The media have closed ranks behind Newsweek regarding its latest journalistic lapse. The magazine's defenders have gone on the offensive with comparison's of Newsweek's shoddy fact checking and the White House's erroneous reliance on reports of WMDs. Pete Stark wonders how the White House dares criticize Newsweek in light of the government's intelligence failures. Here's how:

One point is often overlooked: The President's decision to go to war was not an incorrect decision based on incorrect data, it was a correct decision based on indeterminate data. As a matter of decision theory, the president's decision was the correct one. Here's the principle:

The risk of doing nothing if the data was true was greater than the risk of doing something if the data was false. Even moreso, the risk of doing nothing when the data was uncertain was greater than the risk of doing something definite based on indefinite data.

If Saddam was clandestinely supplying terrorists with mass-destructive technologies, the risk of doing nothing was tens of thousands dead in American cities. The data that Saddam contemporaneously had weapons of mass destruction was not the only data considered. Saddam did have and used poison gas against civilian populations. He abetted terrorists by paying solatia to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. By any reasonable analysis, Bush's decision was correct.

Compare this with Newsweek. There the risk of doing nothing with tenuous information was much less than the risk of publishing it. The worst case scenario if they did nothing was perhaps they would lose a scoop. The risk of rash publication was demonstrated in the news: riots, and further inflaming the oft-manipulated anti-Americanism of the chronically disaffected.

Idle contemplation of the methods of radical Islam leads to the following thoughts:

1.) Any ideology that relies on violent coersion for acceptance lacks the underlying truths to endure. If the radical Islamists must appeal to fear and intimidation, it is because they cannot rely on the spiritual and universal truths that are inherent in more successful movements. Islamists should look to their own history for inspiration. The mongols regularly routed Muslim armies. They traversed Persia and central asia at will, yet the fundamental truths of Islam converted the conquerors. It is these truths that the radical Islamists have lost.

2.) The mehtods of radical Islam are pretty hopeless. Their repertoir consists solely of spectacular explosions. It would appear that no one supporting the radical's aims has thought that this is a poor foundation for an empire. Presumably, the radicals think that terror bombings will force enough concessions to allow them to engage in more effectrive means of intimidation. Hamas' experience with Isreal should disabuse them of this notion. If the methods of radical Islam can't even succeed against a small, politically isolated country with limited resources, they have little chance of spreading the faith world-wide. Frankly, the fact that some disaffected idealists are willing to blow themselves up is neither terrifying, novel, nor impressive. Suicide cults are as old as civilization. Suicide missions in warfare have a long and storied history independent of jihadist mythology.

3.) The jihadist tactic of indiscriminant suicide bombing lacks any sort of appeal to legitimacy. Even if one were to assume that Islam condoned such behavior, the religious contradictions involved are too much to overcome. Assume that a suicide bomber kills a seven month old girl. This victim is obviously innocent, lacking any capacity to infidelity or wicked behavior. Moreover, she would be regarded as a creation of God, the God of Abraham that is supposed to unite Christian, Muslim and Jewish traditions. There is no excuse for the indiscriminant killing of a child of God. Such a suicide bombing can only be seen as a grave transgression. (This does not even consider the possibility that the child might be a Muslim.)

4.) Many of the jihadist leaders are not so much religious zealots ans they are revolutionaries. Zarkawi has more in common with Che Guevarra or the conspirators that assassinated Czar Nicholas II than they do with any of the learned teachers of Islam. There is more anarchy than theology to their thought. Despite the Koranic convolutions, they are opposed to governmental power and perpetual "struggle" moreso than Islamic thought. If Al Zawahiri had been born in the 1920's he would have been a communist, in the 1870's, an anarchist. There is nothing spiritually religious about these people.

5.) The defining feature of jihadist thought is chauvinism. They believe they are special because they are willing to die for their cause or be inhumanly brutal. Other societies have done this much better than the modern radical, but predictably, such characteristics lead to the demise, rather than the flowering of the culures that embraced them.

The problem with judicial activism does not start with with an organized conspiracy to undermine legislative authority. The root of the problem is that judges, like the rest of us, have different ideas as to what the proper role of government is. Even jurists cut from the same ideological cloth can be expected to differ on the details of their role in a representative republic. It is askng too much to expect the judiciary to conform to the opinions of Hamilton, or Madison or Marshall.

Some judicial opinions are obviously infringements on the legislative branch. Federal District Court rulings forcing local governments to raise taxes are good examples, as is the patently legislative trimester framework of Roe v. Wade. Some judges cannot control their tinkering instinct, because they do not see it as improper. Unfortunately, we have no practical mechanism to curb over-reaching by the judicial branch

The media become tiresome in their endless repeating of obvious points, such as that Iraqi elections are scheuled for the end of January, that the "Sunni Triangle" is a hotbed of insurgent activity, and that Abu Mussab Al-Zarkawi is an Al Quaida associate from Jordan. This endless repetition of meaningless facts is tiresome because equally important facts receive virtually no mention at all.

