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