Here

IN THE NAME OF GOD THE COMPASSIONATE; THE MERCIFUL

Ahalan (= Kinsmen: it means you have come amongst kinsmen)

Wa = and

Sahlan (= Plateau or plain easy land: meaning you have trodden welcoming land)

These are the traditional words of welcome in the Arabic language.

Yes GWB, though the visit was brief, it was very meaningful. We know that you have come, not as the President of an invading nation, but as the friend who wishes to renew commitment to our people, and as long as your intentions are what you have repeatedly said (and we don't doubt your sincerity), the land and the hearts welcome you.

It gives us pain that the visit is so short and that the masses cannot in the present circumstances come out to give you the welcome that you deserve, but the day will come, the day will come (God's Willing). Yes the day will come when the millions will come out to welcome the best friend that the Mesopotamian people have ever had, and he will be amongst the most devoted and allied people that America will ever have.

The bones in the mass graves salute you, Avenger of the Bones.

Hail, Friend and Ally, Hail, Sheikh of Sheikhs, GWB; Descendant of the Noble Ancient Celt.

Alaa

Wow, I'd largely forgotten how nasty their bias really is. Read this story about how Bush is cowardly and money-grubbing as well as needlessly worried about security. Or am I missing a more uplifting subtext? Here's the intro:

By Adam Entous

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - For a president fond of a tough-guy image, George W. Bush was uneasy when an aide casually asked him, "You want to go to Baghdad?"

With Bush safely back at his Crawford ranch on Friday, White House supporters seized on the U.S. Thanksgiving Day visit to Iraq as a public-relations coup that could boost troop morale and Republican fund raising.

But the trip -- one of the most secretive by any U.S. president -- also highlighted how precarious security remains in the Iraqi capital, captured by U.S. forces in April.

Despite unprecedented precautions, the president slipped into Baghdad under cover of darkness on Thursday to minimize the risk of being targeted by surface-to-air missiles and was confined to the heavily guarded airport throughout his 2-1/2-hour stay.

This promises to be a growing criticism from the President's critics. I see nothing wrong with the President going to funerals but it's apparently pretty rare.

I just wanted to drop you guys a note from here in downtown Baghdad where I interact with the local population on a daily basis. The President's visit was even more of a morale boost to the Iraqis than it was to the troops. When the President of the U.S.A. visits a place like this, it's like the most popular kid in school coming to a party hosted by the A.V. club. The Iraqis feel validated and Al Jazeera looked foolish in the eyes of the Iraqis trying to find a negative spin to the story.

George Bush's visit has made my job easier in showing that we are committed to helping this country. I had Iraqis wishing me "Happy Thanksgiving" all day today (they only learned of the holiday by finding out the reason why Bush came to visit us).

Just wanted to give you the perspective from the street here in Baghdad.

Ha ha ha

Via blogger Bill Dawson

We’ve been hearing plenty about how the Saudi regime is cracking down on the religious extremists who have made their squalid and savage little ‘kingdom’ a byword for cruelty, ignorance and terror. It’s a story that I want to believe, but reading this piece in today’s New York Times by someone, who is, quite clearly, a truly brave individual, Saudi journalist Mansour al-Nogaidan, I’m not sure that I can:

”We cannot solve the terrorism problem as long as it is endemic to our educational and religious institutions.

”Yet the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Islamic Affairs have now established a committee to hunt down teachers who are suspected of being liberal-minded. This committee, which has the right to expel and punish any teacher who does not espouse hard-core Wahhabism, last week interrogated a teacher, found him "guilty" of an interest in philosophy and put on probation.

”During the holy fasting month of Ramadan, imams around the country stepped up their hate speech against liberals, advocates of women's rights, secularists, Christians and Jews — and many encouraged their congregations to do the same. I heard no sermons criticizing the people responsible for the attacks in Riyadh, in which innocent civilians and children were killed. The reason, I believe, is that these religious leaders sympathize with the criminals rather than the victims.

”I cannot but wonder at our officials and pundits who continue to claim that Saudi society loves other nations and wishes them peace, when state-sponsored preachers in some of our largest mosques continue to curse and call for the destruction of all non-Muslims.”

He’s right. To be sure, it is true that the Saudi authorities have been taking some steps against local terrorists, but it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that, in so doing, they are best compared with the arsonist who dials 911 after the fire he lit starts blazing too close to home.

It was a brilliant, decent, generous, crafty, glorious gesture. President Bush was nearly in tears when he saw the gratitude and excitement on the faces of the troops. Obviously this White House saw a political angle. But that was a side-benefit. The troops deserved it. The troops appreciated it. And the American people, I bet, believed it was the right thing to do.

The Democrats will make fools of themselves if they go too far criticizing Bush. In fact, I think they'll make fools of themselves if they criticize him at all. They should just say, "It was a nice thing to do, our troops deserved it, in fact they deserve...blah blah blah." But I wouldn't be surprised if we get more flight jacket hysteria.

World statesman ‘Red Ken’ Livingstone, the creepy authoritarian, who is, unfortunately, London’s mayor, threw a party to highlight his opposition to President Bush’s visit to the British capital.

Who paid for it? Blogger Oliver Kamm tried to find out.

“I called back, and asked once more how much the event had cost, now that we had established it had been paid for by the public. It was 'a few thousand'. The original budget had been £8000, but there had been some 'sponsorship in kind'. I asked how much the commercial rate was for the hire of the room, as that revenue forgone ought to be entered into the calculation for the budget for the event. That was £5000, but the whole expenditure was all 'a drop in the ocean'.

'So the expenditure of thousands of pounds' worth of council tax receipts isn't important.'

'I didn't say that. You're misquoting me.'

'So the expenditure of thousands of pounds' worth of council tax receipts is important?'

'Haven't you got anything better to do?'

And there we left the matter."

"We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost of casualties, defeat a ruthless dictator and liberate 25 million people, only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins. We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just."

Here’s Madeleine Albright on the Saudi problem. There’s much about the piece that is deeply, deeply flawed (hey, it’s Albright), not least the failure to draw a distinction between the need to deal with the Saudis in the years of the Soviet threat and the situation after the Soviet collapse. Perhaps this was inevitable – the failure to grasp that things had changed (and to realise that the strategic significance of Saudi Arabia was now completely different) was a failure of George H W Bush and, for eight wasted years, Albright’s old boss, Bill Clinton.