One such fact is that Islamic extremists are not trying to defeat the U. S. Military in Iraq. Their showy, indiscriminate use of explosives are of no tactical value; i.e. they have little chance of disrupting logistics, intelligence, command and control, or allowing the occupation of militarily valuable real estate. The enemy that the Islamists are trying to defeat are not the ones bearing arms against them in Baghdad, but the ones staring at etheir television screens in America and Europe. This is not a war of military strength, but rather one of will. It would be much to the benefit of everyone concerned if the media would repeat, ad infinitum as it does the date of elections, that the adversary that the insurgents seek to vanquish are the viewers of cable news, and subscribers to the New York Times, Newsweek and USA Today.

Another fact to which the media might pay more attention is the notion of asymmetric reporting. We are told frequently that we are engaged in "asymmetrical warfare" in which the rules are different for us and them. But the reporting is equally asymmetrical, and given that the real objective in this war is public opinion, this asymmetry is tactically important.

Every time there is some event that reflects negatively on the coalition, it is repeated endlessly on cable news. We are told what it means, how it effects the "plan" in Iraq, and why it is more evidence of chaos. But just today, two of Zarkawi's associates, supposedly leaders of terror cells, were captured. We receive this information unadorned by the angst, finger-wagging and gloom and doom analysis that accompanies news of Americal travails. We are not told how this might affect prospects for disrupting the planned elections, whether al Zarkawi will have to recruit new lieutenants, or whether organizational secrets of the insurgency might be compromised. We are left pretty much to own our imaginations in determining if this is a good thing or not.

Another fact that we should hear about at least as often as Zarkawi's nationality is how much the insurgency is affecting daily life in Iraq. Are people not working? Is there a mass exodus of refugees to escape the indiscriminant car-bombing? It seems that if Iraqis are resolved to going about their lives, the prospects that those who wish to participate in democracy will do so is pretty good.

Finally, the insurgents are fighting pretty vigorously. This tells us volumes. It tells us that they are threatened, and that they know they are threatened. They can't get on with building the next medeival caliphate, and cow the decadent West with chastising explosions in America, since they know that they will perish and be forgotten if the American enterprise in Iraq andAfghanistan succeeds. They can't be distracted from the mortal fight on their doorstep to pursue other projects abroad. They resort to bombing innocent Iraqis to coerce them because they know they have no hope of ever pursuading them.

The "Seasons Greetings vs. Merry Christmas" controversy, as a matter of First Amendment concern, is rather amusing. Recently the City of Denver had opted to remove "Merry Christmas" from it's annual municipal building holiday display, so as not to offend "Establishment" purists, or the pathologically sensitive. What amuses about this is that people who wail at the display of Christmas are able to sleep at night accepting the present year as 2004. The word "Christmas" is in reference to the birth of Jesus. Merely displaying the name, or recognizing that December 25 commemorates this birth imposes no religious obligations on anyone. The same can be said of our present calendar, as the year 2004 is in reference to the same event observed at Christmas. Graciously acknowledging a sincere "Merry Christmas" is no more a religious observance than including the date on your next check.

I find opposition to the war in Iraq perplexing, and my confusion is illustrated by a single rhetorical question: If you knew that your neighbor was sexually abusing his two year old daughter, would you do anything about it? It seems to me that most people would say "yes," either oout of a sense of abstract righteousness, or sympathy for the plight of an innocent. But Iraq was full of two year olds, and other children of many descriptions who were made to suffer torture and even died under the Hussein regime. The tragic photograoh from Hallabja more than excites an urge to protect innocent children. This is what makes opposition to the war in Iraq puzzling. Any explanation of such opposition that I have heard so far has been unconvincing at best and ignoble at worst. Are Iraqi children somehow less worthy of intervention because they are Muslim? Or brown skinned? No one on earth should be immune from our intervention, if we are able to do so, when they torture and kill children.

The oft cited canard that "We are not intervening in Sudan" or Iran, or the Ivory Coast or wherever is unsatisfying. Not being able to do everything that is right does not make doing what good you can wrong.

