is a federal holiday honoring the philosopher Jesus. So, you don't wanna hear about it? Impossible. And that is an affront to the majority. You know, the majority can be insulted, too. And that's what this anti-Christmas thing is all about.”

I told O'Reilly that my grandfather didn't come here from Russia to be in a “Christian country,” but rather in a country that welcomes many different faith traditions and officially privileges none.

Meanwhile, Richard Viguerie, the master of right-wing direct mail campaigns, interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR's “Fresh Air,” repeated the charge that Christians were the victims of a systematic secularist assault against Christmas. On MSNBC, William Donahue of the Catholic League insisted, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? They like to see the public square without Nativity scenes.”

Liberals and civil libertarians would be making a huge mistake to see this as merely the rantings of a few overt anti-Semites and anti-civil liberties extremists. They articulate a legitimate concern that many Christians say privately: Their children have learned that Christmas is about buying – and the person with the most expensive gifts wins.

There is a beautiful spiritual message underlying Christmas that has universal appeal: the hope that gets reborn in moments of despair, the light that gets re-lit in the darkest moments of the year, is beautifully symbolized by the story of a child born of a teenage homeless mother who had to give birth in a manger because no one would give her shelter, and escaping the cruelty of Roman imperial rule and its local surrogate Herod, who already knew that such a child would grow up to challenge the entire imperialist system. To celebrate that vulnerable child as a symbol of hope that eventually the weak would triumph over the rule of the arrogant and powerful is a spiritual celebration with strong analogies to our Jewish Hanukkah celebration, which also celebrates the victory of the weak over the powerful, and the triumph of hope (symbolized by the Hanukkah candles) over fear and the darkness of oppression (both ancient and contemporary). And many other spiritual traditions around the world have similar celebrations at this time of year around the winter equinox.

The loss of this message, its subversion into a frenetic orgy of consumption, rightly disturbs Christians, Jews and other people of faith.

Yet this transformation is not a result of Jewish parents wanting to protect their children from being forced to sing Christmas carols in public school, or secularists sending “Seasons Greetings” cards. It derives, instead, from the power of the capitalist marketplace, operating through television, movies and marketers, to drum into everyone's mind the notion that the only way to be a decent human being at this time of year is to buy and buy more. Thus the altruistic instinct to give, which could take the form of giving of our time, our skills, and our loving energies to people we care about, gets transformed and subverted into a competitive frenzy of consumption.

Not surprisingly, the Christian Right is unwilling to challenge the capitalist marketplace, because its uncritical support for corporate power is precisely what it had to offer the Right to become part of the conservative coalition. Their loyalty to conservative capitalist economics trumps for them their commitment to serving God. But for those of us who want to prevent a new surge of anti-Semitism and assaults on the First Amendment, our most effective path is to acknowledge what is legitimate in the Christians' concern – and lead it into a powerful spiritual critique of the ethos of selfishness and materialism fostered by our economic arrangements. It's time for our liberal and progressive Christian leaders and neighbors to stand up on behalf of Jews and on behalf of their own highest spiritual vision – and challenge the real Christmas and Hanukkah thieves.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can consciously resist by giving gifts of time rather than gifts of things. Give your friends a certificate saying, “I'll give you five hours to do ... ” and then fill in the blanks with something that they might need that you could offer. Teach their child a skill or help that child with homework? Paint part of their home or fix a leaky pipe or mow their lawns or shovel their snow or give child care time or do food shopping? Sharing your time could be far more meaningful, allow for real contact, etc. And for those with whom you don't want that contact, don't buy – just send them a lovingly written personal note affirming the values you want this season to teach. Resist the pressure to join the orgy of consumption!

---

me@rescam.org

Making Christmas past our best Christmas present

By David C. Jeremiah

Jeremiah is pastor of Shadow Mountain Community Church in San Diego.

December 22, 2006

Once upon a time, Hollywood produced epic movies that honored faith. Major motion picture studios invested heavily in producing blockbusters such as “The Ten Commandments” and “Ben-Hur,” which won 11 Academy Awards, the most won by any film in history.

In recent decades, however, Hollywood has almost reveled in spinning out films that attacked both faith and family – one after the other. Some have been so brazen as to rewrite history and offer shocking secular and cynical views of the life of Jesus, such as “The Last Temptation Of Christ.”

But that may be changing in the aftermath of box office successes such as “The Passion Of The Christ” and “The Chronicles Of Narnia,” (based on the classic books by famed Christian author and theologian C.S. Lewis). This Christmas, Hollywood has delivered a masterpiece portrayal of the birth of Christ and the events leading up to it.

