There'll Always be an England - or not

The attached article by Cal Thomas reflects a serious issue for me.  I am an undisguised Anglophile, a supporter of the Monarchy and the Queen in a modern world which views them as a curious anachronism, at best,  and a student of the history of the nation which gave us much of the culture, language and legal traditions we cherish as Americans.  Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister remains one of the most admired political figures in my catalog during my lifetime.

But the most serious concern I feel as Mr. Thomas describes the deterioration of British society, is that it is also happening here.  The Brits are a few years ahead of us (no more than twenty years), but the trend here is as frightening as it is there.  The price of political correctness and refusal to honor and teach the American Culture, language and history will be the dilution of those cherished traditions. 

I support President Bush and his decisions in what has become an unpopular war.  But I am not pleased with his failure to act on immigration and questions concerning English as a national language.  In the effort to court the illegal immigrants as a potential voting block, we have failed to defend our own cultural traditions and economic heath.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/08/28/vanishing_england
Vanishing England
By Cal Thomas
Tuesday, August 28, 2007

"There'll Always Be an England" - popular World War II song

BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND - Perhaps there will not always be an England. An exodus unprecedented in modern times, coupled with a record influx of foreigners, is threatening to erode the character of the land of William Shakespeare and overpowering monarchs, a land that served as the cradle for much of American thought, law and culture.

The figures, making headlines in London newspapers, tell only part of the story. Between June 2005 and June 2006 nearly 200,000 British citizens chose to leave the country for a new life elsewhere. During the same period, at least 574,000 immigrants came to Britain. This number does not include the people who broke the law to get there, or the thousands unknown to the government. Britain's Office of National Statistics reports that middle-class Britons are beginning to move out of towns in southern England that have become home to large numbers of immigrants, thereby altering the character of neighborhoods that have remained unchanged for generations.

Britons give many reasons for leaving, but their stories share one commonality: life in Britain has become unbearable for them. They fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness that has swept the country faster than hoof-and-mouth disease. Officials say they do not wish to "offend" others.

Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers are about to be granted "amnesty" to stay in Britain. The government's approach is similar to that pursued by President Bush, who failed to win congressional approval for his amnesty plan. In Britain it appears likely to succeed. Migrants will be granted immediate access to many benefits, including top priority for council housing. Taxpayers will foot the bill.

The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, called the policy a "stealth amnesty." Again, in a comment reminiscent of the debate in America, Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: "This is yet another example of the Alice in Wonderland world of human rights. If you break British law for long enough, you acquire rights not penalties."

British media have carried stories about an Italian immigrant who murdered a schoolteacher and was sentenced to life in prison. He is about to be released after serving just 12 years. The government wants to deport him to Italy, but a combination of British human rights legislation and European Union law are making it impossible to do so. This does not bode well for deporting Islamic terrorists who call for the overthrow of the government and incite young people to acts of violence.

Abraham Lincoln said no nation can exist half slave and half free. Neither can a nation be sustained if it allows conditions that result in mass emigration, while importing huge numbers of foreigners who come from backgrounds that do not practice assimilation or tolerance of other beliefs. When one factors in the high number of abortions (one in five pregnancies are aborted in England and Wales), the high birth rates of immigrants (15 times those of white Britons), it doesn't take a population expert to predict that the days of the England we have known may be numbered. The problem for Britain and the United States isn't just the change in demographics. It is the reluctance of both countries to inculcate the beliefs, history and, yes, religious ideals, which made our nations so successful that others wanted to come and be a part of them. The difference between many of the current immigrants and those of the past is that the previous ones wanted to become fully American or fully British. The current ones, in too many cases, would destroy what makes our countries unique. And the "leaders" of Britain and America refuse to stop it.

The greater tragedy is that the people of Britain have little say in any of this, so they are taking the road of last resort. They are leaving.

 

American Justice - a bit more

I have discussed with many who know me the odd fact that I do not practice law professionally despite my Juris Doctor academic degree.  I have disparaged the legal profession with comments like “I love The Law – it’s the lawyers I do not like” and “Our system of justice is ok – it is the curious people who get to run it that are the problem.”

But the fact is that the system of litigation in our culture is out of control – better described as the culture of litigation in our system.  The impact of frivolous litigation, agenda based lawsuits and absurd jury verdicts threatens all of us with sharply higher consumer prices, decreasing economic independence and failures to capitalize on technologies which could address needs and costs. 

Absurdities in our legal system need to be addressed with nationally consistent legislation to provide meaningful tort reform and sanity to our legal system.  Bringing honor back to the once honorable profession will need to come from within the legal community itself.  Humor is frequently an element of truth with an edge to it.  The expressed truth that “the problem with lawyer jokes is that lawyers don’t think they are funny and the public doesn’t think they are jokes” is merely an indication of the general public’s revulsion and growing disrespect for concepts, as practiced, of American Justice.

Pay attention ! It impacts all of us.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LisaARickard/2007/08/23/makeover,_trial_lawyer_style
Makeover, Trial Lawyer Style

By Lisa A. Rickard

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Last year, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America decided that a few among their ranks had brought disrepute to the trial lawyers' reputation. So they decided to take a stand against the bad actors in their ranks and call for reforms to reduce outrageous lawsuits.

If only.

Jin Chung, left, with his legal team Chris Manning, and Mendi Sossamon, display the contentious pair of pants while delivering a statement to the media after the first day of Jin and Soo Chung's trial in Washington on Tuesday, June 12, 2007. The Chungs are being sued by DC judge Roy Pearson for 54 million dollars for what he calls "mis-leading signage" at their dry-cleaning business. Sossamon is holding a bag with a pair of pants that were part of the original suit. The part of the suit involving the alleged loss of those pants has since been dropped. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

At last year's meeting, the trial lawyers instead decided the easier solution was a new name: the American Association for Justice, a moniker created to be, in their words, "about what we do, not who we are."

Their game plan isn't just to rename the national organization, but to convince all of the state trial lawyer associations to follow suit. And so far, at least 13 states have voted to replace "trial lawyer" with "association for justice," with several more states reportedly set to make the change.

