The Blinne Blog

The French Connection

The source of the Niger yellowcake documents has now been officially identified in a story by the New York Times.

ROME, Nov. 3 - Italy's spymaster identified an Italian occasional spy named Rocco Martino on Thursday as the disseminator of forged documents that described efforts by Iraq to buy uranium ore from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, three lawmakers said Thursday.

The spymaster, Gen. Nicolò Pollari, director of the Italian military intelligence agency known as Sismi, disclosed that Mr. Martino was the source of the forged documents in closed-door testimony to a parliamentary committee that oversees secret services, the lawmakers said.

The interesting part is here buried in the middle of the story.

Senator Luigi Malabarba, who also attended Thursday's hearing, said in a telephone interview that General Pollari had told the committee that Mr. Martino was "offering the documents not on behalf of Sismi but on behalf of the French" and that Mr. Martino had told prosecutors in Rome that he was in the service of French intelligence.

A senior French intelligence official interviewed Wednesday in Paris declined to say whether Mr. Martino had been a paid agent of France, but he called General Pollari's assertions about France's responsibility "scandalous."

Even this is old news. The Daily Telegraph reported the following a year ago:

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.

Italian judicial officials confirmed yesterday that Mr Martino had previously been sought for questioning by Rome. Investigating magistrates in the city have opened an inquiry into claims he made previously in the international press that Italy's secret services had been behind the dissemination of false documents, to bolster the US case for war.

According to Ansa, the Italian news agency, which said privately that it had obtained its information from "judicial and other sources", Mr Martino was questioned by an investigating magistrate, Franco Ionta, for two hours. Ansa said Mr Martino told the magistrate that Italy's military intelligence, Sismi, had no role in the procuring or dissemination of the Niger documents.

He was also said to have claimed that he had obtained the documents from an employee at the Niger embassy in Rome, before passing these to French intelligence, on whose payroll he had been since at least 2000.

However, he reportedly also added that he had believed that the documents in question were genuine, and to have never suspected that they had been forged. "Martino has clarified his position and offered to deliver to the magistrates the documents which confirm his declarations," his lawyer, Giuseppe Placidi, told Ansa.

It was not possible to contact Mr Martino through his lawyer yesterday. Contacted by The Telegraph, Mr Ionta politely declined to comment, but did not deny that the questioning had taken place. The Interior Ministry in Rome, which had also expressed keen interest in the Telegraph article, refused to comment on the matter.

Mr Martino is said by diplomats to have come forward of his own accord and contacted authorities in the Italian capital following the earlier article in the Telegraph. They said he had written a letter of resignation to the French DGSE intelligence service last week.

According to an Italian newspaper report yesterday, members of the Digos, Italy's anti-terrorist police, removed documents from Mr Martino's home in a northern suburb of Rome on Friday afternoon.

"After being exposed in the international press, French intelligence can hardly be amused or happy with him," one western diplomat said. "Martino may have thought the safest thing was to hand himself over to the Italians." Investigators in Rome suspect that Mr Martino was first engaged by the French secret services five years ago, when he was asked to investigate rumours of illicit trafficking in uranium from Niger. He is thought to have then been retained the following year to collect more information. It was then that he is suspected of having assembled a dossier containing both real and bogus documents from Niger, the latter apparently forged by a diplomat.

The New York Times on the other hand only cares about whether Italian intelligence was complicit in this and apparently had no curiosity about French intelligence. Nevertheless, Italian intelligence gets acquitted in the process.

General Pollari also said that no Italian intelligence agency officials were involved in either forging or distributing the documents, according to both Senator Brutti and the committee chairman, Enzo Bianco.

Committee members said they were shown documents defending General Pollari, including a copy of a classified letter from Robert S. Muller III, the director of the F.B.I., dated July 20, which praised Italy's cooperation with the bureau.

In Washington, an official at the bureau confirmed the substance of the letter, whose contents were first reported Tuesday in the leftist newspaper L'Unità. The letter stated that Italy's cooperation proved the bureau's theory that the false documents were produced and disseminated by one or more people for personal profit, and ruled out the possibility that the Italian service had intended to influence American policy, the newspaper said.

As a result, the letter said, according to both the F.B.I. official and L'Unità, the bureau had closed its investigation into the origin of the documents.

Finally, The New York Times states as fact something that is not so:

The documents were the basis for sending a former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, on a fact-finding mission to Niger that eventually exploded into an inquiry that led to the indictment and resignation last week of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby. [emphasis mine]

Note the following conclusions that the Democrats didn't allow to be published as part of the SSCI report:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee.

 

The former ambassador's wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador's wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA's Directorate of Operations which said, "[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger. [emphasis mine]

Two things should be noted. First, that Ambassador Wilson was sent on a matter not related to Iraq and thus was not evaluating the forged documents. Second, that according to his wife he had "lots of French contacts".

There should be an investigation on the role of French intelligence in this whole mess to determine if they deliberately planted these documents in order to discredit the Iraq war effort given that there were many French companies up to their eyeballs in the Oil for Food scandal.

 

Harriet Miers in Her Own Words

The Smoking Gun has posted Harriet Miers' Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Critics on the left and right have accused her of not being an originalist or being a lap dog for the executive branch. Her answer concerning judicial activism should put both of these accusations to rest. Her answer shows intelligence, humility, and just-plain common sense. She also shows how her life experience is relevant to service on the Supreme Court. Conservative critics should note particularly the last paragraph where Ms. Miers skilfully balances judicial constraint with judicial independence. Namely, "While legitimate criticism of judicial activism is healthy, even essential, we must be wary of unduly criticizing judges merely because we disagree with the result in a particular case." Enough of me, let's let Harriet Miers finally speak for herself.

The role of the Federal judiciary within the Federal government, and within society, generally, has become the subject of increasing controversy in recent years. It has become the target of both popular and academic criticism that alleges that the judicial branch has usurped many of the prerogatives of other branches and levels of government.

Some of the characteristics of this judicial activism have been said to include:
a. a tendency by the judiciary toward problem-solution rather than grievance- resolution:
b. a tendency by the judiciary to employ the individual plaintive a vehicle for the imposition of far-reaching orders extending to broad classes of individuals:
c. a tendency by the judiciary to impose broad, affirmative duties upon governments and society;
d. a tendency by the judiciary toward loosening jurisdictional requirements such as standing and ripeness: and
e. a tendency by the judiciary to impose itself upon other Institutions in the manner of an administrator with continuing oversight responsibilities.

The role of the judiciary in our system of government is limited. While its role and its independence are essential to the proper functioning of our tripartite system of government, the courts cannot be the solution to society’s ills, and (he independence of the courts provides no license for them to be free-wheeling. And, of course, parties should not be able to establish social policy through court action, having failed to persuade the legislative branch or the executive branch of the wisdom and correctness of their preferred course. Courts are to be arbiters of disputes, not policy makers. As has been said many times, the role of the courts is to interpret law and not to make it. My own beliefs about these issues have been formed over many years, and find their roots in the beginning of my legal career.

Beginning during my two years as a Federal district court clerk, I was taught by the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Joe F. Estes, the importance of Federal courts’ keeping to their limited role. His first task -- and therefore mine in assisting him -- in every case before him was to examine whether the case was properly in court. Was there a party with standing? Did subject matter jurisdiction exist? Was venue proper? These were all questions -- and all related questions going to whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction -- that he wanted answered before any others. If the answer was “no” to any of them, the case was dismissed promptly. These basic rules of Article III impose a clear responsibility on courts to maintain their limited role.