Faithful to Scripture, with no attempt to change or rewrite history, with no undercurrent political messages, “The Nativity Story,” produced by New Line Cinema, offers people of faith the best Christmas present of all. It takes us back to Nazareth in the days of Rome's iron rule over Judea through the ruthless King Herod – back to the time when ageless prophecies heralding the coming of the King of Kings would be fulfilled.

We get a very real picture of what it probably was like in those days. We're taken inside the family of Mary and see her betrothal to Joseph, and then the conflict that ensues when she's told by an angel that she will conceive a child by the Holy Spirit. We are there when Joseph decides not to accuse her of adultery – even though, under Jewish law, he had every right to – because the same angel visits him and compels him to believe Mary.

We are there as the three wise men, known for their study of astronomy, deduce the coming of the King through their study of the prophecies and the stars. They follow that one spectacular star that announces Christ's birth and they stand awestruck as Mary holds him in the stable.

Their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh presage the celebration of giving, love and hope that would capture the world for centuries to come even to this present day. And their gifts also foreshadow the greatest gift Christ would give all mankind, himself.

It took courage for the producers to make this movie. They have been mocked by colleagues in Hollywood and attacked by senseless movie reviewers who argued for a more controversial telling of the story. People of faith should celebrate this movie by going to see it and taking as many people as possible to see it as well.

We have made more than enough complaints about Hollywood's disdain for our community, so when a movie that honors faith and family comes along – especially one so profound as this, at such a special time of the year – we need to make sure Hollywood gets the message that we will support true works of art like “The Nativity Story.”

As people of faith, we believe art should not seek to shock – there are plenty of people and institutions who are in that business. We believe true art seeks to inspire.

Christmas today has become an institution of conflict, with annual battles over creches and carols, and the ubiquitous commercialism crowding out Christ. In this midst, “The Nativity Story” seeks to inspire – and delivers brilliantly – by reminding us of who and what Christmas has always been about.

It is a story of the original “Christmas past,” but this year it's our best Christmas present. Let us be generous in giving this gift to our families, our friends and ourselves.

---

me@rescam.org

What's religion got to do with it?

By Georgie Anne Geyer

Geyer is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate.

December 22, 2006

As Americans contemplate Christmas this year, many of us may be considering how deeply religion has infiltrated every corner of life across the globe. Politics is religious, economics is religious, even national psychologies are religious.

And yet, we find people in trouble spots using their religions, often cynically, to pursue personal and political ambitions. The pureness of religion seems to be taking a back seat either to the celebrity-in-Jesus, the warrior qualities of the Prophet Muhammad, or the unreasonable and insulting demands of minority religions against the majority and founding religion of their countries.

For three years I have been writing, based on the groundbreaking work of scholars such as professor Robert Pape at the University of Chicago and psychiatrist Rona Fields in Washington, that the primary motivation of most of the terrorists, and especially of the suicide bombers, is not religious, but political, nationalistic and anti-colonialist. Last week at the United Nations, the respected High-Level Group of the Alliance of Civilizations proclaimed that “the key reasons for the growing divide in the world today, and more particularly, between Muslim and Western societies, are not religious but political.”

This Christmas, we have no final answers. But let's examine a few thoughts on the subject.

In America this year, as always, we see unnecessary attacks on the most innocent symbol of Christmas, the Christmas tree. Even though the dolled-up, brightly lighted sapling was originally a pagan tree in Europe, it comes in for as much criticism as the Christian manger scenes. Witness only the attempt by a Seattle rabbi to bring down 14 Christmas trees at Sea-Tac airport – or he would sue the city! He did not ask to have a menorah accompany the trees; he threatened. Finally the situation was resolved, but it left a bad taste in just about everyone's mouth.

As I read this, I kept remembering when I was growing up in Chicago, and how deeply we were into Christian-Jewish, and Catholic-Protestant, and black-white meetings – understandings, interdenominational tolerance and love – the “no-man-is-an-island” generation in action. Somehow, attacks on the Christmas tree, which is a symbol for all Americans, secular as well as religious, do not fit those early idealistic hopes.

Yet, such fissiparous tendencies – toward the disintegration of a core set of religious precepts, intellectual concepts and moral principles – are far worse this Christmas across the Atlantic.

City officials in London are actually taking the Christianity out of Christmas this year, out of “respect” for “minorities,” and calling the Christmas season “Winterval”! In fact, it got so bad that Christian and Muslim Brits joined forces to tell city officials: 1) to stop taking the Christianity out of Christmas, and 2) such acts serve only to fuel a further nasty backlash against Muslims.

The Anglican bishop of Bolton, David Gillett, said: “We are concerned that those approaches, which are based on anti-religious philosophies or a fear of religion, are causing alienation in a wide variety of communities and fanning the growth of extremism.” Surely, they would – and surely they do.

