Largely unnoticed over here, Bolivia’s president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, duly elected, an economic liberal and a friend of the United States, was forced out of office. He’d made some hideous mistakes (not least the use of the army against protestors – a decision that, tragically, left many dead), but originally the source of much of his difficulty was action taken against his country’s coca farmers, action taken at US insistence, action that left many unemployed. It’s a familiar story – US drug prohibition creates a lucrative market for the farmers’ coca, the profits from that market have enriched not, of course, the farmers themselves, but criminal cartels. They have also been a good source of funds for guerilla groups. The distortions, dislocation and corruption that follows would be bad enough for the chances of reform, progress and economic development in Andean countries even without the added difficulty caused by the impoverishment of so many poor peasant farmers.

Drugs prohibition has been a disaster in the US. Its extension to Latin America has been a catastrophe, a catastrophe that risks creating more of the failed states in which terrorists, it’s worth noting, can thrive. The answer to this mess, naturally, is to scrap prohibition, but in the meantime, here’s a suggestion. The US should stop pouring dollars and military resources into this Latin American extension of the fruitless and counter-productive war on drugs.

There are better uses for both elsewhere.

The development of an effective intellectual response to the ideological challenge posed by Islamic extremism remains elusive, and one of the reasons is the bogeyman of “Islamophobia,” a bogeyman that the enforcers of multiculturalism have used to chilling effect.

Here’s a translation (a little hard to read but, I hope, accurate - I couldn’t find the original subscription-free) of an interesting piece from Le Figaro. It’s not necessary to agree with it all (many readers will not like the author’s very French brand of secularism) to think that it has some useful insights on this phenomenon:

“Islam is untouchable: to criticize or be suspicious of it is a proof of racism. Such is the new vulgate which MRAP [an anti-racist movement], certain sections of the media, academics and political leaders are trying to have accepted. What is this all about in reality? Removing the religion of the Koran from the test to which the two other existing monotheisms have long been subject: the test of self-examination…

The piece is a review of a book, about which the writer has this to say:

“[This] book amounts to what we must call a contemptible police operation worthy of the Stalinist era: by treating democrats as villainous Poujadists [right-wing chauvinists], opportunists, careerists, crude secularizers, persecuted figures from operetta, it turns them into quasi-apostates, traitors to their religion, even harkis [Muslims who worked with the French during the Algerian war], collaborators, enemies of Islam (even if these words are never employed).

”They are guilty then, the Arab women who want to rid themselves of the veil, guilty all those children of immigrants who demand the right to religious indifference, the right to believe in nothing and who do not automatically feel Muslim because they come from Moroccan, Algerian or Tunisian backgrounds? The invention of Islamophobia fulfills several functions: to deny, in order to give it more legitimacy, the reality of an Islamist offensive in Europe, to intimidate and silence bad Muslims, those who impiously seek change and, finally, to block any hope of a religious transformation in the lands of Islam.”

And it concludes as follows:

"Islam is part of the French landscape; it has a right to public recognition and respect; on condition that it respects republican rules and does not demand separate rights, special dispensations for women, various privileges and favors. The best thing we can wish for it is not "phobia" or "philia" but benevolent indifference in a market of spirituality open to all beliefs. If it no longer wants to suffer suspicion, it should engage in a reform as radical as that performed by Catholics or Protestants in the course of the past century. Until then it will remain, moderate Muslims included, the object of justified caution. There's something stupefying in seeing an "anti-racist organization" criminalizing the adversaries of fanaticism and superstition. If Voltaire were alive today, we can bet that certain "anti-racists" would have him thrown in prison."

Quite what the author means by “justified caution,” I don’t know. There’s nothing to fear from an Islam that is genuinely ‘moderate,’ but there’s plenty in this piece that applies to the US as much as France.

Angela Merkel is the head of the CDU, the ‘Northern’ half of Germany’s right-of-center CDU/CSU, the country’s main opposition to the ghastly Gerhard Schroeder. Blogging away from Austria, the invaluable Bill Dawson links to a fascinating speech Merkel made recently and highlights a couple of key segments, one on the question of Islamic head scarves in schools (a source of considerable controversy in a number of European countries) and, another on Germany’s relationship with the United States. Merkel is no Thatcher and it's not necessary to agree with everything she says, but this extract is worth repeating:

”How do we also, after September 11th, keep our word when it comes to the defense of democracy? The path from the so-called absolute, unqualified solidarity with the United States in September 2001, to the so-called "German Way" in September 2002 was certainly quick and breathtaking.

”This path led to the American President, in an interview in September 2003, defining -- naturally with good cause, I don't dispute that -- the posture of the German government as "pacifism."

Pacifism? After the binding with the west via Konrad Adenauer and the double NATO resolutions of Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl? What is to be made of this? I would like Germany to take seriously its leading role in Europe. I would like Germany to contribute to the unity of Europe, not disunity. I would like Germany to develop this Europe not against the United States, but with the United States.”

Contrary to the impression too often generated over here, America still has its friends in Europe.

Ralph Peters is often a provocative and enlightening read, but I have to say that I read this piece with nothing less than astonishment. Here’s an extract:

“Of course, there are good Germans. Plenty of them. But they live in Philadelphia, not Frankfurt. They or their ancestors all left Germany by 1938. Those who stayed didn't just support Hitler - they loved him and fought for him to the bitter end.”

That is, quite simply, nonsense. Yes, far too many Germans supported Hitler, something that will stain the name of their country so long as history is written. And yes, a shocking number stuck with that monster until the very end. At the same time, even a quick glance at the historical record shows that, by early 1945, Wehrmacht troops were to surrendering in droves in the West. On the Eastern Front, of course, it was a different matter. But against Stalin’s Red Army, surrender was never a realistic option. For the men it meant the Gulag or worse and, well, just read any account of the fall of Berlin to see what it meant for the women.

There’s more too. Mr. Peters’ comments about von Stauffenberg are, I fear, are an insult to the memory of a brave man. They also reveal a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the German resistance to Hitler (grossly insufficient though that resistance undoubtedly was) and they ignore for example, the role that the Allies’ insistence on the unconditional surrender of even a Hitler-free Germany played in undermining the development of that resistance. As a start, Mr. Peters should take a look at the career of Adam von Trott, a man whose opposition to Hitler began in the late 1930s and ended with his grotesquely cruel execution in Plotzensee Prison in 1944.