This, however, is right:

“The House of Saud cannot conduct business as usual and survive. The era of unaccountable high living is over, and the sooner the rank and file of princes (and princesses) understand that, the better.

“It is not possible to buy protection from the likes of an Osama bin Laden; nor can Saudi leaders pretend the evil he represents does not exist. They have to defeat his message, and show by their own actions that he is wrong.”

And so is this…

“Over the past 30 years or more, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the west has nourished unhealthy habits within both. Cynicism, secrecy and greed have tarnished pragmatic accomplishments, which include considerable behind-the-scenes cooperation on security matters. The concerns of average Saudis have been neglected, creating openings for extremists.

“Critics can write as much as they want about what the Saudis have done in the past. More important is what happens next. By attacking and killing fellow Muslims - and by bringing explosives into the Holy City of Mecca - it is possible that al-Qaida has overreached. That is an opportunity, because the battle against al-Qaida must be fought and won by Islam's mainstream majority.

“To win the allegiance of that majority, the Saudi government must reinvent itself by keeping its promises to reform. The US can help by living up to its own principles, terminating any complicity with Saudi corruption and waste, and showing respect for the rights of all who live in the Middle East. “

Not a very seasonal story, but here goes…

Andrew Cosslett, the managing director (CEO) of the UK food and soft drinks (including, ahem, Dr Pepper) giant, Cadbury Schweppes, is, I am afraid, not too bright. Here he is, speaking to a parliamentary committee in London:

"Misleading labels are wrong and it is up to the food industry to change that. People are being deluded about what they are buying,"

“Mr. Cosslett used the example of a pot of yoghurt carrying a low fat label which he had bought recently, believing it to be a healthy snack. In fact, he said, the yoghurt contained more calories than a Cadbury's Crunchie bar.

"Most people think of yoghurt as healthy. If you saw a low fat label you would be doubly convinced of that. It's only when you got it home and look at the calorie content that you realise it's not necessarily as healthy as it looks," he told a parliamentary select committee investigating junk food.”

Well, Mr. Cosslett, where exactly did you look at the “calorie content”? Er, the label.

More to the point, it is worth noting that the ‘obesity epidemic’ has gathered pace after the improvements we have seen in food labeling in recent years. It’s not the labeling, folks, it’s the exercise.

Cosslett was, however, not the only moron at the banquet. David Hinchcliffe, the thuggish MP responsible for the ban on tobacco advertising in the UK, said there were "parallels" between the fast food industry and tobacco, and, the Guardian reported, called for more hard-hitting health warnings on food products.

Hinchliffe “pointed out that a McDonald's cheeseburger with fries and a milkshake equated to a nine mile run or walk - something which would come as a surprise to many of the fast food chain's customers.” Well, perhaps (I haven’t done the numbers), but that assumes that those customers would have otherwise remained utterly immobile.

"At the moment [Hinchcliffe complained], calorie content does not mean a great deal to people. Perhaps the message is not sufficiently blunt," he said.

Translation: people are too stupid to understand.

Thanks, David.

This one comes from Meghan Clyne, of NR World Headquarters:

Cranberry Cherry Relish



Fresh cranberries are now packed 12 ounces - not one pound- to a bag, so buy two bags, since most recipes call for a pound. Any extra cranberries freeze well or use to make muffins. Using my antiquated memory of HS algebra, I’ve adjusted the original recipe to accommodate current day retailing and my calculations are in parentheses. Either way, it works to make the best relish I’ve ever had.

1 pound (12 oz) fresh cranberries
2 (1 1/2) cups sugar
1/2 (1/3) cup fresh orange juice
1/2 (1/3) cup cranberry juice **
Finely grated zest of 1 orange
1 (3/4) cup dried cherries

1.) Pick through the cranberries, rinse, and then drain well. Combine the cranberries, sugar, orange juice, cranberry juice and orange zest in a pan. Place over medium heat; boil slowly until the berries pop open, about 10 minutes.

2.) Skim the foam off the surface with a metal spoon, stir in the cherries and let cool to room temperature. Cover and refrigerate. (It will last up to one month)

** I’ve also doubled the orange juice instead of buying a whole bottle of cranberry juice, which no one will drink, without any appreciable difference.

This requires some equipment, but it's the best Thanksgiving turkey we've ever had. We use a Weber grill with the electric rotisserie accessory. First, truss the (unstuffed!) turkey (no larger than 12 pounds) to the spit with a substantial amount of cotton twine, especially the legs. Then rub the entire bird with a large amount of fresh ground pepper, thyme, basil, rosemary, and salt, mixed into olive oil. If the bird isn't thoroughly coated with the mix, put on more! Cook using the electric rotisserie on medium indirect heat until interior temperature is 180, or as per Weber instructions. Check periodically to make sure the bird doesn't need more spices, and that the twine is holding well. Grilled rotisserie turkey comes out moist, rich, and delicious with the herb coating.

I, too, nearly fell out of my chair when I saw the Estrada question on Jeopardy. More worrisome, though, to me was the fact that none of the three contestants, whom we must assume are better informed about current events than the average American voter, were able to identify Estrada. I assume this was taped prior to the recent filibuster-a-thon, but nonetheless it makes one wonder whether obstruction of judicial nominees as an issue is really resonating beyond a VERY small cross section of voters.

Princeton professor Robert P. George sent me an email regarding David Brooks’s column endorsing gay marriage. George has argued that central defining tenets of social liberalism presuppose a logically insupportable person-body dualism, in which a supra-bodily person (typically conceived as a conscious and desiring "self") is seen as inhabiting, and using as an instrument, a sub-personal body. Thus in debates over abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia, the claim will be made that "personhood" begins at some point after a human being’s body is present, and may end before a human being dies. The "person" is not the body. With regard to sexual morality, George draws on the thought of classical philosophers as well as Jewish and Christian writers to argue that sexual behavior whose object is something other than actualizing the one-flesh communion of a man and woman in marriage is immoral because it involves the instrumentalization of the bodies of sex partners, thus enacting a self-alienating existential separation of "body" and "person" (although not a metaphysical dualism, which is impossible). All this by way of explaining George's shorthand in his email to me.