Meanwhile, on the European continent, the ferment in the relations between Europeans – today mostly secular but with a magnificent and profound Christian heritage – and the Muslim immigrants continues. A new report by the inspector general of French education, Jean-Pierre Obin, documents “the extensive Islamization of French schools in the vicinity of Muslim ghettos and the imposition of strict conformity with Islamist dictates through violence and intimidation.” They refuse even to read French literature and consider themselves part of a “Muslim nation” opposed to everything Western civilization stands for.

Surprisingly, in terms of Europeans' former passivity about these strangers who pushed into their societies, they are realizing they are being had. They're responding – finally – with tough immigration laws, no-nonsense “stay homes” and the banning of provocative dress and language.

But the question remains, and will gnaw at us for a long time: Why has Europe welcomed into its advanced societies people who have no respect, and indeed only hatred, for the societies they seek to join?

Finally, we move east, to Mother Russia. That mother is now giving birth to more Muslims than Christians or communists, with demographers saying that within 25 years, Muslims will be the majority there.

The Russian Federation, says Igor Chubais, head of the Moscow Center for the Study of Russia, says the current upsurge of ethnic conflicts in Russia is the result of the country's lack of a “national idea capable of unifying people,” which means “there are no rules, no order, no master. There are no ideals, and when there is no ideal, individuals decide for themselves what it should be and do what they want.”

In short, this Christmas the entire world is suffering the trauma of seeing central principles weaken or die; minority groups now not only seek to have rights, which they are due, but to have dominion, which they are not due; religions that have formed countries, such as Christianity in the United States and Europe, are groping to restore their place, their spirit and their symbols; and even a highly secularized school such as Harvard University, formed 370 years ago to train Puritan ministers, is now reconsidering requiring the teaching of religion, history and ethics.

So in a way, it isn't all bad. If the divisions in the world are not religious – at least, not at heart – then they are due to policies. Policies can be changed by intelligent leadership, and these putatively “religious” divides can gradually fade to reasonable proportions, if we only have the will to make it happen. Merry Christmas, after all.

---

me@rescam.org

Nice - Naughty - Especially Obnoxious

---

me@rescam.org

It's like in Germany, were there still are occupying forces, though the world war has been over since 1945.

I can't speak for the US-Germany relationship, but the view from The Bridge is that the Cold War is still on, but alas we can not point to Mother Russia as an ally or as an enemy because we don't have an enemy like we used to.

I believe it was Walt Kelley who said "We have met the enemy, and they is us". I might be wrong about the speaker, but not the speech. We've had a free ride since Berlin. Now it's time to pay the overdue bill, and we've got less than nothing to show for it (because Japan, China, India, Iran, France, Germany, Korea (North and South), Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaya, Sudan, Somalia, and even Palestine kicked our collective socio-, economic, military, and political butts during that free ride)

Maybe if we had done to Baghdad what de did to Berlin - Bomb the living daylights outta the place (and maybe the semi-living lights as well) - followed by a 21st Century Marshall Plan...

No, we should have done the same thing in Iraq as we did in Germany and Japan. We kept the Nazis and the emperor working for their country. We just changed their names. It worked. They knew how to do it. We can't impose freedom on a country that doesn't want it.

---

Obama vs. history

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

Rising star should explain economic views

December 19, 2006

There are darn good reasons that millions of Americans are in full swoon over Sen. Barack Obama and the prospect that the Illinois Democrat will seek the White House in 2008. Just as in the 1976 presidential race, when Jimmy Carter's vow to be an honest, moral leader fit the Zeitgeist of a nation disillusioned by Watergate and Vietnam, Obama's message of outreach and hope make him uniquely attractive to a public weary of our nasty, polarized political debate.

But his appeal is not just of a surface variety. Obama's books and speeches offer a seductive vision of a better America, one in which the energy we spend fighting each other is devoted to actually solving problems. He calls for acknowledging the best arguments on all sides of a debate and resisting the impulse to demonize those with whom we disagree.

No one else talks like this. Instead, we see Karl Rove implying that voting for Democrats is traitorous, or Obama's fellow Chicago Democrat – Rep. Rahm Emanuel – gleefully urging Republicans to perform anatomical impossibilities on election night after Democrats regained control of the House.

For all these reasons and more, Obama's emergence as a national figure is welcome. Nevertheless, at some point – say, before he seeks the presidency – Obama must offer far more substantive explanations of his stands on the issues, especially the economy.

There is a fight going on now for the soul of the Democratic Party. One side, led by former President Bill Clinton, says the answer to rising economic insecurity lies in improving and subsidizing worker training to make it easier to switch careers, making health insurance far more portable and creating a better safety net for those temporarily displaced in our churning economy.