But this historical debate is to miss the point. Germany’s horrific past will forever mean that any hint of a resurgent anti-Semitism is deeply, deeply disturbing, but to move from that to suggest that, nearly sixty years after the war, this entire nation in some way still dreams of the old Reich is wrong. Yes, Germany’s role in the run-up to the Iraq war was a disgrace. Yes, Chancellor Schroeder’s manipulation of anti-American sentiment to secure re-election was repellent, and, yes, there’s no doubt that a particularly malign form of anti-Americanism is currently on the rise in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The US response to such stupidity should not, however, be to descend to equally crude ‘anti-Europeanism’.

This country is better than that.

Okay, I leave in the AM for ten days on the high seas with the NR cruisers. I assume/hope/pray that I'll have access to the web while I'm gone. So I should be checking in from time to time.

Meanwhile allow me to say a few words about movies. Lots of folks have been writing me in defense of Citizen Kane. I didn't say -- or didn't mean to imply -- that I hate the movie or always enjoy watching Roadhouse more than CK. However, I do think when you subtract the historically significant stuff Citizen Kane, as a movie, is a bit disappointing.

Moreover, a great many people have gotten their dander up about the idea of me not enjoying arty or significant films in the first place. Several have decided, for reasons that elude me, that I don't like "The Seven Samurai." Where did that come from? (maybe there's a blog out there making this charge?). None of this is true. There are some historically significant or just plain old artsy-fartsy movies that I love. I don't just mean the easy ones like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "The Warriors" ("Caaaaannnnnnn Yooooooouuuuu Diiiiiiiiiiig Iiiiiiiiit?"). "A Face in the Crowd" is certainly one of my all time favorite films. Yes, I liked "Seven Samurai", though it takes some work to watch it more than a few times. I'm sure I could think of others, but I've got to pack.

According to the AP.

Headline from Fox News:

Arabs Say Bush Words Are Pretty in Someone Else's Mouth

I read this rather paranoid rant with amusement.

we all KNOW that it is BORIS who ghost writes for the Derb.

Cosmo is merely a squirrel-killing machine bent on destroying the local fur-pidgeon population and sleeping on Goldberg's couch when Jonah isn't watching...

Ronald Reagan was a internationalist hawk who believed in the power of ideas. He was a pro-lifer. He was, well, Reagan. He was the first Republican President from the ranks of Goldwater conservatism. Back then, the Goldwaterites were still the insurgents and so he made a marriage of convenience with George H. W. Bush, the standard-bearer of classic blue blazer Republicanism, picking him as his VP. But it is now clear that Bush's own son takes far more after his father's old boss than he does his own father, at least politically speaking. From tax cuts (and deficits, alas), to his personal conviction on aborrtion, to aligning America with the historical tide of liberty in the world, Georrge W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?

Mike - I'm with you on the "Shining." I'm with you on the precocious wisdom of Eve Tushnet. But do you really like everything by Kubrick? Personally, I think 2001 is very overrated. "Barry Lyndon"? I found it unwatchable. The first half of "Full Metal Jacket" I liked but much like that other classic war film, "Stripes", it sort of fell apart in the second half. But "Eyes Wide Shut" was a disaster. I did love "Paths of Glory" and "Dr. Strangelove" though.

I am second to no one in my admiration of Jonah Goldberg; I will even go so far as to borrow from Mencken and say (without the irony) that "he compares favorably with the rising of the sun and the aurora borealis". But isn't all this Kosmo business a bit much? It appears to me that NR is in danger of falling prey to the Cult of Personality. Sure, Kosmo SEEMS like a fine dog, but how do we know we can trust him? For example, many of his sayings and attitudes strike me as distinctly feline. And the notion that he writes some of Jonah's copy is just plain silly; everybody knows that he's ghost-writing Derbyshire.

K-Lo: Did you watch CNN's coverage of Bush signing the PBA ban. If so, you probably saw their blurb on the left of the screen saying that "Critics say the partial birth abortion ban infringes on a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy." Last I checked, the Constitution didn't contemplate such a right.

I would like to take the time to thank you for your article, "Partial Truths." As a Family Nurse Practitioner and a mother of two toddlers, I am strongly opposed to "partial-birth" abortions. I wasn't always aware of how abortions were actually performed until I became a nurse. I admit I even marched in a "pro-choice" parade in my college years. I guess I always thought having choices was important. I still do. But murder and infanticide is not a choice that ought to be granted to us. If it weren't for the internet, I would never have seen the horror. And until I saw my daughter at 7 weeks on the ultrasound, with her little heart beating, I never realized she was already a person before I knew she existed.

I speak from experience. My first child was a "surprise," but there was never a choice to make. My husband and I did decide to marry before her birth, but many are not as lucky as I have been to have such a wonderful, loving husband. However, I reiterate that there was never a choice to make regarding her life. She was very much wanted, just as her sister, who came a year later, was wanted. I cannot imagine my life without my daughters, and would give my own life freely for them.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Senate leadership, today issued the following statement one day after Senate Democrats' refused to repudiate a staff memo outlining a strategy to use a nonpartisan Intelligence Committee investigation for political attacks next year against President Bush.

The Senator called on Democrat leaders to publicly denounce the strategy. He also suggested that if staff members deserved the blame for drafting the memo, they should be fired.

"First, Democrats sought to blame an unnamed staffer for this memo, saying it had never been approved by any Senators. Next they tried to argue the memo's merits without accepting responsibility for it. Then, on CNN, Senator Rockefeller attributed it to his three staffers but claimed it was just one 'option' or 'idea' adding, 'I disavow nothing.'

"Further failing to accept responsibility, Democrats had the audacity to suggest the Senate investigate how these attack plans might have been obtained - the equivalent of offenders blaming the cops because they got caught. This effort at spin control is patently absurd in any event, since by Senator Rockefeller's own admission, this strategy memo was not an official committee document and certainly contained no intelligence information.

"Another Democrat explanation is that they simply are frustrated that the administration has not provided as much intelligence information to the committee as they have demanded. But what makes them think they would get more information by signaling in advance that they intend to use the information politically or that they've already begun to do so? The White House could be excused for taking a dim view of the Democrats' demands.