“Judicial activism” can result from a court’s reaching beyond its intended jurisdiction to hear disputes that are not ripe, not brought by a party with standing, not brought in the proper court, or otherwise not properly before the court because of the case’s subject matter. An additional element of judicial restraint is to be sure only to decide the case before the court, and not to reach out to decide unnecessary questions. The courts have the essential role of acting as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, including drawing the appropriate lines between the competing branches of government. But that role is limited to circumstances in which the resolution of a contested case or controversy requires the courts to act.

As I entered private practice, I grew to appreciate even more the importance of predictability amid stability in the law, and came to believe that those values are best served by a rigorous and focused approach to the law. For the legal system to be predictable, the words are vital -- whether they are agreed upon by parties to a contract or are the product of legislative compromise. Many times in practice I found myself stressing to clients the importance of getting the words exactly right if their interests were to be protected in the future. Legal practice also taught me the importance of stability in the law. A lawyer must be able to advise her clients based upon the existing ease law. Courts should give proper consideration to the text as agreed upon, the law as written, and applicable precedent. Then our system of justice can achieve appropriate stability, clarity, and predictability. Those values cannot be effectively pursued unless the law and the facts determine the outcome of a case, rather than the identity of the judge before whom a case is brought. Time and again, I saw that principle in real world cases. The importance of the rule of law, as opposed to peculiarities of specific judges, was just as critical in small matters involving individuals as it was big litigation involving millions of dollars.

“Judicial activism” can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent, but reconsideration under appropriate circumstances is also necessary. There are clear examples, like Brown v. Board of Education, where revisiting precedent is not only right, it is prudent. Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to that question. Thus. whether the prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent and whether legitimate reliance interests militate against overruling.

As my career progressed, I became an elected official charged with legislative power. In that role, I was able fully to appreciate the difference between the role of those who are to make the law and those who are to interpret it. On the Dallas City Council, we dealt frequently with the legal issues facing the City, and with the legal and constitutional implications of our actions. We set policy for the City by, among other devices, passing ordinances. We understood our role, and we expected the courts to understand theirs -- part of which was to respect the policy-making prerogatives of the City Council. There was a vast difference between our vote as a policy matter to prevent the desecration of the American flag, and the job of the courts (including the Supreme Court) to rule whether such an ordinance was constitutional.

Finally, my time serving in the White House, particularly as Counsel to the President, has given me a fuller appreciation of the role of the separation of powers in maintaining our constitutional system. In that role, I have frequently dealt with matters concerning the nature and role of the Executive Power. And by necessity my work has required that I deal with the power of Congress in relation to the Executive. The remaining, and essential, component in our system is of course the power of the Judiciary. The Judicial Branch has its own role to play in the separation of powers. It is part of the system of checks and balances. In interpreting the law in the course of deciding contested cases and controversies, the Supreme Court holds the Executive and Legislative Branches to their respective constitutional roles.

Judicial review by the Supreme Court, including determining the meaning of the Constitution and declaring unconstitutional the actions of another branch of government, is a tremendous power exercised by judges who are not accountable to the electorate. Because their power is so great, and because it is largely unchecked, judges must be vigilant in exercising their power in a humble, prudent, and limited way. The courts must always be ready to decide cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to do so fairly and without regard to the wealth or power of the litigants before them. But it is just as important for the courts to stand ready not to decide in instances that do not call for a decision.

My experience working for Judge Estes provided another valuable lesson. He decided every case according to the law and facts, and he did not worry about the potential for a negative reaction to his decisions. He felt no pressure to please anyone. His only lodestar was the law. The example of Judge Estes helped to instill in me an appreciation for the importance of judicial independence that has only grown stronger over time. Criticism of courts that overstep their role is justified. We must zealously guard, however, independence of the courts. While legitimate criticism of judicial activism is healthy, even essential, we must be wary of unduly criticizing judges merely because we disagree with the result in a particular case. Judges are given life tenure and independence to shield them from the potential tyranny of the majority. While life tenure and independence should not be a license to usurp the rule of law in favor of a rule of man, they provide an essential structural protection to ensure that judges are able to make decisions based only on the fundamental vision of the Founders -- the rule of law.

God and Katrina

When natural disasters happen inevitably Christians (including myself) embark on a task known as a theodicy. A theodicy defends God's righteousness against the apparent injustice of the event in question. Tony Campolo does this for Katrina.

There are still other religionists who take the opportunity to tell us that God is punishing America for its many sins. Undoubtedly, there are some al-Qaeda fanatics who right now are saying that Katrina is the hand of God, striking America for what we have done to the people of Iraq and to the Palestinians. Furthermore, there are Christians who, in the weeks to come, can be counted on to thunder from their pulpits that Katrina is God’s wrath against the immorality of this nation, pointing out that New Orleans is the epitome of our national degradation and debauchery. To all of this I say, "Wrong."

The God revealed in Jesus did not come into the world "to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:17) There can be no arguments over the claim that, for a variety of reasons, our nation deserves punishment. But when the Bible tells us about the grace of God, it is giving us the good news that our loving God does not give us what we truly deserve. Certainly, God would not create suffering for innocent people, who were--for the most part--Katrina’s victims.

Dr. Campolo is absolutely right that God would not create such suffering amongst the poor. Throughout church history theodicies are the occasion where the greatest theologians most erred because they said too much. For example, errors in Leibnitz' theodicy that this world is the best of all possible worlds was mercilessly critiqued in Voltaire's Candide. Campolo commits an error by denying God's omnipotence. We cannot go there any more than we can go where the religionists above went. When we do a theodicy Scripture guides us where not to go but does not allow relief of a theodicy that is bullet-proof. Silence and humility are the better part of wisdom for a theodicy.

So, if poor people are not the particular object of God's wrath -- Scripture is replete with the concept that God always identifies with the poor and oppressed -- then what's going on here? Could it be the wrong sins are being identified as a cause of this hurricane? If Dr. Campolo is right about the poor --  and I believe he is -- then maybe it is the very oppression of the poor that is being judged.

Let's consider what has happened. The poor in New Orleans could not escape even when their very lives depended upon it. Thanks to the hurricane they now have an opportunity to escape the crushing crime and poverty. This is not to say that many will want to return. But, there are also many that may choose to leave.  For those who do, it is incumbent upon those who call ourselves Christian to welcome our new neighbors and make them a valued part of their new communities. That means housing and jobs and dignity. Their government failed them not only after the hurricane but also before. Let's not fail them again.

Katrina: Doing the Math

Reuters reported the current death toll.

The recovery of Katrina's victims speeded up in the last two days. As of Thursday, Mississippi had recorded 201 deaths and Louisiana 118, while other affected states had much lower numbers.

Let's assume that the death toll quintuples to 500. How many people were evacuated after the hurricane?

Rescuers plucked thousands more from streets, levees, roads and rooftops. At least 32,000 were rescued and another 70,000 were evacuated from New Orleans after the storm, according to official figures.

That would make the evacuation 99.5% successful, 99.9% successful if you include the pre-hurricane evacuation!

Louisiana Homeland Security -- Part of Louisiana Government -- Blocks Aid to New Orleans

Left-wing blogs are going nuts saying that the Federal Homeland Security blocked food and water from the Red Cross to victims in New Orleans. The story is half right. The Red Cross' web site says:

Access to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city. And while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

CNN reported the story this way:

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (CNN) -- Louisiana officials rebuffed American Red Cross requests to enter New Orleans with relief supplies last week because of concerns over logistical difficulties, Red Cross and state officials said Thursday.