George writes: “With Andrew Sullivan now on the record celebrating the ‘spiritual value’ of anonymous sex, I see that it falls to David Brooks to make the case for ‘gay marriage’ in the name of fighting promiscuity.

“One thing you can count on: Whoever argues for the proposition that marriage is not an intrinsically heterosexual union will be operating on the basis of some form of person/body dualism. If the maker of the case is a conservative, then what you would expect, I suppose, is the claim that the real person is the soul. The body is conceived as subpersonal, and merely derivative in moral significance. And sure enough, that's what you get with David's analysis:

“‘. . . we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi.’

“Of course, we are creatures with souls; but it is also true that our lives are bounded by our flesh and gender. Operating from essentially dualistic assumptions, David presents these as mutually exclusive alternatives (either we are bounded by flesh or we have souls); but they aren't. Both statements are true. (There is a classic systematic treatment of this in Aquinas, and a good contemporary affirmation and explanation in David Braine's book: The Human Person: Animal and Spirit.)

“When it comes to marriage, David evidently views biological complementarity and organic bodily union as unnecessary because the real persons who unite in the marriage bond are the two (genderless) souls. Marriage is not (as in the Bibical and natural law conception) a one-flesh union (in which sexual congress is the biological foundation of a more comprehensive sharing of life that unites spouses at all levels of their being: the biological, emotional, rational, dispositional, and spiritual); rather, marriage is a soul-union. (Of course, this immediately raises the question asked by advocates of polyamory: Why can't three souls unite? Or seven? The same question stumps secular liberals who conceive marriage as an emotional union: Why can't five people unite emotionally and engage in sexual conduct together to enhance their experience of emotional solidarity?)

“The truth affirmed in the Bible and by many in the long philosophical tradition is that the human persons united in marriage are not (genderless) souls residing in bodies. Each person is body and soul---inseparable. Thus, the person really is male or female. The person has a sex. His (gendered) body is himself.”

I would add that the, so to speak, disembodied case for gay marriage is in tension with the case, made by some advocates, that depends on the unchosenness of, i.e. the strong genetic predisposition toward, homosexuality.

A friend writes:

Ramesh:

I have a MAJOR problem with this piece. Deroy applauds the nine GOP Senators who voted against the final Medicare vote. I would argue that none of these Republicans represent a true "Profile in Courage" as Deroy claims.

First of all, your point about John Chafee is correct. He's a liberal Democrat for all intents and purposes. So, let's remove him. Now we are down to eight. (Side note: Chafee went along on the second procedural vote after getting a promise from the leadership that Providence wouldn't be one of the six sites chosen for the future competition test-run. He voted against the leadership in the first procedural vote when it didn't count for much.)

Trent Lott, in typically spineless Trent Lott fashion, caved when it mattered most as evidenced by his last-second wimp-out on the ultimately more important second procedural vote. See article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104017,00.html

That leaves us with 7 Senators left. Like Lott...Nickles, Gregg, Ensign, Graham, and Sununu could have actually earned a so-called 'profile in courage' had they voted 'nay' on the second procedural vote which only passed by a 2-vote margin. When it really, truly counted, these five did not come through. It's a little bit easier (sarcasm intended) to vote 'nay' when you know the 'yeas' are going to win anyhow. Here's the 2nd procedural vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00458

That leaves us with 2 Senators left...Hagel and McCain. Both Hagel and McCain voted against the leadership in all three votes, including the more important #2 procedural vote. I don't know what Hagel's reasoning was, but I suspect that it was probably similar to either McCain's or Chafee's.

McCain's reasoning was his typically strange mish-mash of populism and free-market rhetoric that recognizes the problem and then offers little or nothing that would truly fix it.

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1192

Based on that statement, I personally wouldn't include McCain on any profile of courage list. My reasoning is that the statement appears to imply a 'yea' vote had the provisions he supported been included. If this is true (and I suppose I technically can't prove that it is), McCain would not deserve to be on any 'courage' list either.

So here's my new list:

Profile in Belonging to the Wrong Political Party:
John Chafee (R?-Rhode Island)

Profile in Continued Spinelessness:
Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)

Profile in Lack-of-Courage When It Counts:
Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma)
Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
John Ensign (R-Nevada)
Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
John Sununu (R-New Hampshire)

Profile in Probably-Not-Courageous-if-History-is-a-Guide:
Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska)

Profile in Doubtful Courage:
John McCain (R-Arizona)

Happy Thanksgiving,

Another Q on Jeopardy! last night had as the "question" "who is Miguel Estrada?" and asked about a Hispanic judicial nomininee whose nomination was blocked. I about fell out of my chair. Is there a NRO reader among the Jeopardy writers?

THE MESS TEST: Smear peanut butter on the sofa and curtains. Now rub your hands in the wet flower bed and rub on the walls. Cover the stains with crayons. Place a fish stick behind the couch and leave it there all summer.

I must take issue with your classification of "White Castle Stuffing" as the worst food idea ever. As a native St. Louisan and a connoisseur of such exquisite fare, I believe that the wonderful parapets of a White Castle will be immediately visible after being admitted into Heaven by St. Peter. I have partaken of the stuffing you so disdain and I can proudly say that I not only survived, but rejoiced at the fact that some unknown but certifiable genius had finally meshed the word "stuffing" with the final product.

But there is only one true way to experience the nirvana that is White Castle. After a night of good conversation, good pool & good beer with your comrades at your neighborhood tavern, nothing beats "castles" by the dozen, cheese fries and a chocolate shake. Try this once and your conversion to "belly bombers" will be complete.

Kathryn,

One other interesting point from the Kristof piece. If you notice, he actually refers to the Catholic church leaders as "troglodytes". This naturally slips through the editors for the NYT. I can not imagine the outrage that would be heaped upon the paper if they were to refer to the leaders of another organized religion or group, for example, the Palestinians or various imams sitting in Saudi Arabia, with such a term. Yet again, the last remaining prejudice, especially in the hallowed halls of the Grey Lady.

God forbid you are a Catholic, or George Bush...