"All of the Democrats' artful dodges are attempts to obscure what must be the central questions in examining this serious matter. Does the Democrat leadership repudiate this strategy or does it embrace it? Does the Democrat Party intend to use what is supposed to be a nonpartisan intelligence investigation as a political weapon or doesn't it? Will Senate Democrats demand accountability for the inappropriate partisan use of the Intelligence Committee or won't they?

"The American people have a right to hear the answers to these questions. I, for one, am not satisfied with what I've heard so far."

WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (AFP) - The number of Americans lodging new claims for jobless benefits plummeted unexpectedly last week to a near three-year low, the government said Thursday.

New claimant numbers plunged 43,000 to 348,000 in the week ending November 1, the lowest level since the week George W. Bush was inaugurated president on January 20, 2001, the seasonally adjusted data showed.

A four-week average of new claims dropped 10,000 to 380,000, the lowest since March 10, 2001.

His "apology" yesterday was not only weird and oddly insincere-sounding, it also was patently dishonest. Anyone who watched the CNN debate on Tuesday night -- as recounted in yesterday's G-File knows that Dean wasn't trying to "start a discussion." He was trying to defend his position and he did it badly. Once he conceded that the confederate flag is a "racist symbol," he no longer had any defense. Mainstream defenders of the confederate flag don't say "damn straight, it's racist." They say the flag stands for heritage and tradition etc. Dean wanted it both ways, he wanted to say the flag is a badge of bigotry while at the same he wanted those who wear that badge to vote for him. This allowed Sharpton to -- rightly -- condemn him for wanting racists in his column and Edwards to -- rightly -- condemn him for claiming that Southerners are nothing but a bung of ignorant redneck bigots. Dean can claim this was an attempt at starting a "discussion." But that's all nonsense. He messed up and now he's trying to spin it away.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm pleased that all of you have joined us as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 becomes the law of the land. (Applause.) For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child. (Applause.)

I want to thank you all for coming. Many of you have worked long and hard to see this bill come to fruition, and we thank you for your efforts.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I see some members of my Cabinet have come. I appreciate the good work of the Attorney General, John Ashcroft. (Applause.) Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, is here. Thank you, Tommy. (Applause.) There are a lot of members of the Senate and House here today, I want to thank you all for passing this important legislation. I'm glad you're here. (Applause.)

The primary Senate sponsor is with us, Senator Rick Santorum. (Applause.) Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Mike DeWine helped, as well, in the Senate. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Steve Chabot was the primary House sponsor, and Steve is with us. Thanks for coming, Steve. (Applause.) I'm thankful that our Speaker is with us today. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) The Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, as well. Thank you for coming, Tom. (Applause.)

I'd like to mention three other members of the House. Henry Hyde is with us today. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Jim Oberstar is with us. Jim, thank you for being here, sir, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Bart Stupak, from Michigan, is with us, as well. Thanks for coming, Bart, glad you're here. (Applause.)

I appreciate His Eminence, Cardinal Egan, is with us today. Thank you very much, sir. (Applause.)

In passing this legislation, members of the House and Senate made a studied decision based upon compelling evidence. The best case against partial birth abortion is a simple description of what happens and to whom it happens. It involves the partial delivery of a live boy or girl, and a sudden, violent end of that life. Our nation owes its children a different and better welcome. (Applause.) The bill I am about to sign protecting innocent new life from this practice reflects the compassion and humanity of America.

In the course of the congressional debate, the facts became clear. Each year, thousands of partial birth abortions are committed. As Doctor C. Everett Koop, the pediatrician and former Surgeon General has pointed out, the majority of partial birth abortions are not required by medical emergency. As Congress has found, the practice is widely regarded within the medical profession as unnecessary, not only cruel to the child, but harmful to the mother, and a violation of medical ethics. (Applause.)

The facts about partial birth abortion are troubling and tragic, and no lawyer's brief can make them seem otherwise. (Applause.) By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience. And the executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts. (Applause.)

America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right of life. And the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life. (Applause.)

In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. We're asked to live out our calling as Americans. We're asked to honor our own standards, announced on the day of our founding in the Declaration of Independence. We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society. And today, we welcome vulnerable children into the care and protection of Americans. (Applause.)

The late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey once said that: when we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins. (Applause.) This is the generous and merciful spirit of our country at its best. This spirit is reflected in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which I am now honored to sign into law. God bless. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.) Thank you, all. (Applause.)

Dog shoots Frenchman

PARIS (Reuters) - A French hunter was shot by his dog after he left a loaded shotgun in the back of his car with two dogs, one of which stepped on the trigger, police said Wednesday.

The man, from the village of Espelette in the Basque region, was admitted to a hospital in the nearby town of Bayonne Monday with injuries to his hip.

"As he was driving along, one of his dogs accidentally set off the gun," a police official said.

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by Administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the Chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (e.g. Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz) as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the Chairman supports our investigations into these offices, and cosigns our requests for information, is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find, but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the Majority. (Note: We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing).

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim of final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior Administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).

3) Prepare to launch an Independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the Majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the Administration's use of intelligence at any time -- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: (1) additional view on the interim report; (2) announcement of our independent investigation; and (3) additional views on the final investigation; or

B) Once we identify solid leads the Majority does not want to pursue. We would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context that on e in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the Majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the Vice Chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

Summary

Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives - of the senior Administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the Administration's dubious motives and motives.

K-Lo --

You missed a slam dunk:

"Joining an illustrious list of politicians who have crossed over to comedy, Democratic Presidential hopeful Rev. Al Sharpton will host the December 6 edition of 'Saturday Night Live.'"

You failed to mention that the Rev long ago "crossed over to comedy"

Doesn't that poll prove that the federal government is too big? More than mere ignorance (the power of which I don't discount) must be at work here. Surely we don't need 19 departments. I had no idea that some of these positions (EPA, Drug Policy, trade rep) were Cabinet positions now. (I could only reach 13 myself, although I ought to have thought of Energy and Transportation.)