The Red Cross never launched its relief effort in the city.

The national president of the American Red Cross, Marsha Evans, first made the request to undertake the operation during a visit to the state on September 1, three days after Hurricane Katrina struck, a local Red Cross chapter official said.

Vic Howell, chief executive officer of the agency's Louisiana Capital Area Chapter, said he renewed that request the next day to Col. Jay Mayeaux, the deputy director of the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.

"We had adequate supplies, the people and the vehicles," Howell said at a news conference in Baton Rouge. "It was the middle of a military rescue operation trying to save lives. We were asked not to go in, and we abided by that recommendation."

The name Louisiana Department of Homeland Security keeps coming up. Who are they? It sure sounds like the feds. I went to their web site and here is their self-description:

The Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (LHLS & EP); formally the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness (LOEP), was created by the Civil Act of 1950 and is under the Louisiana Military Department. In 1976 LHLS & EP via the Louisiana government reorganization, was moved to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). In 1990 LHLS & EP was transferred again to the Military Department. In 2003 the Agency name was changed to the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, reflecting the additional responsibilities to the State and her citizens.

Finally, note the sign that I have a picture. It is part of the department of public safety of the state police.

We're All Moderates and Catholics

The word catholic means universal. So, in that sense all Christians are little-c catholics. In the midst of an otherwise decent editorial I found an interesting error in David Brooks concerning the Roberts' nomination. First, the quote. A Competent Conservative - New York Times.

Confirmation battles have come to seem of late like occasions for bitterly divided Catholics to turn political battles into holy war Armageddons. Most of the main Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are Catholics who are liberal or moderate (Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Leahy), and many of the most controversial judges or nominees are Catholics who are conservative (Scalia, Thomas, Pryor). When they face off, you get this brutal and elemental conflict over the role morality should play in public life.

My question who is the moderate amongst the senators mentioned? And when did Justice Thomas, an Episcopalian, become Catholic? Thomas may very well be Anglo-Catholic and attended a Catholic elementary school but that is not the same thing.  It seems that being a moderate Catholic is where it's at these days. I guess anybody can be one, too. Hat tip: Polipundit.

Who Was Novak's Original Source?

Last year, I caught second-hand speculation within the CIA that Valerie Plame was "outed" from inside the CIA because she and her husband were politicizing intelligence. (A friend of mine had contacts in the Iraq Survey Group.) That speculation seems to be even more likely today.

Question from the Captain's Quarters.

I think it may even be more than that, at least on the media's part, and specific to the New York Times. They know who Judith Miller's source is, and they're trying their best to keep it quiet. One wonders why they're carrying so much water for a story they never broke. Could it have something to do with their publication of Joseph Wilson's original op-ed article that started the whole mess?

I could care less who Miller's source was (unless it was the same as Novak's). Rather, who was Novak's original source given that Rove was the confirming one? Let's look at the characteristics as described by Novak:

1. A senior administration figure
2. Not a partisan gunslinger
3. Would know the answer of why the CIA sent Wilson to Niger

This would give us either Colin Powell or George Tenet. (Commenters please give any other candidates here.) A spokesman for Powell denied that he ever talked with Novak at all about the Plame affair. This leaves George Tenet. A friend of Wilson's asked Novak about Wilson on July 8, 2003, the same day that Rove confirmed Novak's story. Novak told Wilson's friend:

“Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him.”

On July 10, Wilson confronted Novak before Novak ran the story:

Novak apologized, and then asked if I would confirm what he had heard from a CIA source: that my wife worked at the Agency. [emphasis mine]

After Novak ran his story, Wilson contacted Novak again and noted the discrepancy of Novak's sourcing. Novak replied, "I misspoke the first time I contacted you".

What if Novak didn't misspoke and was trying to protect his source? What if characteristic number 4 is works for the CIA? That leaves George Tenet as the source of who sent Wilson to Niger. Whether the source specifically named Valerie Plame is difficult to surmise because apparently her identity was an open secret. In the end, that's for the prosecutor and the grand jury to figure out. 

Bill Clinton: Statesman

Yesterday, Tony Snow gave a challenge on his radio show. He asked for a single quote where a Democrat was acting like a statesman in light of the London bombings. This was a difficult test. However, I found a notable exception from a surprising quarter.

The Rocky Mountain News reported the following quote from former President Bill Clinton:

Clinton, a late addition to the festival's lineup, fielded questions from Aspen Institute President Walter Isaacson and select participants in the event that wasn't open to the public.

Clinton pointed out that in the recent national elections in Iraq, turnout was an astounding 58 percent - higher than in recent U.S. elections. "It's clearly a legitimate process and the people want it to work, so I think we can try to make it work," Clinton said.

The former president said the United States and its allies should continue to help Iraq build its defense capabilities. Clinton also scoffed at the notion that America is embroiled in another war like Vietnam.

"This is not Vietnam. It might be a quagmire, but it won't be for the reason it was in Vietnam. Our problem (in Vietnam) was we didn't have a legitimate government to back," Clinton said.

Clinton also commented on Thursday's bombings in London, saying that, from the terrorists' viewpoint, it was a huge mistake. "I actually think they made a tactically bad decision to do this thing in London, from their point of view," Clinton said. "The British underwent the (Irish Republican Army) terrorism and the blitz bombing (from the Germans in World War II), and they are tough as nails. And they can take it and dish it out."

Well done, Mr. President, and thank you.

Moderates Misunderstood

E.J. Dionne believes there is a  Revolt of the Middle. While that maybe true it is not quite as he describes. He doesn't get many moderates just like the beltway doesn't get "values voters". Being a moderate Evangelical, I get to be doubly misunderstood. :-)

But something important has happened since President Bush's inauguration. America's moderates may not be screaming, but they're in revolt. Many who reluctantly supported the president and the Republicans in 2004 are turning away. The party's agenda on Social Security, judges and the Terri Schiavo case is out of touch with where moderate voters stand. Worse for Bush and his party, most moderates have a practical, problem-solving view of government and think these issues are far less important than shoring up a shaky economy and improving living standards.

Wrong. Many moderates -- at least religious moderates -- are not merely green-eye-shade pragmatists. There is principle behind who we are. We are concerned about the process as well as the policies. We don't require partisan advocates to be lite versions of the other party. Rather, we want the advocacy done fairly, honestly, and without the over-the-top rhetoric. The reason why Bush gained much of our support was because of the overly-strident critique of him by the Left. That support is cut into, however, if the Republicans return in kind.

The latest poll to bring home this message was released late last week by the Democracy Corps, a Democratic consortium led by pollster Stan Greenberg and consultant James Carville. Greenberg and Carville are not triumphalist. They are careful to note that "Democrats are not yet integral to the narrative" of American politics and that the decline in the Republicans' public image "is not accompanied by image gains for the Democrats." Democrats still have a lot of work to do.

The work the Democrats need to do is to turn down the temperature. Otherwise, what the Republicans are doing wrong will not benefit them. At least for religious moderates, this is a matter of principle. But what is that principle? What do religious moderates require of politicians? The same God requires of us all (Micah 6:8):

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

Dean Lures Back Red State Voters with Wrong Bait

Howard Dean gives as a goal of trying to lure so-called "values" votes in a USA Today interview.

"We need to be a national party, we need a national message, and we need to understand why people in dire economic straits — people who certainly aren't being helped by Republican policies — why they vote for George Bush," he said. "We need to respect voters in red states who want to vote for us, but we make it hard for them by not listening to what they have to say."