There's no question that a re-branding effort for the trial bar is necessary. They remain at a nearly all-time low in public opinion polls. Eighty five percent of voters believe frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem; 75 percent believe lawyers benefit most from lawsuits.

But adding the word "justice" to their name doesn't make what some of them do just.

Here are a few of the stories in the news since the trial lawyers began their re-naming campaign:

* Jin and Soo Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, DC, were sued by Roy Pearson, a lawyer and sitting judge, for $67 million (later reduced to $54 million) over a pair of allegedly lost pants. These small business owners had to close one of their three stores as a result of their two-plus years of battle. They won the case; Pearson is appealing.

* A man in West Virginia is suing McDonald's for $10 million over a drive-thru order mistake. He's allergic to cheese and mistakenly got a cheeseburger. He didn't bother to check the burger before he bit into it. His mother is also suing for reckless endangerment for having to drive him to the hospital.

* A woman in Michigan is suing the makers of Starburst candies because they don't warn consumers about the dangers of the candies being "too chewy." Her lawyer just wants to make sure others avoid this danger.

* A New Jersey man is suing Starbucks because his tea was too hot and the Starbucks employee didn't put the lid on right. His wife is also suing for losses due to his injury.

* Three Kentucky lawyers were ordered to repay $64 million they kept from their 440 clients in a diet drug class action case. Two of the lawyers took some of the money and bought a stake in Curlin, the Kentucky Derby race horse and winner of the Preakness. They continue to seek delays in the case. This month the judge threw them in jail until the trial in January, saying: "In my opinion, not only these three gentlemen are on trial, the whole legal profession is on trial in this case."

* Wealthy plaintiffs' attorney John O'Quinn of Texas was ordered to repay nearly $36 million to a group of 3,000 women he had represented in a breast implant case nearly eight years ago. Many of the women reportedly have seen little or none of the average $12,000 per woman settlement.

These are but a few of many examples from this year alone of cases where lawyers have willingly added yet another frivolous lawsuit to society, have hurt their own clients, or both.

If the plaintiffs' bar were really serious about their negative reputation, they might spend more time sanctioning their own bad lawyers and working to end frivolous lawsuits, instead of quietly changing their name while defending the status quo.

As for the now world-famous case of the $54 million pants lawsuit, after two-plus years of sleepless nights, more than $100,000 in legal fees and lost revenues (and counting), and being forced to close a store, the national trial lawyers association issued a public statement after the initial judgment for the Chungs, with the headline "Verdict Shows American Civil Justice System Works."

 

Unintended Consequences

I do not always agree with Pat Buchanan, but I always read his columns.  He writes well and expresses a consistent agenda which is important to hear and to discuss. 

His current column expresses a simple truth.  Politics has consequences and we need to pay attention.  We live in a complex world and our actions produce reactions and results which may not have been what was intended.  And we pay the price.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/08/24/we_did_it_to_ourselves?page=full&comments=true
We Did It to Ourselves

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Friday, August 24, 2007

"After 34 years with LTV Steel, I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension, and my family lost their health care. Every day of my life, I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can't afford to pay for her health care. What's wrong with America, and what will you do to change it?"

It was the most compelling moment of the Democratic debate at Soldier Field. The speaker was retired steelworker Steve Skvara. He stood on crutches, voice breaking, as he spoke.

There are millions of Steve Skvaras out there, and what they do not know, in their anger and frustration, is that their government did this to them. They are the victims of an ideology that gripped both parties and is destroying the middle-class country they grew up in.

Before World War II, the United State sheltered, nurtured and aided U.S. industry -- until, by 1928, we produced 40 percent of the world's manufactures. The companies we created, U.S. Steel and Jones and Laughlin, GM, Chrysler and Ford, Boeing, McDonnell and Lockheed, IBM and GE, were marvels of the modern age.

We were the most self-sufficient nation in history, and American industrial workers the best-paid on earth. The companies they worked for had begun to guarantee lifetime job security, generous pensions for retirees and health insurance for all workers.

Came then the free-trade fanatics with their Faustian bargain. If we just throw open our borders to imports from Europe, Japan, Asia and China, we can buy all our goods cheaper, and we will all be richer. For free trade is a free lunch.

What was wrong with this theory?

Every ton of steel produced by LTV, every Chevy built by GM carried in its price tag the cost of the Social Security, Medicare, and federal and state taxes the company and its employees paid, plus the cost of the company's compliance with civil rights, health and safety, and environmental laws the U.S. government had enacted and, most important for Steve Skvara, the "legacy costs" of the pensions and health insurance the companies had agreed to provide.

Every time any company, foreign or domestic, bought a ton of U.S.-made steel, every time anyone bought a U.S.-built Ford or Chevy, maybe 50 percent of that sticker price went for Social Security, Medicare, defense, cops, teachers, parks -- and into the pot from which Steve Skvara's pension and health insurance premiums were being drawn.

The Fortune 500 were the greatest welfare states in history. They were the geese that laid the golden eggs for America's middle class. And the free-traders killed them, because their ideology told them what's best for consumers here and now is best for America.

So foreigners dumped their steel, and we gobbled it up. And their steel mills survived, and ours went under. And they flooded our market with Volkswagens, Hondas and Toyotas, and one by one took down our auto companies, so that the U.S. auto industry, which had 98 percent of the U.S. market in the 1950s, have less than 50 percent today.

Mexico now exports more cars to the United States than we export to the world. Chrysler is on the ropes. Ford lost a record $12 billion last year. GM is losing market share. Toyota is No. 1 in the world because Tokyo set out to make itself No. 1. Anybody think the Japanese care two hoots about Adam Smith or David Ricardo?

As one after another of the big companies go down, they head into bankruptcy court and ask for relief from creditors. What are the largest of the liabilities they shed? "Legacy costs" -- the cost of the pension and health insurance of Steve Skvara and his wife.

As we all buy up those TVs and radios and motorcycles and cars and clothes made in Japan and made in China, we kill factories all over America and push America's companies into chapter 11.

"But isn't that the free market?" comes the retort. Should we have to pay more for the goods we buy?