This story is disgusting and you can probably guess what it's about from the subject header above. But my question is, if you shoot a man raping your horse, would a Montana jury send you to jail? No wait, my question is, if the horse likes it, Who are we to judge? No that's not right. How about, If the horse was wearing a very revealing saddle, does that mitigate things? No, no, no. My question is, if this was going on at the Neverland ranch....no, that's not right either. Darn it, there must be some redeeming policy issue that justifies posting this article!

Wait! Does Peter Singer think this is a crime at all? Particularly if the horse whinnies its consent?

From a University of Michigan Law School student (who doesn't have the initiative to pry the dollars out of that school to get me a speaking gig there):

Jonah, Your(and Cosmo's) procrastination (presumably from your syndicated column) directly leads to my procrastination. I just spent 10 minutes analyzing Michigan's ranking among the other liberal elite schools, in terms of the squirrel population. I do have to concur though. I live in the law quad and the critters are quite active here. Obviously, the few conservative students at the school would love to have you for a visit. However, it may not be wise to turn Cosmo loose among the masses here. His torment would know no bounds.

Thanks for writing so well and enjoy the upcoming movie preview. Some of us
out here believe you've earned it!

Getting lots of email like this:

Hate you? Not at all. I think you're the wisest, most magnificent fellow on the planet. If I were gay, I'm sure I'd add "sexy" to the list.

So, um, you don't happen to have any *extra* tickets, do you? Or have you already given them to your bdelloid rotifer friends?

I'm getting lots of email like this. But I'm not going to wade into this any deeper. It's not that it's not interesting, it's just that it is unresolvable and I am not particularly qualified to speak intelligently beyond what I've said. So feel free to send all future emails on the subject to Mike Potemra!

Anyway from a reader:

Jonah-

You're missing something. Have you read the Qur'an? See Chapter 18, Al-Kahf ("The Cave") for this line, verses 4 and 5:

"And to warn those who say: Allah has taken to Himself a son. They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers. Grievous is the word that comes out of their mouths. They speak nothing but a lie."

For its part, look at the Bible (here I use the NRSV), 1 John 2:22-23:

"Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the anti-christ, the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father too." (emphasis added)

Both of this are not alone in their respective texts, either. Both religions are fairly adamant that the other is wrong and not worshipping the same God at all. For Muslims, telling them that Christians who believe Jesus of Nazareth is God worship the same God as Allah of the Qur'an is, simply put, blasphemy. For Christians, telling us that Muslims who deny that Jesus died on the cross and is God worship the same God of the Bible is to state that someone who denies the Son does in fact have the Father- once again, blasphemy.

Sure, if you extrapolate the texts to the point of worthlessness you can assert that Allah of the Qur'an and the Trinitarian God of the Bible are the same God. But, as a Christian, I find this sort of carelessness with the text to be more offensive than being told I'm wrong- at least to be told I'm wrong, you have to take my claims seriously. I imagine any Muslim readers you have that take the claims of the Qur'an seriously feel the same way.

And- maybe more poignantly- would you be comfortable taking such liberties with the Constitution?

Jonah, I'm a big fan of yours, but have to disagree with you on this one. I'm no theologian, but it's this simple: My God sent his son (and himself, depending on your definition of the holy trinity) to walk the Earth, spread the Gospel, and to die for our sins, so that we may be forgiven ours. The God of Islam has done no such thing. Therefore, we do not worship the same God.

From the reader who started this thread:

Can I get back into this, since I started it? I think the most important thing to point out is that while the Exceptions and Regulations Clause does, indeed, give Congress the power to limit SCOTUS's jurisdiction, I do not think it empowers Congress to "take away judicial review on Constitutional matters," which was what I originally said would have to be done by Constitutional amendment. Article III, Section 2 opens with the statement that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, [etc.]" Congress may be able to remove jurisdiction over specific issues, say, abortion or marriage, but completely removing the Court's power to review Constitutional matters is not an exception or a regulation, it is a complete nullification of one of the Court's enumerated powers. That would exceed Congress's authority.

The testy emailer who used the word "ignorant" responds:

First off, Jonah, I did not say the writer was ignorant as a general matter, I said he was ignorant "of basic principles of Constitutional law." I don't see this as an ad hominem attack and if it's construed as such, I apologize - I am ignorant about most principles of physics, if it helps.

As for the other writer's example of "Now, do you really think the lower Federal courts and the Supreme Court would stand idly by with the 1st Amendment shredded." First off, the lower federal courts are a creation of Congress, (Art. III, Sec. 1 "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish") and may be dis-established at any time that Congress chooses. Should they refuse to disband if ordered, it would be an illegal act and in any case the executive powers would be under no duty to enforce their decisions - if you want to assume that the federal courts are willing to engage in open revolution, fine. Don't forget too that Congress has the purse strings and can strangle the courts through lack of funding.

Further, if Congress removed appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court over 1st Amendment issues, the Court better "stand idly by" or you have a Supreme Court CLEARLY usurping power, exercising extra-Constitutional powers and truly throwing the balance of powers out the window (not that they haven't done this in more subtle ways already). No, it wouldn't be an easy thing to curtail appellate jurisdiction because it would have to be approved by Congress, but if done, Constitutionally, the Supreme Court would have NO Jurisdiction over those cases in which appellate jurisdiction has been withheld.

Finally, if federal courts were dis-established and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction restricted, we still have 50 state court systems which have the power to ensure that the 1st Amendment is not shredded in the writer's example (as if the Establishment Clause hasn't already been shredded by federal courts) and that the executive powers do not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or to take private property without just compensation." I know Federalism, for most people, is an outmoded concept nowadays, but the state courts can interpret federal law as well - the world will not fall apart without federal courts.

Contrary to the writer's assertion, the clear language of the Constitution refutes the writers statement that "Congress can curtail the courts jurisdiction, but not so much as to make it impossible for the court to function or to operate so that it in effect is suspended." There is NO restriction on Congress' power in this respect except as expressly stated in the Constitution. On the contrary, as I've pointed out, the lower federal courts are a creation of Congress and may be abolished by Congress and funding withheld and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be abolished except where the Constitution has Original Jurisdiction - it would then be left to the state courts to protect the rights of citizens - so the Second Circuit can rest easy, they may be disbanded and citizens would yet retain their rights.