Andrew - On the e-voting thing, I think we agree to much to bother disagreeing anymore. As for giving ex-cons the vote, I see your point. But frankly even if I were willing to concede that it is an injustice I don't think I could care very much about it. I think many, many Americans would agree with me, which is a salient political point. Any politician who expended a great deal of effort fighting for the voting rights of convicted criminals would be at an extreme disadvantage except in a very few districts. This is a point a lot of drug legalizers don't appreciate either. It's not necessarily that you guys have bad arguments. Some of them are obviously quite compelling if, to me, not always convincing. But politicians and political parties need to pick their priorities. And the more serious a politician, the less likely it is he's going to pick legalization or felon rights. This leaves such issues for fringe parties which, at the end of the day, only makes them seem more fringe-y. That may not be fair, or even good, but it's the way things work. Myself, as an inactivist on domestic issues, this doesn't trouble me that much. But that's a topic for another time.

by relegating The Reagans to Showtime, CBS has publicly acknowledged, albeit implicitly, the growing weakness of Big Media. Now that the common culture is a thing of the past, lowest-common-denominator programming is harder and harder to pull off, as is lowest-common-denominator editing. To do it, you have to keep lowering the denominator further and further. When your overhead is as high as it is at CBS, you can’t afford to give offense, nor can you afford to be sophisticated. Above all, you don't dare try to lead the culture anywhere it doesn't care to go—not if your job is to keep your numbers in the black.

The new media impact on Big Media in two ways. The first is the megaphone effect I spoke about a moment ago. The second, which is of at least equal importance, is that they compete with Big Media. If you’re reading these words, you’re not watching CBS, or anybody else, nor are you sitting in a movie theater or reading a print magazine. If you’re using iTunes to download two tunes off Radiohead’s last CD, you’re not buying the CD—though you might do so at some point in the future.

Five years ago, opponents of The Reagans would have failed to sway CBS because of their inability to make enough noise. The network would have taken the high road and stared them down, and been praised for its courage by other Big Media outlets. And if it were only a matter of noise, CBS would have done the same thing today…but it isn’t. Today, CBS is fighting for its corporate life. So are NBC, ABC, Time, TV Guide, the Reader’s Digest, and all the film studios and record labels. They can’t afford to ignore the noise anymore, no matter which side of the political fence it comes from. And they won’t.

On the undesirability of remote cyber-voting, you are also quite right, not least, again, because of the possibilities of fraud and intimidation, but then perhaps we should not be surprised that fraud has so far not been raised as much of an issue in this context. To this foreigner, the US seems curiously relaxed about the degree of cheating in its elections. Cleaning up the mess won't be easy, but always requiring photo identification seems an entirely reasonable requirement. And, yes, it would certainly be a good idea to move election day to one 24 hour period over the weekend.

And, while we are on the topic of elections, another thing that needs changing is the disqualification of felons from voting. I agree (obviously) with denying convicts the vote and there's a decent case for extending that ban until, say, five years after the end of a sentence. Thereafter (and particularly in a society where all sorts of relatively petty misconduct is now classified as felonious) they should be given their votes back. Excluding so many citizens from the franchise cannot be healthy. Besides, on the expiry of his sentence, isn't a felon supposed to have paid their debt to society?

Washington, DC - Most Americans are unable to identify even a single department in the United States Cabinet, according to a recent national poll of 800 adults. Specifically, the survey found that a majority (58%) could not provide any department names whatsoever; 41% could. Only 4% of those surveyed specified at least five of the 19 executive-level departments, a figure comparable to the poll's overall margin of error (+/-3.5%).

The same firm that last year revealed an eye-popping 64% of Americans could not name any of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, has now uncovered a similar lack of knowledge with respect to the Executive Branch of federal government.

"These poll numbers would make any high school civics teacher cringe," says Kellyanne Conway, President and CEO of the polling company, inc., in Washington, DC, the firm that conducted the survey. "The differing levels of knowledge according to gender, race and age are astonishing," she continued. "An incredible 70% of 18-34 year olds failed to specify a single agency or department, and while a majority of men (52%) could name at least one, less than one-third of women (32%) could do the same."

Key Findings include: Ø The Department of Defense was the most recognized among all nineteen departments that currently comprise the Cabinet, with 23% identifying DOD by name.

Ø The Department of Treasury (14%), the Department of State (13%), the newly created Department of Homeland Security (12%), and the Department of Interior (11%) rounded out the top five responses volunteered by the survey respondents.

The following chart illustrates a comparison of the knowledge levels with respect to the five most common responses, by gender:

TOTAL / MEN/ WOMEN
Dep. of Defense 23% / 29%/ 19%
Dep. of Treasury 14%/16%/12%
Dep. of State 13% / 16% / 10%
Dep. of Homeland Security 12%/ 15% /8%
Dep. Of Interior 11%/ 15% /8%%

Ø No respondent named all nineteen correctly and only 1% was able to name at least 11 departments within the President's Cabinet.

Ø Hispanics (79%), African Americans (75%), 18-34 year olds (70%), women (68%), and Pacific coast residents are among the groups most likely to say "I don't know" when asked to name at least one department within the current United States Cabinet.

Let's just say that it's a lot easier if you have the Lincoln Bedroom at your disposal.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL REV. AL SHARPTON TO HOST NBC’S “SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE” DECEMBER 6

Sharpton Joined By Musical Guest Pink

Joining an illustrious list of politicians who have crossed over to comedy, Democratic Presidential hopeful Rev. Al Sharpton will host the December 6 edition of “Saturday Night Live.”

The civil rights leader joins a list of “host-politicians” including last season’s unforgettable performances from former Vice President Al Gore and Senator John McCain. Other political figures who have hosted include New York Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Ed Koch, former Presidential candidates Steve Forbes and Ralph Nader, Senators Julian Bond and George McGovern and fellow civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson. Others who have appeared on the show include former Senator Bob Dole, President George Bush as well as George W. Bush who came to Studio 8H (as did Gore) in 2000 during his Presidential campaign to record a piece for the SNL primetime “Presidential Bash” special.

Sharpton has built his political career on his civil rights crusades - whether protesting U.S. bomb testing in Vieques, Puerto Rico or police violence in New York City. A recent Gallup poll conducted for the National Newspaper Publishers Association showed Rev. Sharpton leading the Democratic field in black voters. His grassroots campaign has carried him from college campuses to church pulpits. At each stop, Sharpton continues his efforts to build a diverse national coalition of progressive voters with health care, the right to vote and education in minority communities at the core of his campaign.