Answer: No and no. Europeans and Asians are skinning us alive. We impose corporate taxes that average 40 percent, state and federal. Europe imposes corporate taxes averaging 24 percent. Advantage Europe.

Europe imposes an average Value Added Tax of 19 percent on all they produce.

But they rebate that VAT tax on exports to the United States and stick a 19 percent VAT equivalent on all imports from America. Without calling it a tariff and a subsidy, it is a tariff and a subsidy.

For decades our trade wimps have put up with this.

What needs to be done is simple. Impose a 20 percent entry fee on all imported goods and services, and use the $500 billion to cut taxes on U.S. producers. Steve Skvara is a casualty of globalism, but maybe we can save the next generation from the same fate.

 

The good news and the bad news

I have been disgusted by the white flag rhetoric of the liberals in Congress – but I cannot deny that the intended results in Iraq have been slow in coming.  While I believe that the mlitary objectives can be achieved, although at a price, there are some political realities that must be recognized.  Commentator Charles Krauthammer, as usual, has his finger on the pulse of our dilemma and our goals.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/08/24/the_debate_on_iraq_takes_a_turn?page=full&comments=true
The debate on Iraq takes a turn

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, August 24, 2007

WASHINGTON -- After months of surreality, the Iraq debate has quite abruptly acquired a relationship to reality. Following the Democratic victory last November, panicked Republican senators began rifling the thesaurus to find exactly the right phrase to express exactly the right nuance to establish exactly the right distance from the president's Iraq policy, while Murtha Democrats searched for exactly the right legislative ruse to force a retreat from Iraq without appearing to do so.

In the last month, however, as a consensus has emerged about realities on the ground in Iraq, a reasoned debate has begun. A number of fair-minded observers, both critics and supporters of the war, agree that the surge has yielded considerable military progress, while at the national political level the Maliki government remains a disaster.

The latest report from the battlefield is from Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a strong Iraq War critic. He returned saying essentially what we have heard from Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution and various liberal congressmen, the latest being Brian Baird, D-Wash.: Al-Qaeda has been seriously set back as Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala and other provinces switched from the insurgency to our side.

As critics acknowledge military improvement, the administration is finally beginning to concede the political reality that the Maliki government is hopeless. Bush's own national security adviser had said as much in a leaked memo back in November. I and others have been arguing that for months. And when Levin returned and openly called for the Iraqi Parliament to vote out the Maliki government, the president pointedly refused to contradict him.

This convergence about the actual situation in Baghdad will take some of the drama out the highly anticipated Petraeus moment next month. We know what the general and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are going to say when they testify before Congress because multiple sources have already told us what is happening on the ground.

There will, of course, be the Harry Reids and those on the far left who will deny inconvenient reality. Reid will continue to call the surge a failure, as he has since even before it began. And the left will continue to portray Gen. David Petraeus as an unscrupulous commander quite prepared to send his troops into a hopeless battle in order to advance his political ambitions (although exactly how that works is not clear).

But the serious voices will prevail. When the Democratic presidential front-runner concedes that the surge "is working" (albeit very late) against the insurgency, and when Petraeus himself concedes that the surge cannot continue indefinitely, making inevitable a drawdown of troops sometime in the middle of next year, the terms of the Iraq debate become narrow and the policy question simple: What do we do right now -- continue the surge or cut it short and begin withdrawal?

Serious people like Levin argue that with a nonfunctional and sectarian Baghdad government, we can never achieve national reconciliation. Thus the current military successes will prove ephemeral.

The problem with this argument is that it confuses long term and short term. In the longer run, there must be a national unity government. But in the shorter term, our assumption that a national unity government is required to pacify the Sunni insurgency turned out to be false. The Sunnis have turned against al-Qaeda and are gradually switching sides in the absence of any oil, federalism or de-Baathification deal coming out of Baghdad.

In the interim, the surge is advancing our two immediate objectives in Iraq: (a) to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq and prevent the emergence of an al-Qaeda mini-state, and (b) to pacify the Sunni insurgency, which began the post-liberation downward spiral of sectarian bloodshed, economic stagnation and aborted reconstruction.

Levin is right that we require a truly national government in Baghdad to obtain our ultimate objective of what O'Hanlon and Pollack call "sustainable stability." The administration had vainly hoped that the surge would provide a window for the Maliki government to reform and become that kind of government. It will not.

We should have given up on Maliki long ago and begun to work with other parties in the Iraqi Parliament to bring down the government, yielding either a new coalition of less sectarian parties or, as Pollack has suggested, new elections.

The choice is difficult because replacing the Maliki government will take time and because there is no guarantee of ultimate political success. Nonetheless, continuing the surge while finally trying to change the central government is the most rational choice because the only available alternative is defeat -- a defeat that is not at all inevitable and would be both catastrophic and self-inflicted.

 

Religious Wars

Like many in the Western cultures, I am afraid of the current iteration of religious wars which threaten to consume us in the present day. Authors and commentators tell us that there is no hope of reconciliation with the Muslim world and that we are on a confrontational course which will end in a world war. I have always responded that there are fundamentalists in any religion whose fanatic interpretation of their beliefs are not consistent with the modern world. These radical fundamentalists, whether they be Christian, Jew or Muslim (or any other flavor) are a small percentage of believers, but, unfortunately, a significantly large number in all countries of the world. So these extremists capture the attention of the news media and we all worry about where this is all going and what sort of world our children will have to live in.

As a student of history, I find much to admire in the Muslim faith. It was Islam that kept the lights on during the dark ages in medieval Europe as science, architecture and art flourished in Islamic countries.

So I find some comfort in the occasional news article that describes moderate and modern people of faith who live among us in harmony and who express their religion (in the case of the attached article, her Islamic faith) in terms which resonate with our culture – of which she is a part.

My Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-08-20-mattson-islam_N.htm?csp=34 The face of Islam in America

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY

HARTFORD, Conn. — Ingrid Mattson knows the media drill well.

She has done the "We condemn … (fill in the terrorism incident)" speeches — as if, she says, that's all anyone needs to hear from the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

She has done the profiles of her as first woman/first convert/first North American-born head of the continent's largest Muslim group.