So far, so good. Values voters such as myself believe that the proper role of government is to protect the weak from the strong. The Democrats could make the argument that the so-called values agenda is too narrow. I made such an argument in January. Liberal Evangelicals, Ron Sider and Jim Wallis,  make similar appeals. I find such appeals moderately compelling. So, how about Howard Dean's own appeal?

Democrats get "caught" in defending abortion, he said. "Well, there's nobody who's pro-abortion, not Democratic or Republican. What we want to debate is who gets to choose: (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?"

This falls very flat. The issue is not who decides but whether the Democrats will be true to their roots of being for the powerless.  Hubert Humphrey put it this way:

The moral test of government is how that government  treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

One could effectively argue that the Republicans fail that test. Republicans pick up Evangelical voters because they don't fail as badly as the Democrats. Either party could easily improve their situation because the bar is so low. Dean's quote shows that despite his best intentions he is not really listening. Thus, he is losing what might have been an easy opportunity to pick up Evangelical voters.

Both/And Evangelism

Evangelicals are trying to broaden their influence beyond the normal politically conservative venues. The New York Times reported the following:

The National Association of Evangelicals, with 30 million members in 45,000 churches, opened a debate on Thursday on a document intended to expand the political platform of evangelicals beyond the fight against abortion and same-sex marriage.

The authors of the paper, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," said they reached a consensus between liberals and conservatives by adopting public policy goals, but not prescribing strategies to achieve them. At a luncheon held by the association on Thursday on Capitol Hill, however, some evangelical leaders voiced concern that the new platform could dilute the focus of the evangelical movement by taking on too many issues.

The document urges evangelicals to address issues like racial injustice, religious freedom, poverty in the United States and abroad, human rights, environmentalism and advancing peace through nonviolent conflict resolution.

So, what are evangelicals trying to accomplish? A both/and approach to evangelism and the Gospel. The extremes on both the left and the right have not always served evangelicals well. The following op-ed by David Waters sums up this thinking:

Will the pendulum ever stop in the middle? Some evangelicals are beginning to question the faithfulness of one-sided evangelism, left or right.

"The Moral Majority lacked a servant heart of Christ born out of humility and compassion for a fallen humanity," Robert Wenz, vice president of national ministries for the NAE, said at the conference.

"Instead, it was all about making America a nice place for Christians to live. This is not the kind of social involvement that we need or that evangelicals espouse."

Other evangelical leaders have been critical of the social gospel's lack of emphasis on personal sin and salvation.

"We need a full-blown biblical theology that affirms both personal and social sin, both personal conversion and structural change, both evangelism and social action, both personal and social salvation, both Jesus as moral example and Jesus as vicarious substitute, both orthodox theology and ethical obedience," Ron Sider, a professor of theology at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in "Good News and Good Works."

The evangelical movement first began to win a huge following in the 18th Century, led by men such as John Wesley and George Whitfield. In these politically and theologically divisive times it's worth remembering why.

It was their conservative piety and their liberal humanity.

A Study in Contrasts

What are evangelicals to do with recent electoral victories? Two approaches are shown by Jim Dobson and Chuck Colson. The New York Times is reporting Evangelical Leader Threatens to Use His Political Muscle Against Some Democrats:

COLORADO SPRINGS - James C. Dobson, the nation's most influential evangelical leader, is threatening to put six potentially vulnerable Democratic senators "in the 'bull's-eye' " if they block conservative appointments to the Supreme Court.

In a letter his aides say is being sent to more than one million of his supporters, Dr. Dobson, the child psychologist and founder of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family, promises "a battle of enormous proportions from sea to shining sea" if President Bush fails to appoint "strict constructionist" jurists or if Democrats filibuster to block conservative nominees.

The same article refers to an open letter to the Christian Church by Chuck Colson. Here Chuck Colson warns evangelicals not to become yet another special interest group.

So, what are we lining up at Election Day to get in return for our votes?  Nothing.  All we want is the President to be the man that he is and do the kinds of things he did in the first term.

I resent the media implication that Christians are waiting for their payback.  We’re interested in the common good for all people (the theological term for that is common grace).  We vote with conviction about a man’s integrity, his faith, his beliefs, and his accomplishments in restoring the moral order in American life.

So, Mr. President, give us more of the same.

This is an open letter to the church and to church leaders.  Do not let the media typecast us.  We are not special interest pleaders.  The media would love to catch us in the trap, talking about what the president is going to do for us.  The media loves to use stuff like that to paint us as “theocrats.”  Note what the New York Times did Thursday.   Garry Wills wrote a harsh piece, charging that we were trying to “roll back the Enlightenment” which is, of course, pure nonsense.  Poor Thomas Friedman wrote that he woke up the morning after the election to discover that many of us want a different America than he does (yes, we do—we want a moral America, which boggles the minds of some who live on Manhattan Island.)  But the point is we mustn’t give them an excuse to bash us.

What we care about is what’s good for the nation.  Record numbers of Americans cast their votes for Bush because he proved to so many of us that he shares these values, that he cares about the moral state of American life, and that he puts his faith in practice.  He has shown us his faith by his works.  Let’s us show our faith, not by flexing political muscles but by our good works.

Chuck Colson is willing to make such a sentiment as part of his New Year's resolutions.

We also, however, face a sobering question. Evangelicals have come back into the limelight. Talking heads are commenting on the increasing power of “values voters” and conservative Christians. And to listen to some Christians, one gets the idea that this is the time for our political payback.

So the question is this: Can we handle success and increased influence with grace and prudence?

The sad fact is that all Christians are susceptible to worldly wiles. In fact, sad to say, the Church has managed to shoot itself in the foot almost every time it has achieved power in society.

So what we need most right now is a bracing dose of humility. We’re not a labor union, lining up for our share of the spoils after the election. We are the Church. Our job is to bring biblical truth to bear in society; to win people to Christ; and to promote righteousness and justice. We serve the King of kings, no mere temporal king.

The Apostle Peter tells us always to be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within us, but with gentleness and reverence. And we are to keep a clear conscience so that when people slander us, they may become “ashamed of their slander.” Though we are commanded to engage in the political process, we are to do so lovingly, as citizens concerned for the common good. Trying to do that is my first resolution.

Not a bad way to start 2005.

Iraqi Christians Keep Low Profile

Link: Iraqi Christians Keep Low Profile.

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Ameera Dawoud is a Christian, but as soon as the Islamic holy month of Ramadan began, she traded her pants, fitted skirts and uncovered hair for oversize clothes and a veil.

"They say you have to cover your hair or we will kill you," Dawoud said by telephone from the northern city of Mosul. "If you don't wear a veil, people look at you as if you were naked."

Some Christians in Mosul feel say they are being subjected to threats that have escalated during Ramadan (search) and that may be designed to drive them out of the country, create religious tensions, or at least make life difficult.

Truly dangerous times in Iraq. Let's hope that this is short-lived and they can really get to a secular democracy with religious freedom quickly.

It's The Values Stupid

I'm back from a self-imposed hiatus similar to during the start of the Iraq war. I get tired when all there is politics, politics, politics. Ironically what follows is also political but has a philosophical/theological bent. That's a lot more interesting to me.

Now that the devastating defeat of the Democrats is coming in, everyone is doing a post mortem. So far, I've seen them be almost exclusively issue-oriented. On the other hand, I believe Senator Christopher Dodd nails it.

"On those sets of questions, more than anything else, is where we ended up losing these races," Dodd said in a conference call. He also announced he would not enter a fight to be-come minority leader of the U.S. Senate.