Regarding the controversy over the Ten Commandments in Alabama, I think the issue turns on a couple of points. The determinative provision of the First Amendment is not the Establishment Clause but the Freedom of Speech. To the extent there is a conflict between these two provisions it arises from an overly broad interpretation of "establishment." The term "establishment" should be narrowly construed to mean exactly that: officially ordaining a public religion. It should not mean "accommodation" or even "endorsement." The value of the establishment clause is that it prohibits coerced adherence to a religious doctrine contrary to one's conscience. The mere display of religious materials in a public forum does not run afoul of this purpose.
Allowing an expansive interpretation of "establishment" invites the unneccessary entanglment of speech and religious freedom. Prohibiting religious expressions, be they the Ten Commandments or otherwise, is patently a content-based prior restraint. It is elementary interpretation of statutes, rules and constitutional provisions that two that are in seeming conflict will be read, if possible" so that no such conflict exists. In the case of the Ten Commandments this is easily accomplished by recognizing that "establishment" means exactly what it says, and no more.

In considering challenges to our rights, I believe it is helpful to distinguish between human rights and civil rights. Human rights are those that arise simply by the fact of being human. Examples would be right not to be tortured, and the right to have children. Civil rights are those that arise from creation of political entities. Examples of these rights would be right to vote, and right to petition the government.

Of the two, human rights trump civil rights. Human rights do not depend on the existence of a state or of a particular political system for their observance.

While rights are often though of in the abstract as positive, (e.g. right to an education) in practice they involve restraining an external power. (Right not to have someone interfere with your education.) Rights, properly thought of, do not exist as a “freedom” to do as one wishes, but more pragmatically involve what one can get away with. Rights can not be defined in the absence of some power that can limit human action. Rights therefore are not the affirmative assertion of power by the holder of the right, they are the practical constraint on any power that might limit such action.

Regarding the Patriot Act, I have a couple of observations. When one’s family member dies, people afford the grieving survivors some latitude in dealing with their loss. Work schedules are accommodated, lapses in manners are excused and so forth. A similar situation existed in the United States after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some over-reaction in the interest of collective grieving and constructive efforts to prevent a recurrence were understandable. However, as with the grief accompanying an individual loss, things eventually return to normal, as I believe they should in the area of civil liberties. I particularly object to the provisions regarding indefinite detentions without charges, and the degradation of due process.

Furthermore, I do not trust the government to restrain itself when presented with expanded powers. In at least two areas, those being seizures of property from innocent third persons in drug cases and the ridiculous excesses of “zero tolerance laws.” The government and its agents have not shown the type of self-restraint necessary to entrust them with greater powers. This is especially so when exercise of those powers will be largely beyond scrutiny.

This actually is not a knock against the government. I like policies and procedures that make my job easier, as I’m sure do most people entrusted with great responsibilities. But when the ease of protecting something (such as civil liberties) involves corrupting the thing being protected, the line has been crossed. I don’t fault Ashcroft for asking for more powers; that is after-all within the scope of his job. But he is asking that those powers be taken at the detriment of liberties that I, as a free citizen, have as much responsibility in upholding as does any officer of the United Sates government. Therefore, when Mr. Ashcroft asks for greater powers at my sufferance, I believe that I should politely say “no.”

Liberty is more important than democracy. If the Wright brothers only had the right to vote, the best they could have done was to cancel out the votes of a couple of addled statists whereas, given the liberty to pursue their interests, they produced powered flight. There is one benefit to democracy that should not be overlooked however, and results from a fundamental truth about human nature.

The strongest motivating human emotion is not fear. Human beings are much more averse to feelings of helplessness. People will confront enormous fears to avoid the noxious sense that they are powerless. For demonstrations of this point I refer to the actions of Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001. People engaged in all sorts of activities of seemingly little practical value in the interest of “dong something.” What they were doing was proving to themselves that they were not helpless. The concept that aversion to feelings of helplessness is a potent force in human nature is also suggested by the ubiquity of revenge. Vengeance is the practical statement “even though you harmed me, I am not helpless. See? I can harm you too.”

Failure to appreciate how powerful the aversion to helplessness is perpetuates the futility of terrorism. The misguided goal of terrorism is to instill fear, which theoretically will prompt submission. What it does instead is arouse the notion of helpless and provoke a response that merely perpetuates the cycle.

Which brings up the point about democracy. Even if a people had liberty guaranteed by a benevolent dictator, the cumulative toll of feeling that their destiny is out of their hands would eventually lead to revolution. Many Democrats feel that the “selection” of our current president was out of their hands, and resort to tactics such as filibusters to reaffirm their potency. Were it not for the prospect that aggrieved voters can affirm that they are not powerless in affecting policies with which they disagree, our democracy would be much more prone to political violence. That is the real benefit of democracy. It makes people patient to suffer the liberty of others, and channels demand for change thorough more productive processes. Democracy nurtures the notion not only that citizens have liberty, but that they also have power.