Sharpton will be joined by musical guest Pink, making her second appearance on the program....

I am NOT getting back into this, but now all of the Jewish readers are chiming in, clearly feeling guilty for not speaking up earlier. So here's one email on the subject and that's it:

Jonah,

You mentioned being disappointed at the paucity of responses about prayer from Jews. You must understand that most American Jews are virtually ignorant of the vast body of Jewish tradition so many of your Jewish readers may have felt that they did not know enough about the subject to make a contribution to the discussion. If your correspondent who cited (and quite possibly translated) the Kuzari can humbly describe himself as not much of a Torah scholar, how much the more [the Hebrew phrase would be "al achat kamah v'kamah" - lit. "on one how much and how much"], does that description apply to the great masses of Jews who have a grade school perspective of their own tradition. The formal Jewish education of most American Jews consists of auxiliary afternoon or Sunday Hebrew schools, ranging from about two to six hours a week of classroom time. This usually ends, unfortunately, at Bar Mitzvah age. Based on a maximum of six hours a week, this means that a typical adult Jew has spent a maximum of about 1500 classroom hours of Jewish education in their life. A typical child attending a typical secular public school has spent over 2200 hours in the class by the time they enter third grade. That's why it's my opinion that most adult Jews have a perspective on Judaism not unlike a small child.

The book cited by your correspondent, the Kuzari, was written by R. Yehuda HaLevi. In addition to his considerable skills as a scholar and polemicist, HaLevi was a poet of the first rank. His description of Jewish exile is stark, simple and achingly beautiful: "My heart is in the East and I am in the farthest part of the West". HaLevi went on aliyah, pilgrimage to the Land of Israel, at a time when it was almost impossible. According to legend he reached Jerusalem and when he prostrated himself to kiss the ground he was trampled to death by an Arab horseman.

The passage from the Kuzari touched on a point that my rabbi, R. Avraham Jacobovitz, has stressed.

A person who prays but for himself is like him who retires alone into his house, refusing to assist his fellow-citizens in the repair of their walls.

Halevi is not just discussing the difference between individual and communal prayer. The phrase "but for himself" can mean two things. It can mean that the person praying is physically alone or it can mean that the focus of his prayer is for his own benefit. Traditional Judaism stresses the value of praying for others. It is said that if you are in a difficult situation you should pray for the benefit of others and that God will, as it were, emulate your compassion for others by filling your needs.

Hype? I don't think so. To take one basic issue, if someone discovered software problems serious enough to raise real questions about a result, how exactly would the votes be recounted?

No this isn't a veiled reference to Rich's book (though "Clinton's Tab" would be a pretty great title). It turns out he cost a charity more than he raised for it. There's a great metaphor in there somewhere.

I am sure this has bored the dickens out of even many a righteous Corner-reader. But I am also sure -- judging from the email -- that many people found it a very rich topic. And, I should say, where else will you find a discussion like this on the web? Rather than try to find a synthesis I'd rather just go with an idea from an emailer which I think captures my views best on the subject.

If you were sick or in trouble would you prefer to have one person praying for you or two? Or ten?

I now return the Corner back to our regular fare of politics, pop culture and madcap fun.

I've generally been disappointed with the small response from the Hebraic community, in part because the Jewish tradition does in fact not only encourage but require prayer in numbers. Without a Minyan -- essentially a quorum of Jewish males -- there are all sorts of things you cannot do in Judaism. Here are two emails from the same guy:

Jonah, I found this in "The Kuzari" (12th century defense of Judaism by Rabbi Judah Halevi -- a fundamental text of Jewish literacy written in Socratic form): The Rabbi: ...........a prayer, in order to be heard, must be recited for a multitude, or in a multitude, or for an individual who could take the place of a multitude. None such, however, is to be found in our age. Al Khazari: Why is this? If every one read his prayers for himself, would not his soul be purer and his mind less abstracted? The Rabbi: Common prayer has many advantages. In the first instance a community will never pray for a thing which is hurtful for the individual, whilst the latter sometimes prays for something to the disadvantage of other individuals [or to his disadvantage]. One of the conditions of prayer, craving to be heard, is that its object be profitable to the world, but not hurtful in any way. Another is that an individual rarely accomplishes his prayer without slips and errors. It has been laid down, therefore, that the individual recite the prayers of the community, and if possible in a community of not less than ten persons, so that one makes up for the forgetfulness or error of the other. In this way a complete prayer is gained, read with unalloyed devotion. Its blessing rests on everyone, each receiving his portion..............A person who prays but for himself is like him who retires alone into his house, refusing to assist his fellow-citizens in the repair of their walls. His expenditure is as great as his risk. He, however, who joins the majority spends little, yet remains in safety, because one replaces the defects of the other. The city is in the best possible condition, all its inhabitants enjoying its prosperity with but little expenditure, which all share alike. There is more, but this gives you the idea. I also found some other references to community prayer in a Kabbalisitc treatise on my shelf. In particular, it cites the plural in Psalm 102:18 ("He turned to the prayer of the destitute and spurned not their prayer") and Deuteronomy 4:8 ("For what great nation is there that has a God so close at hand as is the Lord or God whenever we call upon him") Although happily and proudly Jewish, I am very, very far removed from being a scholar of Judaism, so I suspect that the literature is replete with other examples dating at least (as I have found) from the middle ages, and supported by references to Torah. Finally, I recall (from some vague recess of my Jewish education) that it is said that if only every Jew on earth prayed sincerely on Yom Kippur (or perhaps on any given Sabbath, I don't recall), then the Messiah would arrive. I hope this helps.

And...

Jonah,

Sorry to bother you again on this, but so far you haven't posted anything from a Jewish point of view. Since my earlier e-mail (on Judah Halevi and the Kuzari), I have dug a little bit deeper, and it does seem that Jewish law prefers collective prayer to individual for the same reasons that Rabbi Halevi articulated. Of course Judaism does not discourage individual prayer (far from it, it would seem, based on the fact that several of the main biblical figures such as Abraham, Jacob and Jonah -- among others I'm sure -- pray individually). However, it appears that the tradition of a minyan derives from just this preference for collective vs. individual prayer.