She has done the talk shows retelling how 20 years ago, she left the Catholicism of her Canadian childhood and her college focus on philosophy and fine arts to find her spiritual home in Islam.

"It's time now to move the focus back off me and back on the issues," says Mattson, a professor at Hartford Seminary, where she directs the first U.S.-accredited Muslim chaplaincy program at the Macdonald Center.

Mattson begins the second half of her two-year term at the society's Labor Day weekend national conference outside Chicago. The annual event draws 40,000 Muslims of every sect, culture, age, race and ethnicity for scores of sessions on faith, family and society and a massive multicultural bazaar.

But two weeks before the conference, sitting with two women in her tiny, book-stuffed office, Mattson has a moment to kick off her shoes. She sheds the long brown jacket stifling her tailored blue blouse, leans back and talks about her vision of American Muslim life and her visiting friend, Heba.

Heba Abbasi, 31, a faithful young Muslim in her snug black headscarf, is a Chicago inner-city public school teacher, a fitness trainer, a Palestinian-American wife with an equally observant mosque-going Indian-American husband. Both are also triathletes training for an event.

"This is who I mean. They are who ISNA has to serve. They are why I'm concentrating on building a strong religious and civic institutional life for Muslims in America. I want to be sure I'm not the first and last young woman leader. Why be a flash in the pan?" says Mattson, who turns 44 on Friday.

A uniquely American Islam

She talks of nurturing a genuine American Islam, rooted in the classical faith, which dates back before the theological, political and legal schisms fractured the Ummah, the Muslim world, centuries ago.

This is the faith she chose at age 23, drawn in, she says, by Islam's beauty, its ethos of service and its synthesis of life and faith in which every act relates to God.

The key is not to confuse the eternal religion — submission to God, respect for the Prophet, prayer, charity and the goal of pilgrimage to Mecca — with Islam's myriad cultural expressions that shift with times and society, Mattson says. Her essays and speeches are threaded with references to the Quran, the Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) and the Sunna (the record of his practices).

American Muslim men and women alike should be empowered to speak to public policy in all areas — medicine, ethics, law, education, justice, marriage and family life — by drawing from the common wellspring of Islam, she says.

Ask others about Mattson and she sounds like Goldilocks in a headscarf: too liberal for some, too conservative for others, and just right to many young activists.

"I'm proud to have her elected as my president," says Eboo Patel, 31, founder of Chicago's Interfaith Youth Core, which creates social-service opportunities for Muslims, Christians and Jews. He sees Mattson's message come to life in ISNA.

"The bulk of the American Muslim community is very young and overwhelmingly under 40. Increasingly our leadership needs to be people we can relate to," Patel says. "She conducts herself within the ethos of service that unites American and Islam. That's what religious communities can offer at their best, the inspiration to reach out to the world from the basis of your own heritage."

But Pamela Taylor, a co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, wants Mattson to push for women to lead congregational prayers.

"I'm worried that she buys into the same logic that can be, and is, used to restrict women from everything: education, political office, even driving," Taylor says.

Roles for women

Mattson shakes off that critique. Yes, she does conclude, based on the Prophet's words, that an imam who leads men and women together in prayer must be male.

However, other religious roles — reciting the Quran, preaching, teaching, scholarship, counseling and issuing legal rulings — are open to all. She's excited about an upcoming book from a noted scholar who has traced female Islamic scholars back 27 generations to the wife of the Prophet. She lists the "man-made obstacles to women's spirituality" that worry her more: misogynistic sermons, misguided and demeaning counseling, limited access to education and scholarship, and prayer spaces for women that are too small, uncomfortable or inaccessible.

As for whether men are in the front of the mosque and women in the rear? "When you are bowed in prayer," says Mattson, "you are not in front or behind any person. You are in front of God. That's the whole point of prayer."

Jamillah Karim, an assistant professor of religion at Spelman College in Atlanta, says Mattson is wise not to focus on women as imams.

"Most women are not overly concerned with this. This is an American religious community still in formation. Women are more interested in issues of family life, traditional concerns such as marriage and divorce," says Karim.

University of Delaware political scientist M.A. Muqtedar Khan gives Mattson mixed reviews. He calls her "an angel" and "the queen of American Muslims." But he adds, "She'll never rock the boat.

"She's not radical on anything. She's allowed ISNA to take strong positions against terrorism, but she'll never be at odds with the government. You won't see any criticism of U.S. policies. You'll see her continue the talk about the diversity within Islam. She'll make her mark as an activist with things like her chaplaincy program but not as a scholar with influential ideas or someone who modernizes thinking within Islam," says Khan.

Won't rock the boat?

Mattson rolls her brown eyes. Headline-making, provocative individual action holds no attraction for her.

"That's the 'great man' theory of history. Look where that's gotten us. I want to build something. I'm interested in long-term institutional strength," she says.

Mercy and caring

Topics at this year's conference include sessions on faith and social justice and community service, and one called "U.S. Sponsored Torture: A Concern for Muslims and All People of Faith."

"If religion is not about expanding the borders of your empathy, you might as well write it off," she says. "Religion is all about extending mercy and caring. If not, it's just tribalism: Muhammad himself said religion should be the opposite."

Mattson says she takes on the controversies, too, confronting in her own way the atheists, ideologues and "Islama-phobes" who say religion is outmoded or Islam is anti-Zionist or, simply, irrationally, fear any Muslims among them.

"These days, if you say anything nice to or about Muslims, it's seen as being soft on terrorism, as if all Muslims were terrorists.

"Anti-Muslim sentiments are used as a way to score points" in politics, she says.

"People see us, they see Heba and her husband, who wears a beard and a kufi (cap), and they have no idea the life they lead."

Or the life that Mattson leads.

If people saw her, covered from her colorful scarf to her long skirt, walking 3 miles home on a steamy summer evening, they would not know:

•She's a mother of two teens.

•She relaxes by mowing the lawn; juvenile rheumatoid arthritis forced her to give up running.

•She kept her name when she married her husband, a Baghdad-born Egyptian engineer whom she met while working with Afghan refugees in Pakistan in the '80s.