"We better understand that you got to connect with people, not just on issues, but on values as well," said Connecticut’s senior senator, who easily won a fifth term Tuesday.

Dodd, 60, said he was "fearful that we are conceding too much of that ground and assuming that people will vote with us because they agree with us on our plan, but don’t see us as connecting with them on cultural and social and value issues."

You cannot treat values as an issue. Values are above the issues just as metaphysics is above physics in Aristotle. Values are the ousios (essence or substance) of Red State political thinking. Issues are the accidental outworking of the substance of values. You can disagree even violently on the issues but if you have common value systems or worldviews then you get support from Red State America.

So, you can have Cheney and Bush disagree on how to deal with gay marriage and this causes no stir because Red State America is convinced they both value marriage. Also, you get a divide between Bush and Kerry even though their policies concerning gay marriage are almost indistinguishable. This is because Kerry failed to show that he valued marriage. I'll explain why below.

For Blue State America, what is necessary is for the candidate to have the right catalog of issues. Values are doing. Since President Clinton supported the right programs, he was considered virtuous. On the other hand, for Red State America values are defined by who you are. Good works are the outworking of being a good person. To use the Biblical metaphor, a good tree produces good fruit. President Clinton cheating on his wife made him not virtuous independent of the policies he supported. There is no compartmentalization in Red State moral thinking.

So, how do Democrats address this way of thinking?

1. Make sure your value systems are coherent. For example, if you say life begins at conception then the policies you propose need to be consistent with it. It is better to say you believe life begins at birth and be pro choice. This latter view is respected far more by Red State America.
2. Don't impute motives. Assume that Red State America supports a policy because they believe it is right. They support the ban on gay marriages because of supporting families, not out of hate of gays. Because the Democrats didn't understand this, they failed to understand why Kerry's comments concerning Mary Cheney were so offensive. Red State America values families. Kerry attacked a family. It had nothing at all to do with any issue including the gay marriage amendment. It was not political. It was personal. The same thing goes for the Swift Boat Veterans. Kerry offended their honor and never rectified it. That's why this had legs.
3. Don't belittle faith, but leverage it. Democrats treat taxes as an issue. They should treat it as a value. When the Alabama Governor argued that raising taxes was a Christian duty, Alabamans raised taxes. The loyalty of Red State America is to their Biblical values and not necessarily to any particular issue.
4. Avoid worldly sophistication. The worldly part is important. When nuance is used as an excuse for incoherent and relativistic thinking it will be uniformly rejected. On the other hand, if you properly work through a complicated ethical dilemma, Red State America will cut you some slack. For example, when dealing with stem-cell research Bush walked through how he tried to value current life when it conflicted with saving lives in the future. Red State America gave him a pass. The reason was that he confirmed his dedication to the principle of valuing life. Even when he reached different conclusions from those who thought he should have used the exiting lines, he still got a pass. The moral thinking must be without guile and grounded in absolute principles, however. If it reflects relativism or post-modernism it will be dismissed as self-serving "spin".

Democrats are failing miserably on the list above. In fact, they are doing something far worse than just missing it. Because they fail to understand Red State America, they move on to insult it. They call it stupid and simple. They insult the basis for the moral reasoning, the Bible. There is nothing that would necessarily connect Red State America with conservative politics. The reason why conservative politics has resonated is because only conservative politics affirms moral absolutes but wisely leaves the set of those absolutes undefined. Only the conservatives argue tu quoque with Red State America. They start with their values and then argue the policies. Democrats start with the policies and then belittle and insult Red State America for disagreeing with them. No business would ever think of doing this because it is bad business. It is also bad politics.

And the Winner Is...

The American voter.

The loser:

Osama bin Laden. Go back to your cave.

OBL Tape and Kerry's Rhetoric

Both candidates for President are honest about their desire to defeat terrorism in general and Osama bin Laden in particular. What I want to explore is whether out-of-control campaign rhetoric unintentionally gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

John Kerry has used the Book of James during the campaign, ""Words without deeds are meaningless -- especially when people are dying every day." I want to look at a different passage in James. James 3:2-6

2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check. 3When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

Pastor Rick Warren refers to people described in this passage as "verbal arsonists".

After the Oklahoma City bombing President Bill Clinton accused talk radio of being "purveyors of hate and division". He told the Detroit Free Press, "I cannot defend some of the things some of these more extreme talk-show hosts have said, even more extreme than that in these little short-wave programs that plainly are encouraging violence." President Clinton has a point. Words do have consequences and "verbal arsonists" can indeed provoke violence.

Now, let's look at some quotes from the Osama bin Laden video:

Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

Now John Kerry:

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And that only scratches the surface. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America. And together, you, John Edwards and I will do that on November 2nd.

Bin Laden:

He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.

According to the Washington Post:

At a morning appearance before minority journalists in Washington, Kerry faulted Bush for spending seven minutes reading to Florida schoolchildren after learning the World Trade Center had been attacked. "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to," Kerry said.

In fact Kerry's communication director has an eery simularity with bin Laden:

"John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of second-graders while America is under attack," said Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, a reference to the book Mr. Bush continued reading with children for several minutes after his chief of staff informed him of the second World Trade Center plane attack.

Kerry needs to have much greater self control in his speech. As the Book of James would say, John Kerry's tongue is a "world of evil". He simply does not have the character to be President.

Eliminating Possible Fonts on IBM Composer for Disputed Documents

The current theory on the left was the disputed memos could have been done on an IBM Composer. There are two (that I know of) fonts that could possibly fill the bill. One is called Press Roman and the other is called Aldine Roman. The first possibility was dismissed quickly by expert Dr. Bouffard, who noticed that the 4's have feet on them. See here for a picture. Because there were no feet in the fours, Aldine Roman was offerred as a possible alternative. This font can also be eliminated. The reason is that the capital J's in the font descend below the baseline. They don't do it in the disputed document. See below:

Download aldine.JPG

Kerning You Decide

There has been much discussion on kerning and the disputed Guard memos. Hugh Hewitt's expert from Rice University noted that the fo combination would be kerned in word processors but not on a typewriter. So, I took him up on it, here's two samples one from one of the disputed documents and the other from the IBM Composer User Manual that was typeset by an IBM Composer. We report, you decide.

Download kern2.jpg

Update: An astute commenter noted that there appeared to kerning in an IBM document. However, this was done by a typesetting program. But, in the same document there contained a nice, clean sample of a "for" produced by IBM Composer. I have updated my pictures with this clean sample, along with the document in question and Word all blown up large. It is now patently clear that this is a fake.