Oh, and I mis-cited the Torah in my previous e-mail. I mentioned a quote from Deuteronomy 4:8 that is actually Deuterronomy 4:7. If you find my previous e-mail too long, off-message, incoherent or otherwise not fit for posting, please consider finding some way to address the Jewish perspective. Also, do you suppose that the Islamic practice of public calls to prayer five times a day suggests a preference for collective worship as well?

He didn't come out to well in the testimony of many readers. Here's one:

Jonah, again, thanks for bringing this fascinating topic up.

The massive difference between Pat Robertson and prophetic portions of the Bible which might indicate that if 'enough' people were to repent and call on the name of the Lord THEN he would change his mind, is that Pat Robertson is NOT in the position of a prophet, who, according to Jewish and Christian tradition, stands in a position of being able to understand the mind and purposes of God. A further stipulation is that the mind and plan of action of God have been revealed to the prophet, such that God says to the prophet, "proclaim to such and such people that this and that will occur if they do not repent and call on me for salvation." This is all very clearly laid out, as the case of the Book of Jonah illustrates ("40 days and Ninevah will be destroyed!!" The implication is: "unless you repent...").

But Pat Robertson is issuing these proclamations perhaps in the effort to drum up
support/viewers/money/etc., but not because he's a prophet with access to the divine council.

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

Dante, in Purgatorio, and, I assume, other places mentions the longstanding Catholic belief that temporal punishment for sin is a specific, albeit unknown, quantity and that prayer, fasting, and sacrifice for others can lessen that temporal punishment (for the others as well as oneself since such prayer is an act of charity). While it is hard to do better than God himself suffering for the remission of our sins, it is nonetheless generally accepted that such prayer can be efficacious and since there is a specific quantity of time at issue, it makes sense that more people praying would be more helpful. Dante is certainly not the only source for this proposition, but he is the one with which I am most familiar. I’m pretty sure that you will find something similar in Thomas.

But I see very little logic behind a lot of people praying for, for example, good weather. When I hear such things in Catholic circles, I attribute it to the ever Protestant-toward drift of the Church, not to anything that is a substantial part of the tradition or that stands on its own two feet.

Jonah: Just so you know, I'm an American missionary working in Brazil. I'm a Baptist. Oh, and tele-evangelists give me the willies. With that out of the way, I can get down to business. Your last post broadens the whole discussion, and I find myself disagreeing with the majority. First, prayer is not only for the benefit of the one who prays. It obviously affects the outcome of things. In other words, the outcome would have been different in a situation in which nobody had prayed. Nevertheless, that does not make God putty in man's hands. That is the way God ordained things. I happen to believe that God unconditionally, before the foundation of the earth, chose whom He was going to save (Eph. 1:4-5). Nevertheless, I also believe He chose the means to that end (i.e., preaching--see 1 Cor. 1:21). In other words, although God chose who was going to be saved, they will only be saved if someone preaches. So the God who ordained the end (the salvation of the elect), also ordained the means (the preaching of the gospel). Likewise, God determined to do certain things, but He determined to do them in answer to prayer (the means). You already gave us the example of Abraham and Moses. But if Moses hadn't interceded on behalf of Israel, today we would not be talking about Jews, but about Moseans (or whatever they would have been called). Second, for some reason, God takes pleasure in seeing a large number of His people beseeching Him regarding something of importance. I believe this impulse to pray in large numbers comes ultimately from Him. But, if He didn't, why, for instance, did the apostle Paul repeatedly request prayer for himself of all who read his letters (see, e.g., Eph. 6:18-19)? If one prayer was as good as 1000, Paul could have prayed for his own needs. Third, that does not mean that all prayers are warranted, nor that they will all be answered. In fact, I suspect that most of our prayers today are seriously off base. They look nothing like the prayers of the apostle Paul, for example. One problem is that we are not allowed to serve God for his gifts, but must serve Him for his personality. Speaking of James 3:3-4, author John Piper writes: "James criticizes the motives of prayer that treats God like a cuckold: 'You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God?' Why does he call these praying people 'adulteresses'? Because, even though praying, they are forsaking their husband (God) and going after a paramour (the world), and to make matters worse, they are asking their husband (in prayer) to fund the adultery." I think that sums up many of the prayers proffered to God quite nicely, and it explains why God doesn't answer. This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.

Jonah,

Interesting discussion on prayer. As noted, Christians offer petitionary prayer because Jesus told us to. The anthropomorphism of the Bible does not have a problem with such prayer. If it's raining today, it's because God likes it to rain, and if I want sunshine for my picnic, I bring the matter to his attention and attempt to persuade him. The best analogy I have ever seen for this discussion is the way that T.E. Lawrence deals with the desert chieftains in the film, Lawrence of Arabia. The dialogue between God and Abraham outside of Sodom falls into this category.

The theological problem with prayer enters the scene when the anthropomorphic God of the Bible meets the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle, and later the unalterable laws of science. In either of the latter cases, prayer is pointless. If it's raining today, it's because a low pressure front has moved into my area, and I should have checked the weather satellite photo before planning my activities. God is too busy to care about my little picnic, time for plan B.

There is, however, a way to reconcile the command of Jesus with the changeless nature of the divine. When God creates, he does not just create things; he creates events and relationships as well, in all their myriads and intricacies. He does not change in himself because of my prayer, but he has always foreseen my petition. As part of his decree of creation, he may have willed a connection between my petition and the petitioned effect, but I won't know this of course until I pray. My petition may be the one link between someone else's rain or sunshine, weal or woe. Or maybe it will be the petition of the 17th person I ask. Or maybe the petitions of the 5th and the 8th, and the 17th together. We won't know until we do it.

So the point is: we should pray always, about everything, with anyone who will join us. This is why monastics, contemplatives, religious, and clerics pray the Liturgy of the Hours, chorally or individually, everyday. It is an official prayer of the Church, taking place always, somewhere in the world, for the benefit of all. It is like a wave cheer going around the upper deck of a donut shaped stadium: even when I am not standing and waving the cheer goes on. In the case of prayer, though, the wave is slower and the hands are raised in supplication.