Photos of Afghan friends join family snapshots tacked to Mattson's office wall, along with a newspaper photo of an old man swarmed by pigeons he is feeding. It inspires her, she says, because "this is a man who has found exactly what he wants to do."

"What do you want to do?" may be Mattson's favorite question.

When someone asks her guidance, she'll reply: "Be the kind of Muslim you want to be. Do not let other people define your faith for you."

Mattson's Islam? "To glorify God through service to God's creation."

The American President

In this case the title of this article refers to the Man, the Office and the Movie.  As we suffer through a two year campaign for the Nation’s highest office, perhaps some reflections about the Presidency are in order.  This film clip is drawn from the Michael Douglas film, “The American President” and it stands with other film or television representations of the Office to include Martin Sheen’s “The West Wing” and Frederick March’s “Seven Days in May”.  I do not agree with the politics of Mr. Douglas’ character – but I do respond to his description of the political process. 

Enjoy

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44R5BapEdYY

Where's Fred ?

If the candidates are not saying anything you can quote – tell us what they are going to say. Now if Fred Thompson just reads Star Parker’s columns…

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2007/08/20/fred_thompsons_rope-a-dope?page=full&comments=true

Fred Thompson's rope-a-dope By Star Parker Monday, August 20, 2007

It's said that in life, timing is everything. And it could be that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson's entry into the 2008 presidential race, expected in early September, will prove to be timed perfectly.

According to a just released poll from the Pew Research Center, 52 percent of Americans have a negative reaction to the presidential campaign thus far and only 19 percent have anything positive to say. And the main complaint of the disgruntled 52 percent is that the campaign simply started too early.

This could be Thompson's "rope-a-dope." Recall this maneuver of Muhammad Ali's in his famous "rumble in the jungle" in Zaire with then heavyweight champion George Foreman. Ali leaned back on the ropes in the early rounds, his forearms up covering his face, and let Foreman pound himself to exhaustion. Ali then stepped up, fresh and strong, and knocked Foreman out.

Thompson has been sitting on the sidelines while the large field of announced candidates on both sides have been traipsing from debate to debate in a campaign begun earlier than ever.

When Thompson announces next month and formally enters the race, his timing alone might be appreciated by a public wondering why they have been forced to start listening to candidates more than a year and half before they'll go to the polls to vote.

In a Washington Post poll done last week, only one in five Republicans say they are "very satisfied" with their candidates. And although the Democratic field is more settled (almost half of Democrats say they are "very satisfied" with their candidates), the negative ratings for their front runner and likely nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton, remain at almost 50 percent.

So, Fred Thompson, a seasoned actor, may really know how to respond on cue. With Act One, Scene One played out, he may enter the stage in Scene Two and wake up the audience.

And, from what the Washington Post's David Broder reports, it may be more than just timing that wakes up this audience.

According to Broder, who reports on a two hour interview he just did with Thompson, the ex-senator and actor is going to be bold. He's got a nice life as a star in the popular "Law and Order" TV series, a beautiful young wife and young children, and is not running for president out of some ego-driven need.

He is stepping up to the plate out of a sense that there are things that need to be said that aren't being said, and that, if elected, he'll have a shot at getting these things done.

Anyone who has been reading what I have written these last few months knows my incredulity that the massive entitlements crisis facing this nation has not been part of the campaign discussion. It's been like hearing the social director of the Titanic announce shuffleboard times as the ship is going down.

It sounds like Thompson is ready to put the facts on the table before the American public and, yes, fasten your seatbelts, tell the truth.

He's going to talk about Medicare and Social Security and what we need to do to tighten our belts and get our lives back under control. And he's going to talk about national security and weigh in as a traditional values candidate.

This kind of honesty and candor is only possible with a candidate for whom the truth is more important than the job. And it sounds like Fred is ready.

Clinton, who in all likelihood will be the Democratic nominee, has just released her first campaign ad. In the short video, she lays out her cards about what her campaign will be about.

First, she'll run against George Bush. Second, she'll tell the American people they can rely on her to fix their problems. According to her ad, we're all "invisible" to the Bush administration.

The ad couldn't help but remind me of an exchange that occurred at the time when Clinton was making her first push at Hillary-care during her husband's administration. It took place between then Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, and Paul Starr, who was one of the crafters of the Clinton plan to nationalize health care.

Starr was pitching the government-as-mother-hen view of the world that defined Hillary then and, as evident in her new ad, defines her now.

Gramm said to Starr, "Don't tell me that you care as much about my grandchildren's health care as I do." Starr replied, "Excuse me, senator. But I do care about your grandchildren's health care." Gramm then rejoined, "Then tell me, what are their names."

No, Senator Clinton. The president of the United States cannot be and should not be our mother.

Freedom is for adults. It sounds like Fred Thompson is about to remind us all of this important truth.

American Justice - the story that keeps on giving - More

I have included several chapters in these dialogs about the DC administrative law judge, Roy Pearson, who brought suit against his dry cleaner (a bit of irony in itself) for losing a pair of his pants for more than fifty million dollars.  (including, I note, a claim for attorney’s fees for representing himself !)

Pearson lost at the trial court level (one would hope he had been laughed out of court) – he may lose his job as the public outcry against him has been furious.  The recommendation that his contract not be renewed is based on his apparent lack of appropriate judicial temperment – an understatement from the stories in the media. 

The dry cleaner graciously withdrew his motion seeking to compel Pearson to reimburse his attorney’s fees (over eighty thousand dollars).  One the next day, Pearson appealed his case to the DC Court of Appeals. 

Amazing.

My source: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1187082124825
D.C. Judge Files Appeal Over Missing Pants

Brendan Smith
Legal Times
August 15, 2007

 

D.C. administrative law judge Roy Pearson Jr. won't give up after losing his $54 million lawsuit against a local dry cleaner over a missing pair of pants.

Pearson filed an appeal Tuesday with the D.C. Court of Appeals, although the Chung family on Monday withdrew its motion seeking to compel Pearson to pay more than $82,000 in attorney fees. The Chungs have raised close to $100,000 through fundraisers and donations to help cover their legal fees and business losses after international media attention focusing on the case.