The other side, led by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, says the answer is protectionism and punishing U.S. companies that choose to invest or expand abroad or do not pay their workers enough.

With his opposition to many trade deals and his Wal-Mart bashing, Obama has tentatively allied himself with the latter camp, all the while depicting himself as a thoughtful centrist. But there is nothing thoughtful about ignoring the vast evidence that free trade and relatively unfettered capitalism have made America prosperous – or arguing that a company whose low prices help millions of families make ends meet and which has no trouble filling jobs should abandon its business model and become an adjunct welfare agency.

If Barack Obama is sincere when he says it is imperative to have honest, good-faith debates on the big issues, at some point he will need to explain how on earth he concluded that governments do a better job than the free market in creating jobs and wealth.

In his research, he might want to ponder this place called Europe. It's a continent-sized example of how protectionism and government regulation kill jobs, depress growth and hurt most the people such policies are supposed to help.

How about it, senator? Any interest in a road trip?

It is apparent that you watch Fox news.. What about the fact that our economy is a lie? The Fed stopped reporting last March how much money its printing, for the first time ever. The fed is between a rock and a hard place, if they suddenly report how much they have printed and the fact that China has now stopped buying dollars, The dollar tanks to being just a gnats hair above worthless. If they raise the prime interest rate to compensate for the weakened dollar than the housing market drops to an all time low which forces a major recession. Actually we have been in a recession since last feb. With all these Idiots who bought homes on interest only loans hanging in the balance and our debt the highest ever, you can plainly see the smoke and mirrors the administration is using. I am an American, who works in the defense industry, and I am not proud of what this country has become. I'm not saying there are better places out there, just that we need to steer this country off the path we are on and back onto the ashphalt.

---

Mrs. Miggins: The Scarlet Pimpernel, Mr. Blackadder! He's so exciting, don't you think?
Blackadder: Actually, I think he's the most over-rated human being since Judas Iscariot won the AD31 Best Disciple Competition.

No, we should have done the same thing in Iraq as we did in Germany and Japan. We kept the Nazis and the emperor working for their country. We just changed their names. It worked. They knew how to do it. We can't impose freedom on a country that doesn't want it.

An estimated 60-72% voter turnout doesn't suggest they don't want freedom....in fact, it suggests the exact opposite.

---

No, we should have done the same thing in Iraq as we did in Germany and Japan. We kept the Nazis and the emperor working for their country. We just changed their names. It worked. They knew how to do it. We can't impose freedom on a country that doesn't want it.

An estimated 60-72% voter turnout doesn't suggest they don't want freedom....in fact, it suggests the exact opposite.

I think there is a pretty good separation between " freedom " in the form of Democracy and " freedom " in the form of Anarchy.

The 60-70% voter turnout would suggest that they want some kind of system in place rather than the system they had, or no system at all.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

It's like in Germany, were there still are occupying forces, though the world war has been over since 1945.

I can't speak for the US-Germany relationship, but the view from The Bridge is that the Cold War is still on, but alas we can not point to Mother Russia as an ally or as an enemy because we don't have an enemy like we used to.

I believe it was Walt Kelley who said "We have met the enemy, and they is us". I might be wrong about the speaker, but not the speech. We've had a free ride since Berlin. Now it's time to pay the overdue bill, and we've got less than nothing to show for it (because Japan, China, India, Iran, France, Germany, Korea (North and South), Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaya, Sudan, Somalia, and even Palestine kicked our collective socio-, economic, military, and political butts during that free ride)

Maybe if we had done to Baghdad what de did to Berlin - Bomb the living daylights outta the place (and maybe the semi-living lights as well) - followed by a 21st Century Marshall Plan...

No, we should have done the same thing in Iraq as we did in Germany and Japan. We kept the Nazis and the emperor working for their country. We just changed their names. It worked. They knew how to do it. We can't impose freedom on a country that doesn't want it.

Sure, to take mass murderers and war criminals to build a government and its secret services was sooo right!
There has been men from the former Center Party, or the former Social Democrats, who were more qualified than those Nazi bastards! But they were ignored by the US.

"We knew what we did. It was absolutely necessary that we used every son of a b*** as long as he was an anti-communist".
~ Harry Rositzke, CIA-Russia expert

For instance they hired the Nazi spy expert Reinhard Gehlen to build the new Germany's secret service BND - and allowed him to hire at least 6 SS and SD veterans, like Franz Six and Emil Augsburg, two SS intelligence veterans involved in the mass extermination of Jews, and fugitive war criminals.

---

Account frozen...