Update: Dr. John Newcomer, one of the founders of DTP, called what is being done above pseudo-kerning or ABC width mechanism. Here's what he has to say:

Some have argued that the documents are forgeries because the characters are “kerned”. Kerning is an operation which tucks characters together to compact space. However, Microsoft Word by default does not kern text. The text of the memo is not kerned. Kerning is a pairwise operation between characters, and each character pair that can be kerned has a specified kerning value. Microsoft fonts and many others come with accompanying kerning data. But kerning is complex, and computationally expensive, and therefore would have slowed down redisplay in a WYSIWYG editor. However, Times New Roman uses a characteristic of Microsoft TrueType fonts called the ABC dimensions, where the C dimension is the offset from the right edge of the bounding box of the character to the next character. If this offset is negative, the character with the negative C offset will overlap the character which follows (in some technologies, the distance from the start of one character to the start of another is called the “escapement”, so a negative C offset gives an escapement which is less than the character width). This gives the illusion of kerning, or what I sometimes call “pseudo-kerning”. I discuss the ABC width mechanism in some detail in a book I wrote in 1997 (“Win32 Programming”, with Brent Rector, Addison-Wesley, 1997, p. 1104). I have attached sample output from a program I used to create illustrations for that book, one of which shows the characters “fr” and one of which shows the C offset of the “f” character is “–2”. ALL technologies I am aware of in 1972 that would have been available for office work (not, say, the sort of production book typesetters that major publishers might have had) could only advance an integral number of units, and could not “tuck in” the characters like Microsoft’s Times New Roman font under Microsoft Word does, by using a negative partial-character offset. Examine carefully the “fr” in the word “from” in the 18-August-1973 memo. The “r” is tucked under the “f” in the same way a Microsoft font does it. In 1972, technology available in the office, including proportional typewriters, could not do this. So it is clear that the only way this document could have been done is using a modern computer font, and the placement is pixelwise identical to Microsoft’s Times New Roman. The work we did at CMU could not support kerning or pseudo-kerning of text. We knew about kerning, but our software could not support it. I have not examined a New York Times of 1972, but I would be extremely surprised if the font used at that time exhibited any form of kerning (I should point out that Linotype machines—the hot-lead machines—had paired characters such as “fi”, which were actually a single slug. Character sequences like these are called a “ligature” and were a special case of kerning. Common ligatures included fi, fl, ffi, ffl, among others. This was an example of kerning built into the font definition, and Linotype machines had separate keys that dropped these slugs into place. Lead type set by hand also had similar ligatures. The illustration is scanned from The Unicode Standard Version 3.0, Addison-Wesley, 2000, p.804).

Hot lead type could not kern, because of the need to have a Linotype machine drop slugs into a frame, which was then filled with hot lead. Any publishing technology that used hot lead typesetting could not support kerning, except by the aforementioned ligatures. Any technology that used hand-set type could not support kerning without such a high expense that it is unlikely it was ever done. Not even Word supports kerning without selecting a special option (and if selected, the resulting document does not look like the memo). But somehow, magically, the font used by some hypothesized piece of equipment in 1972 works the same was as a font that uses a set of ABC width parameters that did not exist until TrueType fonts existed. Microsoft delivered the first version of TrueType for Windows in April of 1992, and the original TrueType font format was developed by Apple and delivered in May, 1991.

Based on the fact that I was able, in less than five minutes, to replicate one of the experiments reported on the Internet, that is, to type in the text of the 01-August-1972 memo into Microsoft Word and get a document so close that you can hold my document in front of the “authentic” document and see virtually no errors, I can assert without any doubt (as have many others) that this document is a modern forgery. Any other position is indefensible. I was a bit annoyed that the experiment dealing with the 18-August-1973 memo was not compatible, until I changed the font to an 11.5-point font. Then it was a perfect match, including the superscript “th”. In 1972, we expressed fonts in integral pixel sizes, and a fractional pixel size would have been meaningless. Until we got high-resolution printers in the 1990s, I am not aware of any application-level technology that supported fractional point sizes (Adobe PostScript could, but the high-level interfaces to it, to the best of my recollection, only allowed integers to be specified for sizes). I do not believe a typesetting program or typesetting technology that worked in fractional point sizes could have existed in 1972 or 1973. However, this might be an accident of the many levels of transformation from the original (wherever that is) and the photocopying, scanning, document conversion, and re-printing. The 11.5-point font could represent a reduction to 96% of the original size in the various transformations. In which case, the coincidence of the match is again extremely unlikely unless the document were a forgery. [Emphasis mine]

So, I have an example of pseudo-kerning. The quote above means that the memo could not even be produced by typesetting equipment of the day, let alone a typewriter. Game, set, match!

The Effect of the New Media on Campaign 2004

Update: This just brewing: the CBS memo on Bush's National Guard service may have been forged. It used a proportional font that wasn't used in the '60s.

The Blinne Blog is back from summer hiatus. I spent the Labor Day weekend watching the political blogs and I noticed how the so-called new media are directly affecting this campaign. Now I am not talking here about Matt Drudge or talk radio or Fox News. No, I am talking about independent web publishers popularly known as blogs. Three stories from this weekend illustrate things that weblogs have done that even the old new media can not do well.

1. John Kerry for President, a 404 Organization.
   John Kerry's web page had a response piece [Note: this link is dead and the index of press releases skip pr_2004_0905a and going straight to pr_2004_0905b.] entitled The 2004 GOP Convention: Four Days Filled With Lies, Mischaracterizations, Distortions, And Half-Truths. This was a cut and paste job that merely quoted from the convention and there was nothing to explain why the statements were lies. Check this link that saved the web page. It also in effect called John McCain a lier.
2. The Steubenville Meltdown.
   Here we have a witness that showed the main stream media completed missed John Kerry's rally going completely out of control. Steubenville is home to a Franciscan university and is very much pro-life. This had to be rescheduled from when the univeristy was not in session to when it was. They also had the rally in a public park. Here's an e-mail from a witness:
   

   John Kerry came to Steubenville yesterday and quickly realized he was in the wrong city. Steubenville is a city where there are 6 Democrats for every 1 Republican, and the Steelworkers unions are alive and active. You would think this was solid John Kerry territory. The mob used to control Steubenville and now the unions think they do. Well, they are wrong.

   The Kerry campaign first scheduled a visit to Steubenville two weeks ago but "scheduling conflicts" came up at the last minute. Oh, and did I mention that Kerry wanted to use a local gun range as a campaign stop, but the owner turned him down? And that the Fire Department Union President told the Kerry campaign that not only would he not organize the union to support Kerry at the rally, but that he was supporting President Bush! The Kerry campaign took for granted that this area was sown up. Mistake number one. So they rescheduled the campaign trip when Franciscan University was back in session. Mistake number two.

   Before Kerry arrived there was a huge pro-life march led by Franciscan University students, 500 strong. "You can't be Catholic and pro-abortion", read some of their signs. Students and members of local Catholic parishes were full of energy and FoxNews reported that this was the largest protest against Kerry outside of the Democratic Convention. Just picture 500 pro-lifers marching from their college campus to meet Kerry. Where else but in Steubenville, Ohio! Though the Franciscan University did not organize the event, it is well known for its orthodox Catholic education which encourages students to put their faith into action. These students simply cherish their Catholic faith and could not stand to let Kerry use their faith as a political prop. I am proud of my alma mater.

   ….The Kerry campaign not only made a mistake in their timing, but they also chose to hold the rally in a public park which should be open to all the public. Mistake number three. The police chief, sheriff, and mayor all agreed with me that protesters and their signs would be allowed inside the Kerry rally site. Freedom of speech is alive and well here in Ohio. The Kerry campaign flipped out!

   So, now add another 500 local Bush supporters to the Kerry rally. They tried to turn up the music but they could not drown us out. According to the Herald Star (local press), "The crowd, estimated by officials as 3,500 strong, was almost split in half with people for and against the Massachusetts senator." John Kerry must know he has a problem when over 15% of his audience was booing him. We were respectful and did not heckle him - but upon arrival and when he sought our applause he got something he didn't expect. As the press arrived a feisty nine year old little girl began shouting, "We want Bush!", and we all chanted along. The campaign staff was beside themselves. This is history in the making! Even places like Steubenville are not supporting John Kerry. He is in serious trouble.

   My friends, John Kerry will not be coming back to Steubenville. Kerry was visibly shaken when he received boos from the audience.....