Pearson is soldiering on after losing a two-day bench trial in June where he wept over his missing pants, which he'd had altered because he gained weight while he was unemployed before becoming an administrative law judge in 2005.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, released a statement Tuesday: "The Chungs have done everything possible to put this nightmare behind them and return to their normal lives. They have won resoundingly at trial, raised donations from gracious private donors to pay for their litigation costs, let Mr. Pearson off the hook for personally paying their expenses and extended an olive branch to Mr. Pearson in hopes that he would end this matter and not appeal."

Manning added that Pearson has chosen "desperate irrationality over common sense and decided to appeal, unnecessarily costing the parties more wasted time and the D.C. taxpayers more wasted money."

The D.C. Court of Appeals isn't known for issuing timely decisions, so the wait for the Chungs to put this case behind them may stretch even longer. The average overall time for appeals increased from 562 days in 2005 to 575 days last year. So even if they hit the average, the Chungs will be waiting more than 18 months for a decision. Even then, Pearson could appeal to the Supreme Court if he loses again in the District.

 

Obama under scrutiny on Judicial Nominations

Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois and contender for the Democrat nomination for President is an interesting individual.  He is of a racial mixture that could break down many barriers in our political system.  He is bright, articulate, graduate of Harvard Law.  He is probably a bit too liberal for me, but he is a serious candidate and is being professionally packaged for his party’s nomination.  He certainly offers many advantages over Senator Clinton if I am to be subjected to a Democrat in the White House in 2008.  I remember being “WOWed” by his speech at the Democrat Convention in 2000.  But his actions in office reflect more of a “politics as usual” than his spotlight speeches.

George Will in the attached article criticizes Obama for playing politics with the process of selecting judges.  And my concern in this post is more for the malfunctioning process of judicial nomination than Mr. Obama’s qualifications to be President.  The issues just seem to overlap today. 

The Constitution says that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States … “  Somehow the system of “Advise and Consent” has devolved into the most flagrantly partisan, dysfunctional, blatantly political process in what we laughingly call our system of government. 

Mr. Will’s comment follow:

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/08/12/obama_has_some_explaining_to_do
Obama has some explaining to do...

By George Will

Sunday, August 12, 2007

 WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama recently told some Iowa farmers that prices of their crops are not high enough, considering what grocers are charging for other stuff: "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Living near the University of Chicago, Obama has perhaps experienced this outrage, but Iowans, who have no Whole Foods stores, might remember 1987, when Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis urged Iowa farmers to diversify by raising endive. Said a farmer to a Boston reporter, "Your governor scared me just a hair."

Obama is not scary, just disappointing. Regarding a matter more serious than vegetables -- a judicial confirmation -- he looks like just another liberal on a leash. His candidacy kindled hope that he might bring down the curtain on the long-running and intensely boring melodrama "Forever Selma," starring Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It was hoped Obama would be impatient with the ritualized choreography of synthetic indignation that degrades racial discourse. He is, however, unoriginal and unjust regarding the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction is Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Southwick, currently a law professor, joined the Army Reserve in 1992 at age 42 and in 2003 transferred to a National Guard combat unit heading to Iraq, where he served 17 months. He is now 57 and until last December was a member of a Mississippi appellate court. The American Bar Association, not a nest of conservatives, has given him its highest rating ("well qualified") for the 5th Circuit.

But because he is a white Mississippian, many liberals consider him fair game for unfairness. Many say his defect is "insensitivity," an accusation invariably made when specific grievances are few and flimsy.

Obama, touching all the Democratic nominating electorate's erogenous zones, concocts a tortured statistic about Southwick's "disappointing record on cases involving consumers, employees, racial minorities, women and gays and lesbians. After reviewing his 7,000 opinions, Judge Southwick could not find one case in which he sided with a civil rights plaintiff in a non-unanimous verdict." Surely the pertinent question is whether Southwick sided with the law.

To some of Southwick's opponents, his merits are irrelevant. They simply say that it is unacceptable that only one of the 17 seats on the 5th Circuit is filled with an African-American, although 37 percent of Mississippians are black. This "diversity" argument suggests that courts should be considered representative institutions, like legislatures, and that the theory of categorical representation is valid: People of a particular race, ethnicity or gender can only be understood and properly represented by people of the same category.

Southwick's Senate opponents, having failed to find ammunition in any of his 985 opinions (Obama's figure of 7,000 opinions is interestingly imprecise), cite two cases in which he joined (BEG ITAL)other judges'(END ITAL) opinions. Both cases concerned the proper parameters of government agencies' discretion.

In 1998, Southwick was in the majority in a 5-4 ruling that upheld a state administrative agency's action in overturning a punishment imposed on a state employee. A white female social worker had been fired after referring in a meeting to a colleague, who was not there, as "a good ol' n-----." The court on which Southwick served ruled that the agency given broad latitude to review such discipline had not abused its discretion in deciding that the firing was disproportionate punishment, given that the woman had a hitherto unblemished record and the man, although offended, said the woman's words had caused no workplace problem. By law, the court could not overturn the agency's actions without finding legal error or "arbitrary and capricious" judgment.

In 2001, Southwick was in the majority in an 8-2 ruling finding no legal fault with an official's decision to transfer a child from the custody of a bisexual mother to the father. Southwick's opponents note that the opinion and a concurrence he joined contained "troubling" words like "homosexuals" and "homosexual lifestyle." Troubling, presumably, because not using the word "gay" was insensitive. But Bill Clinton, announcing his 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military, used the term "homosexual lifestyles," and the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark 2003 decision that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, spoke of "homosexual lifestyle."

Why does Obama think Southwick should have ruled differently in the two Mississippi cases? Because he thinks Southwick applied the law inappropriately? Or because he does not like the result? Obama is seeking the office from which federal judges are nominated. Southwick has explained himself, in writings and in testimony to the Senate. Now Obama has explaining to do.