From a reader who reads Japanese:

That particular website is about a monster from the Ultraman show called "Gavora" (it's actually written as "gabora" since Japanese has no native "vo" sound). The stats for this monster:

Name: Uranium monster Gavora
Introduced: Episode 9, "Lightning Speed Strategy"
Weight: 25,000t
Height: 50m
From: Unari City

...Don't think there's anything here related to your lovely bride :)

From a reader:

Shame on you for posting an email from a person who refers to others as "ignorant".

First of all, that's simply rude. Disagree, but don't be vitriolic about it. Second, it is not as cut and dry as the post makes it seem to simply "revoke" judicial review by the means suggested.

For one thing, there's a simple constitutional aspect of separation of powers.

Let's say the Congress passed and the President signed a law saying two things:
1) There is hereby established a United States Church of Jesus Christ which is to receive from the Treasury $1 million for the greater glory of the Lord. Amen.
2) Under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, no Federal Court shall have jurisdiction to hear any case arising from provision 1. This goes double for the Supreme Court.

Now, do you really think the lower Federal courts and the Supreme Court would stand idly by with the 1st Amendment shredded and say "Ah well. We don't have jurisdiction. Alas and alack." Moreover, do you think they should say such a thing?

I agree with the 2nd Circuit in Battaglia v. General Motors Corp., 169 F. 2d 254 "We think . . . that the exercise by Congress of its control over jurisdiction is subject to compliance with at least the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. That is to say, while Congress has the undoubted power to give, withhold, and restrict the jurisdiction of the courts other than the Supreme Court, it must not so exercise that power as to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or to take private property without just compensation.'"

Yes Congress can curtail the courts jurisdiction, but not so much as to make it impossible for the court to function or to operate so that it in effect is suspended.

As many of you know by now, my lovely bride's name is Jessica Gavora. Hence, I'm very interested in knowing what this website is about.

UPDATE: The link doesn't seem to work. But if you paste www.mirai.ne.jp/~hide2000/ult_kz/uman/gavora.htm into your browser, it should do the trick.

UPDATE: Actually, the link should work now.

JFK's privatization of religious faith ran counter to the tenor of the times. It would, in due course, be a decisive factor in changing the times. For in winning the 1960 election, JFK demonstrated that one could both profess a religious creed and ignore it for political purposes at the same time.

Every time a politician says that he is "personally opposed" to something, but votes for it anyway, it is JFK talking. In fact, JFK himself adopted something like this approach on civil rights, making clear that he was personally opposed to segregation, but in his public acts only grudgingly imposed that view on a recalcitrant South.

Another view, from a reader:

Jonah,

With respect to your posting on the corner regarding the person who would not wish to amend the constitution for an FMA amendment, the writer states, "Another way to battle judicial activism would be to amend the Constitution to take away judicial review on Constitutional matters. I do not think that would be a wise amendment, but it would be an appropriate thing to do by Constitutional amendment." Well, the writer may not think it a wise thing to do, but the founding fathers did and there's no need to amend the constitution to restrict the Supreme Court or any federal court's appellate jurisdiction - it's already in the Constitution.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 provides, "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (emphasis added)" In other words, only in the above mentioned cases does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction (e.g., Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party) and Congress has the right to remove or restrict appellate jurisdiction in all other matters as it sees fit, i.e., Congress could remove the right of the U.S. Supreme Court or any federal court from hearing appeals on abortion cases if it wanted or gay marriage decisions for that matter.

I'm not even going to take the time to explain why the writer is as misinformed on the need for the FMA or why it's not remotely similar to prohibition, when it's pretty clear he's ignorant of basic principles of Constitutional law. If people would just take the time to read the damn thing.......

Regards,
[Name withheld]

From a reader:

The notion that the Constitution should never be amended is, as you say, silly. But isn't that something of a straw man? I would support a repeal of the 16th Amendment (the income tax), or a balanced budget amendment, or a term limits amendment, but not the FMA. And not because I think a marriage is whatever any two people want it to be. It's just that the definition of marriage (either one) does not belong in the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to set up how we govern ourselves and protect minority interests from the "tyranny of the majority." It is not supposed to be the battleground in the culture wars. I realize the other side is cheating through their judicial activism, but I think the answer to that has to be reasoned debate, not micro-managing the culture through the Constitution. Another way to battle judicial activism would be to amend the Constitution to take away judicial review on Constitutional matters. I do not think that would be a wise amendment, but it would be an appropriate thing to do by Constitutional amendment. Bottom line ("So, you're a bottom-line man, eh?")*: The FMA does not belong in the Constitution any more than Prohibition did. [Name withheld] *Name the movie, and I'll buy your book when it comes out.

My wife and I have enjoyed the Corner discussions regarding the scarcity of Legacy and other right-minded books at Posman Books at Grand Central Terminal - she works in the tower above the station and I pass through frequently - plenty of Chomsky and Franken available for your holidays. So the wife went in to look for Legacy today, and with the help of a sales clerk was able to locate the one copy, in the back (under public affairs, with the alphabetical system conveniently set up to strand it on the lowest shelf). She informed the clerk that she wanted two copies, so after checking their computer, they were able to determine that one is on order and could be held. She inquired: one shipment, or one single book? One single book. So my wife suggested they order a few more so that she didn't deprive any other potential buyers of the last copy. Duly noted.

From a reader:

Jonah, Glad to see Ramesh addressed this. It is the Progressives who seek to avoid the Constitution, and thus lessen its authority, by having an enlightened Judiciary interpret justice. Thus we get decisions like Roe (based on medical research) or Brown (based on Social Science data and self-esteem rather than genuine equal protection) where the court reinvents the Constitution continually. Your opposition to a "living constitution" is a compelling attack against this mentality. By amending the Constitution to make change you show reverence for the document, if not its specific contents, by using its own provisions. It is those that ignore the document because they "know better" who do it great harm. To change this into an anecdote. Who is more reverent of their parent's rules? The child who does what he wants anyway because the has "learned from the lessons of his parent's lives?" Or the child who when he encounters a conflict with his parents rules goes to all the other parents in the neighborhood to see their policies and then asks his parents if they will reconsider? Though not an exact comparison, this shows the type of behavior exhibited. For an actual comparison the child would have to present a case to the parents against their own policy. Since an amendment is "we the people" deciding, "we the people" being a continuous phenomenon. "We the people" is the people of the United States in all times, not just at the founding.