3. AP Caught in Dirty Tricks
   This one was picked up by Drudge but it was the bloggers who did the heavy lifting. Here the crowd was alleged to have booed President Clinton's heart problems. Audio files came out the woodwork showing it not the case. AP tried to say it was oohing, then deleted the reference to booing altogether along with the by line, the timestamp, and all previous versions of the story. They also purged Nexus of the trail. This goes beyond bias in my opinion and AP should launch an investigation of this.
   

Bush Backing Marriage Amendment Politically Smart

I was of the opinion that President Bush backing the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution was not politically smart. But, as always, it is dangerous to misunderestimate the President. While most Americans are not in favor of the amendment, those who are most likely to vote favor it. Note the following poll by the Barna Group:

The survey also showed that the adults most likely to vote in November favored the amendment by a comfortable margin, 52% to 43%. That margin may not be enough, however, to persuade two-thirds of the members in each house of the Congress to pass the proposal, and then to generate passage in three-quarters of the states. [Note: this survey was taken prior to the Senate voting down cloture for the amendment.]

...

The survey showed that President Bush has more to gain from supporting the amendment and opposing the ordination of gay clergy than Senator Kerry does by opposing the former and supporting the latter.

Among people likely to vote in the election and who support the President, 54% strongly favor the marriage amendment and 17% strongly oppose it – a gap of 37 percentage points. Among Mr. Kerry’s supporters, a plurality (43%) strongly opposes the amendment and 20% are strongly in favor – a gap of 23 points. Among the undecided voters, 35% strongly support the amendment and 32% strongly oppose it – a difference that is not statistically significant.

Although neither candidate is likely to mention his views on the ordination of gay clergy, 65% of the President’s likely supporters in the November election strongly oppose the ordination of gay clergy while just 4% strongly support it. Among Mr. Kerry’s supporters, on the other hand, only 18% strongly favor gay ordinations while nearly twice as many (33%) strongly oppose it.

Donald Rumsfeld: Civil Libertarian?

In the midst of defending Donald Rumsfeld, New York Times columnist, William Safire, gave an intriguing argument for Rumsfeld to stay: Donald Rumsfeld is the civil libertarian in the Bush Administration. That's not something I automatically associate with Rummy.

Because today's column will generate apoplectic e-mail, a word about contrarian opinion: Shortly after 9/11, with the nation gripped by fear and fury, the Bush White House issued a sweeping and popular order to crack down on suspected terrorists. The liberal establishment largely fell cravenly mute. A few lonely civil libertarians spoke out. When I used the word "dictatorial," conservatives, both neo- and paleo-, derided my condemnation as "hysterical."

One Bush cabinet member paid attention. Rumsfeld appointed a bipartisan panel of attorneys to re-examine that draconian edict. As a result, basic protections for the accused Qaeda combatants were included in the proposed military tribunals.

Perhaps because of those protections, the tribunals never got off the ground. (The Supreme Court will soon, I hope, provide similar legal rights to suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens.) But in the panic of the winter of 2001, Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights. Some now demanding his scalp then supported the repressive Patriot Act.

The New York Times Then and Now

Here's is an excerpt of a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times concerning abortion.

"Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything," said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. "It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena."

The upshot is that many Portuguese seem to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice. They are morally uncomfortable with abortion, especially late in pregnancies, but they don't think the solution is to arrest young women for making agonizing personal choices to end their pregnancies.

As one sensible woman put it in her autobiography: "For me, abortion is a personal issue - between the mother, father and doctor." She added, "Abortion is not a presidential matter."

President Bush, listen to your mother.

That is now. Now, consider the New York Times of August 23, 1871.

THE EVIL OF THE AGE

Slaughter of the Innocents — Open Trade in Crime — Where Vice is Nurtured — The Moral and Physical Nature Both Destroyed — Scenes Described by Eye-Witnesses

The enormous amount of medical malpractice that exists and flourishes, almost unchecked, in the City of New York, is a theme for most serious consideration. Thousands of human beings are thus murdered before they have seen the light of this world, and thousands upon thousands more of adults are irremediably ruined in constitution, health and happiness. So secretly are these crimes committed and so craftily do the perpetrators inveigle their vicitims, that it is next to impossible to obtain evidence and witnesses. Facts are so artfully concealed from the public mind, and appearance so carefully guarded, that very meagre outlines of the horrible truth have thus far been disclosed. But could even a portion of the facts that have been detected in frightful profusion, by the agents of the TIMES, be revealed in print, in their hideous truth, the reader would shrink from the appalling picture.

More than once, some of the fearless and eminent of the clergy have spoken upon this theme from their pulpits. They have declared the existence of these great evils in social life — alike denounced and forbidden by the law of God and man. The records of our criminal courts also occasionally afford indications of the horrible degree and amount of depravity already referred to. Indeed, language can scarcely exaggerate the actual facts. There is a systematic business in wholesale murder conducted by men and women in this City, that is seldom detected, rarely interfered with, and scarcely ever punished by law.

-- New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 23, 1871; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 6 [Note: ProQuest reprints may be purchased off the New York Times website.]

The crusade by the New York Times was a defining one for this paper. This article along with other exposés invariably focused on the abortion providers. We do know what it was like when abortion was outlawed and it was not the women patients — whom Nicholas Kristof is most concerned about — who were considered the murderers. For example, the so-called trunk murder was described as follows a few days later in the Times:

This woman, full five feet in height, had been crammed into a trunk two feet six inches long. . . . Seen even in this position and rigid in death, the young girl, for she could not have been more than eighteen, had a face of singular loveliness. But her chief beauty was her great profusion of golden hair, that hung in heavy folds over her shoulders, partly shrouding the face. . . . There was some discoloration and decomposition about the pelvic region. It was apparent that here was a new victim of man’s lust, and the life-destroying arts of those abortionists.

-- New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 27, 1871; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 1

As a result of all this the New York Legislature passed more stringent laws in 1872 with punishments of up to twenty years in prison and easier evidence rules. Enforcement was also increased. The Times continued their crusade throughout the end of the Nineteenth Century. The Times have indeed changed.

May Your Money Perish With You

The Apostle Peter confronted Simon where he refused to betray the Gospel for money (this is the origin of the word simony). Here's the confrontation between Peter and Simon:

Acts 8

18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money 19and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
20Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."

A similar confrontation is now between another Peter -- Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria -- and the ECUSA. The Anglican archbishops of most of the Developing World are rejecting the money from the ECUSA over the consecration of an openly gay bishop. This is what Archbishop Akinola has to say about the American money:

"If we suffer for a while to gain our independence and our freedom and to build ourselves up, I think it will be a good thing for the church in Africa," said Akinola, who also is chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, which represents 12 national and regional churches plus the diocese of Egypt.

"We will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation," he said.

African Bishop Warns U.S. Church

The AP is reporting that the Archbishop of the largest Anglican province is warning the Episcopal Church that its days may be numbered as part of the greater Anglican Communion.

The spokesman for bishops who claim leadership of a majority of the world's Anglican Christians denounced the gay-rights policies of America's Episcopal Church on Saturday, following a two-day caucus in Atlanta with U.S. conservatives.

Archbishop Peter Akinola said the future of true Anglicanism in the United States lies with conservative minority opposition groups within the Episcopal Church who oppose gay marriage and the church's approval of an openly gay bishop. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion.

The conservatives discussed here are the American Anglican Council. They are establishing a network of conservative churches within the Episcopal Church. It is this network that Archbishop Akinola is recognizing.