 

 

 

China Rising

I am reading more and more cautionary notes about the large amount of US Treasury paper held by China.  The attached article is representative of what is being written.  Something to worry about – certainly.  A time for doom and gloom? Probably not.  This is not a new situation.  Our government securities have been concentrated in foreign protfolios for generations.  The last regional media scare involved investments held by Arab oil producing nations.  Business and politics are always mixed, particularly on the international scene.  In the case of China, they want to be recognized on the world stage as a major player.  The 08/08/08 Olympics are coming to Bejing with much fanfare, pomp and circumstance.  The debacle of the US pulling out of the Moscow Olympics during the Carter administration is probably a concern.  I would not expect major confrontations with China in foreign or economic policy in the near term.  The current implied threat to dump US securities on the world market is more designed, in my opinion, to back our Congress away from trade sanctions. 

My source: www.counterpunch.org/roberts08082007.html
August 8, 2007

Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now ...

In the Hole to China

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Early this morning China let the idiots in Washington, and on Wall Street, know that it has them by the short hairs. Two senior spokesmen for the Chinese government observed that China’s considerable holdings of US dollars and Treasury bonds “contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency.”

Should the US proceed with sanctions intended to cause the Chinese currency to appreciate, “the Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar.”

If Western financial markets are sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the message, US interest rates will rise regardless of any further action by China. At this point, China does not need to sell a single bond. In an instant, China has made it clear that US interest rates depend on China, not on the Federal Reserve.

The precarious position of the US dollar as reserve currency has been thoroughly ignored and denied. The delusion that the US is “the world’s sole superpower,” whose currency is desirable regardless of its excess supply, reflects American hubris, not reality. This hubris is so extreme that only 6 weeks ago McKinsey Global Institute published a study that concluded that even a doubling of the US current account deficit to $1.6 trillion would pose no problem.

Strategic thinkers, if any remain who have not been purged by neocons, will quickly conclude that China’s power over the value of the dollar and US interest rates also gives China power over US foreign policy. The US was able to attack Afghanistan and Iraq only because China provided the largest part of the financing for Bush’s wars.

If China ceased to buy US Treasuries, Bush’s wars would end. The savings rate of US consumers is essentially zero, and several million are afflicted with mortgages that they cannot afford. With Bush’s budget in deficit and with no room in the US consumer’s budget for a tax increase, Bush’s wars can only be financed by foreigners.

No country on earth, except for Israel, supports the Bush regimes’ desire to attack Iran. It is China’s decision whether it calls in the US ambassador, and delivers the message that there will be no attack on Iran or further war unless the US is prepared to buy back $900 billion in US Treasury bonds and other dollar assets.

The US, of course, has no foreign reserves with which to make the purchase. The impact of such a large sale on US interest rates would wreck the US economy and effectively end Bush’s war-making capability. Moreover, other governments would likely follow the Chinese lead, as the main support for the US dollar has been China’s willingness to accumulate them. If the largest holder dumped the dollar, other countries would dump dollars, too.

The value and purchasing power of the US dollar would fall. When hard-pressed Americans went to Wal-Mart to make their purchases, the new prices would make them think they had wandered into Nieman Marcus. Americans would not be able to maintain their current living standard.

Simultaneously, Americans would be hit either with tax increases in order to close a budget deficit that foreigners will no longer finance or with large cuts in income security programs. The only other source of budgetary finance would be for the government to print money to pay its bills. In this event, Americans would experience inflation in addition to higher prices from dollar devaluation.

This is a grim outlook. We got in this position because our leaders are ignorant fools. So are our economists, many of whom are paid shills for some interest group. So are our corporate leaders whose greed gave China power over the US by offshoring the US production of goods and services to China. It was the corporate fat cats who turned US Gross Domestic Product into Chinese imports, and it was the “free trade, free market economists” who egged it on.

How did a people as stupid as Americans get so full of hubris?

Web Crash 2007

Now you see the things you miss if you don’t watch for on line information.

My Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4vDClhnJjs

Harry Potter and the Christian Allegory - Part II

I assure you that I am not planning on renaming these pages as “Cadfael and the Harry Potter Blog”.  But the Supreme Court is out for summer recess, after all,  and the recent release of the seventh and final book in the Harry Potter series has generated considerable reaction in quarters that have somewhat surprised me.  I have listened to so many people and read of so many protests and law suits opposing the Harry Potter series because the books favor witchcraft.  Never mind that many of the opposition have never read the books and never mind that the books deal with magic as fantasy - and not as satanic religion.  Ignore the fact that the positive messages of the series have been willingly accepted by millions of young people who may not hang out at Church reading the Bible.  Let’s not talk about the fact that J. K. Rowling has created the greatest, most available and most accepted medium for delivering a message of moral, ethical conduct, good versus evil, friendship, loyalty, bravery and responsibility since Gutenburg invented the printing press – or Al Gore invented the internet. 

But finally with the publication of Book 7, more and more people are getting the message.  While all of the books have been spiced with classical references from all sorts of sources for authenticity and for deeper themes, with Book 7 even some of the religious right have figured out that their quest for the Grail runneth over here.  As the author of the attached article so eloquently puts it, “This is Christian stuff.”   I agree that some of those who have opposed the series would have slept through the Sermon on the Mount.  I am just glad to finally hear someone other than me saying it.

Enjoy.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2007/08/02/harry_potter_and_the_fire_breathing_fundamentalists?page=full&comments=true

Harry Potter and the Fire breathing Fundamentalists

By Jerry Bowyer

Thursday, August 2, 2007

 

SPOILER ALERT: This article discusses the Harry Potter book series and contains spoilers including the final book just released in bookstores.  Do NOT read if you do not want to now how the Harry Potter series ends.

KKLA is the largest Christian talk radio station in America. I hold a dubious record there – I am responsible for causing the largest number of complaint calls the station had ever gotten in a single day. The topic? Harry Potter.

The Bowyers love Harry Potter: the novels, the movies, the video games, the midnight bookseller parties, we’re game for any of it. It didn’t start that way; ten years ago my mother wanted to give Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone to one of my girls as a Christmas gift. “No way,” I said. “We don’t do witches and wizards here.”

A couple of years later my mother-in-law asked the same question. By then I’d become a little less rock-ribbed and quite a bit more disillusioned with the religious right wing of the conservative movement. Gracie loved the books and started sharing the story with me. As I noticed more and more references to classical and medieval literature my guard started to fall.