For most people, including theologians, the ideas of God's foreknowledge and eternal decree are too much to think about every time we pray, so we fall back on the comfort of anthropomorphism. This is perfectly acceptable. No matter how many of us ask, no matter how great the favor, we are addressing someone whom we call Father, whose power is unlimited. We know that he loves us, and that he will do what he knows is best, even if we can't see it at the time. This is a belief worthy of trust.

Here is a link to the U.S. Bishops' website on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically to the material on prayer:

Rev. Lawrence C. Brennan
Professor of Systematic Theology
Kenrick-Glennon Seminary
St. Louis, Missouri

Greetings Jonah,

Greg Popcak here (K-Lo does my radio show periodically).
www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog

Regarding the prayer issue. Two brief points.

1. Certainly God does not change his mind because somebody prays hard enough. As C.S. Lewis is reported to have said when his wife was dying of cancer, "I do not pray to change God. I pray that God would change me."

2. That said, regarding the efficacy of prayer in the natural world, I would appeal to chaos theory, and in particular, the so-called "Butterfly effect" to attempt an answer to your question. It seems to me that if the fluttering of a butterfly's wings in South America could conceivably influence weather patterns in China, then could not the prayers of one person, or moreso, a large group of people, have a similar effect?

Think of it as the "power" of 10,000 butterflies.

No doubt theologians would demur or suggest that this was "too mechanical" an explanation for the action of grace in the world. But I say that grace has to work somehow, and that action ought to be able to be observed and explained somehow.

Perhaps chaos theory offers a possibility.

Just a thought.

And....

Jonah,

According to traditional Catholic doctrine, petitionary prayer does change the world, not merely the person who prays. This position doesn't mean that prayer changes God's mind or gives God new information. Instead, God eternally wills for us to receive some goods ONLY IF we pray for them, or only if several people pray for them. Thomas Aquinas defended this position in the 13th Century, so it's not a consequence of modern views about democracy.

According to Aquinas, God acts this way--instead of giving us good things regardless of whether we pray--in order to give creatures the power of causing goodness in each other. Analogously, a father who has three children might decide that he'll let the two older children do some things to take care of his youngest child, instead of doing everything for his youngest child himself.
This position obviously raises some questions, but I want to keep this message brief. I've written an article in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly that addresses this issue in more detail. I'd be happy to send you a copy. Maybe I'm flattering myself, but I think it's free of technical jargon.

Best wishes,

Larry Masek

And...

From an email entitled "Prayer: You're being spun by hyper Calvinists":

So God doesn't respond to prayer?
I fear you're being spun by a bunch of calvinists/platonists.

What scriptures did they cite to support this contention?

If God doesn't answer prayer somebody forgot to tell the writers of the
Bible about it. Here's a whole bunch of scriptures to support that
point. Not mere argument but evidence, in the form of testimony by
those who wrote the Bible.

[The author then provides a very long list of scriptural passages]

And...

I think this whole thing got started based on the New Testament passage:

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as
touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of
my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20)

Theologically I think that this passage presages the idea that is developed further following Jesus' death that the assembly of Christ's followers incarnate Jesus Christ, or are the "body of Christ". But you will hear this more typically worded as "The Church" is the "Body of Christ", but as this passage clearly states, the idea in its incipient form was launched prior to the development of an institution known as "The Church". It all goes back to a participationist model of rectification. Christ's followers are made right with God, not on account of themselves, but because in a mystical or supernatural sense are participating in the life of this other person, Jesus Christ. So they have all been executed, as they participated in his execution, and they have all been blessed with a new, eternal life with God, again because they are participating in his blessed life.

As to the power of prayer of those who are so assembled (in Christ's name) and are consequently manifesting in their physicial presence Christ's continued presence on earth, the idea is just as the Father always granted his son's prayers on earth, so he will continue to do so as the assembled can almost be thought of as expressing his son's spirit.

Caveats: theologically Christ regarded an manifest fully in each Church; he is not more manifest in churches with larger congregations. So this would seem to undermine the "more is better" approach.

As an aside, one of my favorite commentaries on prayer was made by St. Julian of Norwich (14th Century):

For when the soul is tempested, troubled, and left to itself by
unrest, then it is time to pray, for to make itself pliable and
obedient to God. But the soul by no manner of prayer maketh God
pliant to it: for He is ever alike in love.

Regards,
Deb

Zadan and Meron are best known in TV circles for their remakes of musicals, including CBS's "Gypsy" and ABC's "The Music Man"; biopics of entertainment industry icons, including "Lucy," "Martin and Lewis" and "Life With Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows," which also starred Davis; and advocacy teleflicks such as "Serving in Silence: The Margarethe Cammermeyer Story," based on the true story of an Army officer's legal challenge to her involuntary discharge when she admitted she was a homosexual, and "What Makes a Family," about a lesbian's fight to retain custody of the child her partner bore. Those last two TV projects were executive-produced by Zadan and Meron with Streisand.

Soon after the floor was opened for questions, Nikki Stephanopoulos, the communications director for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, whose son is the ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos, complained that the voluptuous, ravenous images of Mary Magdalene on display in the documentary bore little resemblance to Eastern representations of the Magdalene. (Sexy music by [hello, bisexual] Me'shell Ndegeocello accompanies one sequence of semi-nude pictures on the show.)

Rudy Bednar, an executive producer at ABC, responded that the Catholic view had been expressed in the documentary by various evangelicals the producers had consulted. Mr. De Feo, perhaps bridling at the idea that arch-Protestants should represent the opinions of Catholics, shot Mr. Bednar a look of incredulity.

I've still got a lot of emails to read, but I'm heading out for an appointment and won't be back for a while. So far, it seems almost everyone agrees that prayer in large numbers has no greater effect than prayer in small numbers -- in terms of God's actions. Some (most) believe that prayer cannot change God's actions because an omnipotent, all-seeing, all knowing God wouldn't change His mind simply because of one man's prayer or one million's. Why would he? Others believe prayerin large numbers can have powerful external effects and therefor prayer can be uplifting in secondary social ways. And pretty much everyone believes that prayer is especially and specifically for the good of the believer. In other words, prayer makes the individual understand God's will not the other way around.