David Horowitz and other opponents of the FMA are very worried that such an amendment will erode the "sanctity" of the Constitution. I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Constitution and I'm still undecided, but leaning against, the FMA. But I fail to understand how changing the constitution through the intended process written down by the founders is somehow so much worse than the current process whereby a bunch of unelected judges just make stuff up as they go. Amending the constitution is a big deal, but it's also very hard. Which is a very good thing for a host of reasons -- some of which include the fact that the process teaches people to take the Constitution seriously. I always find it interesting that in a culture which constantly speaks of the need to "exercise" our individual rights, we find it horrific that we might exercise our collective rights in the long, deliberative and profoundly democratic and republican (small ds and rs) process laid out in the Constitution. I would much rather that sort of judicial activism than the sort we have now under our system of "living" constitutions.

Glad to have you. I must confess that I don't quite understand your argument. If social conservatives fail to amend the Constitution, they will have made it easier to amend the Constitution? How does that follow? Or they will have made it clear that the Constitution can be amended? Presumably people are already aware of this possibility. Are we supposed to worry about the "anti-American left" rewriting the Constitution? The left already does that, from the bench. I do not believe that it was a mistake for the Founders to include a provision for amending the Constitution, as David seems to. The mere possibility that it might be amended in bad ways by leftists--assuming that they would bother to use the formal amendment process--certainly does not strike me as a sensible reason for acting as though the amendment process were not available.

I await David's explanation of his cryptic reference to "alternative means."

A few issues ago, I reported on the emerging consensus among social-conservative activists about the proper scope of a Federal Marriage Amendment. These activists had disagreed about whether an amendment should bar gay marriage only, or gay marriage and civil unions. The people who wanted to bar both said that there was no point in protecting a "word" rather than an "institution." The consensus all the activists reached was that the FMA should prohibit courts or legislatures from granting any benefit to gay couples or unmarried straight couples unless those benefits were also available to other unmarried people who were not involved in any sort of sexual relationship. If a gay couple could receive the benefit, two sisters who were living together would have to be able to get it too. I noted that proponents of this idea for an amendment thought that it was compatible with some kinds of civil-unions laws but not others, and that they thought that leaving some room for civil unions would give Republicans some defensible political ground on which to stand.

Maggie Gallagher signed off on the concept at a meeting on October 14--but then sent out a letter backpedaling. Now she has a cover story in the Weekly Standard arguing that the amendment should leave civil unions alone. She makes three major points: 1) Most of what people describe as the "benefits" of marriage are pretty small beer. Those benefits could be extended more widely without creating gay marriage and without doing damage to the institution. 2) The real benefit of marriage that remains in the law inheres precisely in the word: in the ability to say that some couples are "married" and some are not. 3) Taking on gay marriage is a winnable fight, while taking on gay marriage and civil unions is a non-starter.

It's a very interesting article. It would be stronger if Gallagher addressed the distinction the other social conservatives tried to make among types of civil unions--if, for example, she tried to explain why that distinction would not help them in the political battles to come as much as they think it would. Also, she does not address whether those other social conservatives are right to believe that there is value to having no governmental benefit depend on a sexual relationship outside of a traditional marriage, even if the particular benefits in question are not themselves of earth-shattering importance.

Two more observations: As I reported, two of the drafters of the original FMA language, Robert P. George and Gerard Bradley (of Princeton and Notre Dame, respectively), believe that a constitutional reference to "marriage" being between a man and a woman would, if properly interpreted, have the effect of barring benefits that were contingent on non-(traditional )marital sex. Presumably Gallagher's ideal amendment would have to read something like the following: "In the U.S. Code and in the laws of the states, the word 'marriage' will refer to the union of a man and a woman."

Last, in the course of her article Gallagher makes one truly bone-headed argument against the people who say they want to protect the institution rather than the word: "Marriage is a word, yes, but so are property, freedom, democracy, morality, and love. The Ten Commandments are made of words." Well, sure. (The Constitution is made of words too!) But nobody is arguing that words do not mean anything. Does it really need pointing out that the value of freedom does not primarily reside in our ability to label some things as free or unfree, but rather in the realities to which the word freedom refers (i.e., the ability to say, think, and do as we wish consistent with others' ability to do the same)? Gallagher's whole argument is that the value of marriage would be reduced if we called other relationships "marriage." The value of freedom would not be reduced if we called despotism "freedom" or "democracy." Some editing would have come in handy here.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, I read Ryan Sager's op-ed on gay marriage. The news to me isn't that Sager is for gay marriage: I figured he would be, as a libertarian. What surprised me is that Sager is pro-life. I didn't remember his being pro-life when we worked together. I'm glad to hear that he is.

The op-ed made me wonder something I have wondered in the past: whether the pro-life cause will be stronger once it is divested from opposition to gay rights; whether, that is, opposition to abortion will lose some of the negative connotations of social conservatism and become more obviously a campaign for civil rights. It is not, perhaps, the most obvious outcome of our current cultural conflagrations. But for the many social conservatives who rightly regard abortion as raising moral issues far greater than those that homosexuality may, it would certainly be a happy one.

From a reader:

It should be pointed out that much entertainment offered by Fox is squalid, disgusting, mindless and an affront to human dignity. Very cool and un-PC perhaps, but if that's what libertarian-conservatism represents, then a plague on both your houses.

I received this email, titled "Roman Legionaries Did it First!" from an economics professor re today's G-File:

Dear Jonah,

James Harrington wasn't very original. The Romans has figured out the pie thing 20000 years before Harrington wrote.

The legionary cooks baked big round loaves. Each loaf was to be split between two soldiers, as each had the right to half a loaf as a daily ration.

To prevent fights over unfair apportionments, one soldier got to cut the loaf, and the other got to decide which of the two pieces to take for himself.