Akinola also said in a telephone interview that unless conditions change, he will not attend meetings alongside the leader of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, or attend the 2008 meeting of the world's Anglican bishops if the U.S. hierarchy participates.

Akinola leads Nigeria's Anglican church, with its 17.5 million members, and the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, a continent that includes half the world's 77 million Anglicans. He is also spokesman for "Global South" archbishops who have severed normal ties with the Episcopal Church.

This is a continuation of the "impaired communion" promised when Presiding Bishop Griswold went ahead with the canonization of V. Gene Robinson. Most of the Anglican Communion warned if he went ahead with this that there would be serious consequences. Bishop Griswold ignored their counsel.

Episcopal Church spokesman Daniel England said Saturday that Griswold understands that Akinola has strong feelings on the issue.

"I'm sure the presiding bishop will be disappointed if the archbishop cannot join him at the communion table," he said.

This is not just strong feelings. One of things promised by Bishop Griswold when the Primates last met was to provide adequate alternative oversight for disaffected conservatives. The House of Bishops just produced a different standard called delegated oversight where people have to go through extensive bureacratic hoops in order to get orthodox oversight.

Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town has criticized Akinola's strong stand against the U.S. church. But the archbishops announced jointly March 29 that they agree with the stand against gay clergy and blessing of same-sex couples taken by the world's bishops at their 1998 meeting.

Stop the presses! This is a very big deal. As I reported here, Archbishop Ndungane had been supporting ECUSA's stand on homosexuality. Now he aligned himself with Archbishop Akinola. Things are getting pretty lonely now for ECUSA.

The dispute over the American church's acceptance of gay activity became a major world issue when it approved an openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Akinola underscored his support of the conservative minority over the weekend when he met in Atlanta with leaders from the two main U.S. organizations that oppose toleration of homosexual activity: the American Anglican Council and the recently formed Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes.

Akinola said the Episcopal Church "is trying to redefine Christianity and rewrite Scripture, and we have no right to do that. The historic faith of the church is what we stand by, and there is no going back."

In the archbishop's view, although those who favor liberal policies on homosexuality have a clear operating majority in the U.S. church, he strongly backs the minority and its new network.

"It's either repent and come back to the fold, or give up on the Anglican family," he said.

But England, the Episcopal Church spokesman, said the church's position stands.

"If he's waiting on the network to replace the Episcopal Church, I think he's in for a long wait," he said.

Archbishop Akinola's predictions have come to the pass while Presiding Bishop Griswold's have not. It may be that the ECUSA is whistling in the dark here.

African Anglicans Unite

Nigerian Primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, flexed his political muscle uniting African Anglicans behind his traditionalist position concerning homosexuality. There had been one holdout and that was Cape Town Primate, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane. Archbishop Ndungane had favored the canonization to the office of bishop for active homosexual V. Gene Robinson. This provoked an angry exchange of letters between the archbishops. Now, it seems the archbishops have resolved their differences and have united behind Akinola's position. The story as reported by The Church of England Newspaper follows:

The Archbishop of Cape Town has agreed to ‘strengthen’ the traditionalist position of the African Church on homosexuality in return for the backing of other African Provinces for the next Lambeth Conference to be held in South Africa in 2008.

African Primates had contemplated boycotting the planned Lambeth Conference in protest at Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane’s support for the consecration of a practising homosexual bishop in the United States. But after a meeting with the Primate of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, a statement was released which revealed a deal had been struck between the two leaders.

The meeting was held last week in Pretoria to discuss “the way forward for the Anglican Church in Africa and globally.”

It was held following a high profile exchange of angry letters between the two leaders last year when Archbishop Ndungane criticised Archbishop Akinola, chairman of the Council of African Provinces in Africa, for declaring broken communion with the American Episcopal Church.

In a press statement the two leaders said: “We agreed that there had been a communication gap between the leadership of the Church and this meeting resolved to remove obstacles that make communication impossible and thereby be able to fight against any forces that seek to divide us.”

The most significant aspect of the agreement was a pledge from the two leaders to “work together to strengthen the position of the Church in Africa on the issue of human sexuality.” They said that they both upheld the 1998 Lambeth resolution on human sexuality in which homosexual unions and marriages were categorically banned.

They also committed themselves to working together with political leaders on conflict prevention, and on the goals of eradicating poverty and disease.

In the statement Archbishop Peter Akinola backed off from the growing mood among African Primates to refuse to attend the Lambeth Conference in Cape Town in 2008.

Anglican liberals and gay rights activists will be disheartened by the Archbishop of Cape Town’s apparent change of heart.

Archbishop Ndungane has often been cited as the only African Primate who was sympathetic to the election and consecration of a practising homosexual.

Rupee Valuation May Help Outsourcing Situation

Much has been made of outsourcing lately. In fact, it has been become a hot campaign issue. Outsourcing should be viewed however as a trade issue. As trade becomes imbalanced the relative value of currencies change. This appears to be the case with respect to Indian outsourcing. Note the following from Briefing.com's In Play from today:

11:06 ET Strong Indian currency poses potential risk to Outsourcing names -- Brean Murray : Breen Murray states that the Indian rupee (INR) has advanced an alarming 3.6% against the U.S. dollar since 3/18 and 4.4% Q/Q. Firm believes that possible explanations include capital inflows driven by upcoming IPOs/privatizations and double-digit GDP growthin the DecQ. This currency swing has injected an element of uncertainty into future financial results at Offshoring companies. In the absence of an INR retracement and/or other offsetting factors (higher revenue baseline), firm's fiscal 2005 EPADR est could be at risk for a 5-10% reduction. Firm states that stocks with such currency exposure include INFY (gross margin reduction of 100 basis points = $0.10 EPADR impact within the framework of firms model), WIT ($0.05) and SAY ($0.04). Firm believes CTSH appears best positioned to withstand this test, based on: 1) geographical split of its cost structure; and 2) historical practice of overinvesting in the business.

In the end, markets have a way of working these things out.

Dutch Press Agency: Iraq Church Growth Explosive

I found the following Dutch-language piece by way of a Dutch Reformed e-mail list. The English translation below is a combination of the translation provided by the list and worldlingo.com.

Church Growth Explosive

BAGDAD -- The number of church members in Iraq has risen explosively since the demise of the regime of Saddam Hussein. In several places in the country this has resulted in tension between Christians and Muslims, as reported by several Iraqi church leaders to the ANP (Dutch Press Agency).

It is almost a year ago that an end came to the regime of Hussein. 'Many Iraqi's had been plagued with questions, but were afraid to ask them', said Y. Yousif, a leader of the Evangelical Free Church. 'Under Saddam, it was forbidden to change religion. Many people are seeking for the truth and now find it in the Christian church.'

Especially the evangelical churches have experienced tremendous growth. Before the American-British Coalition invaded Iraq, only one evangelical church had been permitted in the country. Now, twelve new congregations have arisen in the Iraqi capital alone.

Muslims are not impressed with the growth of churches. Muslims who convert to Christianity are often rejected by their families. 'They stand alone in almost all circumstances,' said preacher A. Athneal, who started a Kurdish church. 'The church has no way other besides prayer to help them. Church leaders can also become targets of certain Muslim families. I have received two death threats myself,' said Athneal.

The church leaders say that they do not fear the possible establishment of Sharia (very strict Islamic law). 'The Americans would not allow it,' suggested the Syrian-orthodox priest A. Hana. He added 'And they will always have a big influence here.'

ANP (Dutch Press Agency)