Eventually I went to see the movie version with my whole family. When I left the theatre, I knew two things: first, that I had been an ignorant blow-hard. This wasn’t Wiccan propaganda: it was standard-issue fairy tale magic like Cinderella and The Wizard of Oz. Second, that Joanne Rowling had spent a great deal of time immersed in The Greats – the long line of literary masterpieces that range from The Lord of the Rings and Narnia back through Dickens, Austen, Shakespeare, the Arthurian Legends, the Church Fathers, the Scriptures themselves, and into the best of the pre-Christian Greek classics. In other words, Rowling was one of us.

Not long after that, I got to know John Granger and his book, The Key to Harry Potter, and I knew that I was not alone.

So I shared what I had learned with the radio audience. Harry is a lot of things. He’s a little bit Prince Harry forced to grow into the great warrior Henry V. He’s a lot more of the young Arthur, taken from his family at a young age, forced to live under the neglectful care of an inferior family, kept in the shadows of a bullying older adopted brother and unaware of his great origins. Eventually he is mentored by a great wizard (for young Wart, that’s Merlin; for Harry, it’s Dumbledore – a member of the Order of Merlin). Both lead quests to find a cup. Both (spoiler alert here- and from now on) end up procuring a great sword out of a lake in order to proceed with the quest.

I’m afraid the Arthur stuff doesn’t do much for many American evangelicals, though. It’s a little too British for Americans, plus it smells suspiciously Roman Catholic to a lot of Evangelicals. While I got lots of appreciative remarks, I didn’t make much headway with the fire breathers.

Next I tried the more recognizable Christian material. In Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets, Harry confronts Voldemort (whose name means “will to death”) by traveling down into a great cavern where he slays a serpent to win an (eventual) bride. He fatally wounds the serpent in the head. He’s rescued by a bird who descends upon him and the bride, a kind of bird whose “tears have healing powers, and who are able to bear immense loads.” The bird bears them up out of the cavern. “There, how’s that?” I thought. The problem is that very few Christians seem to be aware of descendit ad infernum, the descent into hell. Don’t the schools teach Dante? Don’t the Churches teach the Apostle’s Creed? Well, as a matter of fact, no, they generally do not. The Proto Evangelium, the first gospel in which God told Adam and Eve that He would send Someone who would rescue their descendents by crushing the head of the serpent doesn’t seem to get a lot of play either.

I could go on for page after page: snippets from ancient hymns and creeds for instance. The most powerful spell in Harry’s world is the Patronus, in which the wizard forcefully says “Expecto Patronum”. That’s Christian Latin for “I look for the Savior”. Expecto is used in the Nicene Creed, and Patronum is used in the medieval Dies Irae as the Savior that we look for in the day of judgment. Harry uses the spell when ghastly evil spiritual beings called DEMENtors (caps mine) attack him and another innocent man near a lake. A stag (which just happens to function as a common Christ figure in medieval art) walks across the water dispelling the vile soul-destroying creatures. What’s it take, a 2 by 4 across the forehead? This is Christian stuff!

Well, the 2 by 4 has arrived and it’s called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. In it, Harry learns that the evil Voldemort has broken his soul into shards and used those shards to possess certain objects. These are called Horcruxes. One of them is a ring (Lord of the Rings fans should find this a little familiar) and as long as the object is not destroyed the ‘Dark Lord’ cannot be destroyed either. Well it turns out that one of those soul shards in imbedded in a scar in Harry’s forehead and Harry comes to understand that the only way the evil can be destroyed is for Harry to willingly give up his life. In order to save his friends at Hogwarts School (which we learn in book 7 reminds Harry of a church) and particularly his friend Hagrid (whose name is suspiciously similar to Hagioi, which is Greek for Saints) he must allow himself to be killed by the dark lord. He makes a long walk through a wood in which he stumbles (Via Dolorosa, anyone?) all the while being encouraged by a vision of his deceased mother Lily.

This might be a good time to tell you that the Lily is often used as a symbol for Mary, the mother of Jesus, in medieval literature. I have an album in my musical collection of exceptionally beautiful hymns about Jesus and Mary, called The Lily and the Lamb. Harry goes ‘as a sheep to the shearer’ to Voldemort, where he is killed. There he meets his old mentor Dumbledore (old English for bumblebee, a medieval symbol for wisdom based on Psalm 119). While Dumbledore explains it all, the great white cloud in which Harry finds himself begins to take the shape of a familiar train station. The station’s name is King’s Cross, which is also the title of that particular chapter of the book. Harry is given the choice of going ‘on’ or going back to save his people. Harry goes back and finds that since he willingly gave his life for the people of Hogwarts, Voldemort’s curses no longer bind them. Voldemort, then, is destroyed (by his own hand in an attempt to kill Harry again) and the various races and houses of Hogwarts celebrate in a great feast, in which they ignore the walls and divisions which had theretofore separated them.

Since this book has been published I have not seen a single apology to JK Rowling from any of the various fundamentalist bashers. She’d been accused of atheism (she’s an Anglican) and of being a witch (she knows nothing at all about the occult or Wicca).

Why no apologies to the lady? First, it’s always tough to say you’re sorry. But deeper than that, I think the problem is that so much of the religious right failed to see the Christianity in the Potter novels because it knows so little Christianity itself. Yes, there are a few ‘memory verses’ from Saint Paul, and various evangelical habits like the ‘sinner’s prayer’ and the alter call. However the gospel stories themselves, the various metaphors and figures of the Law and the Prophets, and their echoes down through the past two millennia of Christian literature and art are largely unknown to vast swaths of American Christendom, including its leaders.

Seven years ago, Joanne Rowling was asked whether she is a Christian. Her answer:

“Yes I am. Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I’ve been asked if I believe in God, I’ve said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what’s coming in the books.”

For once, I disagree with her: I don’t think they would have guessed the ending. Most of them can’t recognize the ending of the story even after it’s been told.

Oh, I almost forgot the radio station. Terry Fahy, the General Manager of KKLA, told me that he’d like to have me on the station again. So, you see, there are signs of hope after all.