David Horowitz has now, unsurprisingly, come out against a Federal Marriage Amendment. That may or may not be the correct position to take, but Horowitz's reasoning strikes me as poor. He regards the FMA as "Roe. . . in reverse," in that it federalizes an issue previously reserved to the states, and seeks to take an issue previously contested and settle it once and for all in the Constitution. The attempt, he writes, will be a disaster for the durability of the Constitution. Conservatives, he writes, should not promote "the radical idea that rewriting the Constitution is a handy alternative to winning American hearts and minds and resolving these conflicts in the legislative process." "[T]he last protective membrane of our polity will have been torn to shreds. I urge the conservatives supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment to think again. . . to seek other, readily available means to realize their agendas."

Here's what's wrong, in my view, with Horowitz's argument:

1) The idea that rewriting the Constitution through the amendment process is an "alternative" to winning American hearts and minds is not just "radical"; it's idiotic. Nobody believes it. Every proponent of the FMA to whom I have spoken believes that they will have to persuade Americans that the amendment is a good idea if it is going to succeed. In this respect, FMA is not Roe in reverse. If it succeeds, half the country will not be opposed to it. If half the country or even a third of the country is unalterably opposed to it, it won't pass.

2) What are the "readily available" alternatives to the FMA? The reason some conservatives have gotten behind it, with full awareness of the difficulty of formally amending the Constitution, is that they have reached the conclusion that there are no such alternatives. Proponents of the FMA believe that the federal and state judiciaries are bent on rewriting the marriage laws. You can argue that they're wrong, but if they're right--which would seem to be implied by Horowitz's advocacy of "alternative means"--it's hard to see how they can move the issue into the "legislative process." If Horowitz is aware of some means of doing this, he should spell it out.

3) At a few points, Horowitz seems to be suggesting that this attempt to amend the Constitution will spawn many other attempts to amend it. I've never found this generic objection to amendments persuasive. There are always many people who would like to amend the Constitution in various ways, and the procedural obstacles to doing so are high enough to block almost all of them. An extra-constitutional inhibition against amendments in the political culture is superfluous.

It seems to me that the strongest objection to the FMA is not procedural but substantive. That is, the argument against FMA has to stand or fall on the idea that gay marriage is either a good idea or a possibly good idea. I'd be very interested in what Horowitz had to say about that underlying issue.

David Brooks's argument for gay marriage begins with a characterization of sexual promiscuity as spiritually deadening. Gay marriage is worth supporting, on his view, either because it would actually reduce promiscuity or because it would make a symbolic statement against it (I'm not sure which). I wonder whether there are other cases in which Brooks believes the government should adopt policies to combat spiritually deadening practices simply because they are spiritually deadening. I also wonder how solid the spiritual, or even moral, case against promiscuity is. If we were truly debating promiscuity, rather than gay marriage, obviously he would need to fill in his account of why promiscuity is so terrible. I am not sure he can, on his own premises. But in any case, having moved the debate from rights to morals and religion, Brooks cannot avoid engaging the moral and religious objections to homosexuality.

I don't, by the way, think the argument against gay marriage based on gay promiscuity works either. That argument, with which NR readers are doubtless familiar, holds that gay promiscuity will undermine marriage rather than vice-versa. Nobody has tried to make this argument (to my knowledge) with respect to lesbians. But there is a deeper problem with it, even assuming that its factual premises are true. Why should a committed, monogamous gay couple be refused marriage simply because other gay couples would be less faithful than they? We would not exclude other classes from marriage simply because they had a higher-than-average likelihood of breaking their marriage vows. (Traditionalist readers will object to some of this terminology. The question, they will say, is not one of "refusing" marriage to anyone or "excluding" anyone from it. Rather, gay couples cannot meet the definition of marriage. They cannot become "one flesh," a phrase that Brooks wrongly assumes is merely metaphorical. But this traditionalist objection should not be made to my argument. I am writing against an idea that implicitly accepts that framing of the debate. Its point, if it has independent force, is that we could extend marriage to this group except that it has a higher-than-average propensity to promiscuity.)

None of this is to say that there are no good arguments for, or against, gay marriage. I just don't think that arguments concerning the effects of gay marriage on promiscuity, or vice-versa, are among them.

I don't think Peter goes far enough in his discussion of "biological determinism." Not only did Augustine and Aquinas understand that there were deep differences between genders and sexes, but that understanding is today resurgent in the sciences. Evolutionary psychology, neurology, zoology and many other fields are confirming what was almost forgotten thanks to the marriage of Marxism and Feminism: there are very real differences between men and women. I liked a lot of what Brooks had to say and the argument he uses has long been the one I've generally been most sympathetic to.

But, as I've written many, many times, the essential insight of conservatism is that human nature has no history. Brooks' use of the phrase "biological determinism" is very clever, but it denies much that is central to conservatism. Would he say that it is just so much wrong-headed biological determinism for women to be the primary caregivers for their children? Who says men can't make better mothers?

I believe in the power of institutions to civilize barbarians into humans and I think Brooks' (and Sullivan's) strongest argument is that marriage is a civilizing institution which we are denying to the very men we claim are in most need of it, i.e. in terms of promiscuity. But, so far, the only marriages we have as evidence for the argument that they civilize men are marriages involving a man and a woman (or many women). Brooks seems to casually dismiss this objection as lunk-headed "biological determinism." That strikes me as unfair and a bit unserious.

Well, it turns out that the two mid-westerners I mentioned yesterday (whose concerns about Bush’s economic policy were pushing them towards Lieberman) were not alone.

Here’s someone who describes himself as a conservative economics student, writing from St. Louis:

“Nearly every conservative I know, including myself, has intended to vote for anyone over Bush in the primaries this year. Unfortunately, Bush will likely run unopposed and not receive the message that such a backlash would send. However, very few are likely to actually vote for a Democrat over Bush in the general.”

Now, to be fair, we do need to remember that this time last year all the talk was of deflation. Boosting spending or cutting taxes was an entirely legitimate response to that, even if it appalled some of the more austere folk among us. What’s more, it seems to have worked. The problem is the outlook going forward. Whether it is the increase in the structural deficit, the flirtation with protectionism, Treasury Secretary Snow’s comments on the dollar or the tendency to pork barrel bonanzas, there are, quite clearly, legitimate causes for concern.

One of the most critical questions over the next few years (if we have that long) will be whether the Saudi regime can reform itself before it is overthrown, to be replaced, almost inevitably, by something even more friendly to terror. This article in today’s New York Times would suggest that some progress is being made. The piece does, however, contain a reminder of just how unpleasant the ‘Kingdom’s’ governing ideology has been and in many, many ways still is:

“Emblematic, perhaps, of the contrary nature of the changes is the theology textbook for 10th graders in Saudi schools.

“Previously, it contained lesson after lesson emphasizing that Muslims should shun those outside the faith — saying, for example, that a good Muslim living among foreigners "must feel, deeply inside, hatred for them, their religion and everything they represent."

“That passage and indeed the complete chapter were cut from the books introduced this fall. But an entirely new lesson suggests the danger of dividing mosque and state, warning that anyone supporting Western methods of government deserves "excommunication from God's mercy, from Islam."

Of course, one of the mysteries of the past decade (choose your conspiracy theory now) is as to why the West has been so indulgent about a country that had nothing (officially at least) but contempt for our way of life. Prior to 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an obvious strategic case to be made for treating the Saudis as allies. After then, there was none. Sure, they had the oil, but their need to sell it was as great as the West’s need to buy it, so “oil” is no alibi. The explanation is probably a blend of bureaucratic inertia, lack of imagination and, let’s admit it, money, in which case, something that Lenin was said to have said about capitalists, rope and hanging rather comes to mind.

From today’s New York Times :

“In a look back at the past century of skyscraper development, it becomes powerfully clear that building by committee was not the route by which the city's greatest structures came to define the skyline.”

The root causes of elite anti-Americanism (and, by and large, it is a phenomenon of the elites) in Europe are extremely complex, psychological as much as political, emotional as much as rational, and they would take more than a brief post here to describe. Take a look, however, at what Stephen Pollard has to say on how it manifests itself in the the UK.

“Real anti-Americanism - the sort that lies behind so much of the hostility to President Bush - isn't about hating burgers and Matt Monro. It is far more subtle. The really damaging anti-Americanism - because it blinds its sufferers to reality - derives from that characteristically British sneering superiority which so permeates metropolitan and media circles. It is the conviction that the arriviste who has moved in next door with his flashy car and his gauche ex-model wife may have more money, own the business and be getting more sex, but he lacks what really matters: class. That Bush fellow is just so typically American: crude and unsophisticated.

“The Sunday after the World Trade Centre attack, John Humphrys [a prominent British journalist] paraded the full scorn of the superior Briton, attacking the likes of George Bush who "damn those who did it as evil, as though there is nothing more to say, as though we still believe in a devil with a forked tail. Perhaps President Bush truly does - his Christianity is of a pretty fundamental variety."

“It is not just President Bush. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, was equally American; just as fundamentally uncouth and unable to resist his gross appetites. But we humoured him, since he spoke our sort of language. What really offends about George Bush is that what you see is what you get, and what you see is a genuine American who makes no effort to be anything else. We can put up with Americans who seem ashamed to be American. Woe betide them, however, if they are proud of it. They will have to put up with our weapon of choice: the condescending sneer.”

Pollard’s comments are, I regret to say, spot on (except for the rather mysterious reference to Matt Monro). Most Brits who move over here will have the occasional friend amazed that we can bear to live in such a terribly 'uncouth' country.

Matt Monro? Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, he’s, ahem, English.

A Frenchman writes in response to the earlier post on Chirac's attempt to spin England's victory in the rugby world cup as a triumph for 'Europe':

"You shouldn’t talk about things you don't understand. The English victory was a victory for all Europe but you americans will never see that or understand why. The hate you ooze is disgusting. I only wish you all could have seen the South African side singing its anthem before each of its games. This was something beyond words for me: the entire team, multiple cultures, side by side, black and white -- all belting out words of peace and freedom in four languages (Xhosa, Sesotho, Afrikaans, and English), merging multiple melodies and diverse histories into a single voice. I don't see something like this happening in america very soon, despite 9-11 and what it is suppose to have changed in your egoists/american hearts."

Americain? Moi?

Here’s Matthew D’Ancona of the Sunday Telegraph on Blair’s week. Most of this is inside baseball (or should that be inside cricket?), but this paragraph stands out:

”As the ghastly news about Istanbul filtered through the Westminster village on Thursday, it was horribly obvious that a great many people in the British political class are still stranded on September 10, 2001. They don't understand that war was declared on us all two years ago. They think it is all Bush's fault. They think that Britain could avoid the worst of it if only our pesky Prime Minister stopped being so literal about the "special relationship", and just talked mellifluous verbiage about it all, like Dominique de Villepin or Joschka Fischer, or any of the other hommes serieux who have mocked the British position and offered nothing, nothing, nothing, as an alternative. “

He's right. They don't.

While on the subject of the French, just go and see Peter Weir’s Master and Commander – now. It’s a long overdue apology for the wrongheaded Brit-bashing of Gallipoli and, undoubtedly, a welcome entry to the canon – and cannons of – great conservative movies, with even an implied dig or two at the creation ‘science’ crew for added fun.

The best lines?

“Do you want to see a guillotine in Piccadilly? Do you want your children to grow up singing the Marseillaise?”

Indeed not.

Paul Marshall has an excellent piece in the Weekly Standard (not on web yet) explaining the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia. Lots of folks, including myself, have been confused by Al Qaeda's attacks on Saudi soil. The Western press suggested al Qaeda was simply confused and thought Americans lived in that foreign worker compound. That always struck me is as unlikely considering how good Qaeda intelligence must be inside Saudi Arabia. It turns out the attacks killed mostly Lebanese Christians. Marshall makes the case that the press often obscures these distinctions behind phrases like "Arabs and Muslims were killed" which includes Christian Arabs. For example that suicide attack at Maxim's in Israel did kill Arabs, but Catholic Arabs. The point is that al Qaeda has declared war against "infidels" which includes all Christians, Jews and many secular Muslims.

In the case of the Saudi attacks, regime has actively encouraged the idea that Saudi Muslims are victims too, in part to cover up their own culpability in exporting an ideology which demonizes infidels.