But I guess my point remains the same. If all that's true, why would so many clearly literate believers make it sound as if God will do the bidding of humans who pray hard enough? Maybe I don't remember the Pat Robertson hurricane thing properly, but didn't he argue that if everybody prayed hard enough the hurricane would change course? And, for the sake of argument, let's say he did make that case (my memory could be poisoned by unflattering media portrayals). Isn't that in a fundamental sense blasphemous or otherwise offensive? Implying that God's plan can be deterred, amended or changed merely by large numbers of people asking or wishing for it surely makes God the servant of man rather than the other way around.

Again, I really don't mean any offense. I just find this stuff very interesting -- as do many readers, it seems.

Michael Ledeen wants heads to roll. In case you hadn't seen it.

From a reader who speaks for many:

Jonah, Consider AOL incompatibility with the jaw-dropping genius that is Panther to be a message from the gods for you to ditch AOL.

From a reader:

No fair, I want one. Jonah Goldberg owning a Mac G5 is like a little granny owning a Ferrari. I'm sure you're plenty tech savvy, but that computer should come with a disclaimer: "For professional use only, please complete the following 500 question IT test, 90% score required to purchase this item"

I am IT elitist, and I'm stuck working on a POS Dell P4 2Ghz, while you get to work on the Ferrari of computers. I have no sympathy for you and I will immediately stop e-mailing Lowry demanding he pay you a decent wage!

The mayor of New Orleans is endorsing him

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. construction spending surged unexpectedly in September to a record high as outlays for both residential and nonresidential building posted gains, a government report showed on Monday.

Overall construction spending climbed 1.3 percent to a seasonally adjusted $910.63 billion in September, from $898.83 billion in August, the Commerce Department said. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a 0.3 percent increase.

The August increase was revised upward to 0.7 percent from 0.2 percent.

Private residential construction spending rose 1.4 percent to $471.45 billion from $464.96 billion, the highest level on record, as mortgage interest rates near historically low levels attracted homebuyers.

Private non-residential construction spending rose 2.5 percent, the biggest jump in nearly a year, to $219.17 billion from $213.91 billion in the previous month.

Overall public construction and state and local construction spending hit record highs.

Jonah-

The issue you raised is basically the theme of G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. That is, you point out the tension between the fact that God is ultimately sovereign and so doesn't have to care what people think, and that yet people are encouraged to pray in numbers to affect God's will. Or, put more broadly, the conflict between sovereignty of God and free will of man. So, given your suggestions, the latter (mass-politics entering religion) is dubious because this conflict has existed since the beginning of the Church, way before populism became all the rage. As for your other suggestion, Chesterton- by my reading of him- would say you're wrong because you are forcing one rational end (the sovereignty of God) to preclude the other (that prayer can influence God). He'd also say that the other end- saying that prayer influences God to the exclusion of God's ultimate sovereignty- is equally wrong for the same reason. The answer, according to Chesterton, is that the essence of the faith is in the balance between the two choices, which we cannot resolve wholly ourselves.

Hi jonah it has always been maintained in Hindu teachings that prayer induced vibrations can be extremely potent and therefore chanting in a low voice as is also done by the Buddhists tends to unify with the cosmic vibration and thus affect things. I am not learned enough to give you proof but there is a reason why places of worship tend to be the way they are and mass worship prayer etc, can influence things. [name withheld]

Jonah: A good discussion topic. I think your question misses the point a bit. The number of people praying makes no difference. God answers every prayer, no matter who is praying ("righteous" or "unrighteous") or how many it comes from. Sometimes, the answer is "yes." Sometimes, the answer is "no." The point of Abraham's "negotiation" with God concerning Sodom and Gomorrah is not that God changes his mind. How can an omniscient being change His mind? Instead, God was demonstrating His mercy and the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah to Abraham by this exercise. I would refrain from looking to the televangelists for insight into the "underpinning of this widespread religious locution." These guys very often advocate a success-oriented faith (i.e., only by becoming a Christian and sending me money will all your financial and worldly dreams come true). The Bible is quite realistic about the prospects for persecution and suffering that lie in store for those who believe in God. Numerous examples are provided. Instead, the answer is much simpler than that. We pray and ask others to pray because God told us to. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened. Even Christ, on the eve of his crucifixion prayed for this "cup to be taken away from him." Yet, Christ also set the example by also petitioning "thy will be done." God promises to hear and answer our prayers. The answer may not be the one we want or expect, but it is what is best for us. Why, because God promises that it will be.

Jonah,

A bit lengthy, but this, from The Westminster Confession of Faith, says it best, and provides the scriptural foundation for prayer.

Chapter XXI.
Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath-day.

III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious
worship,(f) is by God required of all men:(g) and that it may be accepted,
it is to be made in the name of the Son,(h) by the help of His Spirit,(i)
according to His will,(k) with understanding, reverence, humility,
fervency, faith, love, and perseverance;(l) and, if vocal, in a known
tongue.(m)

(f) Phil. 4:6.
(g) Ps. 65:2.
(h) John 14:13, 14; I Pet. 2:5.
(i) Rom. 8:26.
(k) I John 5:14.
(l) Ps. 47:7; Eccles. 5:1, 2; Heb. 12:28; Gen. 18:27; James 5:16; James
1:6, 7; Mark 11:24; Matt. 6:12, 14, 15; Col. 4:2; Eph. 6:18.
(m) I Cor. 14:14.

IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful;(n) and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter:(o) but not for the dead,(p) nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death.(q)

(n) I John 5:14.
(o) I Tim. 2:1, 2; John 17:20; II Sam. 7:29; Ruth 4:12.
(p) II Sam. 12:21, 22, 23 with Luke 16:25, 26; Rev. 14:13.
(q) I John 5:16.

Hi Jonah, Love your stuff. As a pastor, I would agree with your observations about prayer. I think that God is not a politician, and that numbers per se, do not impress Him. However, I do think that when large numbers of people turn to God, he is gracious to respond to them in some way. As stated in II Chronicles 7:14-15 "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place." There is a dynamic relationship between God and individuals and groups who pray to God. He is NOT of course a divine vending machine, but a Personal God who decrees his will and listens to us in the mix as well. I do think that there might be some superstition to the numbers thing. Or just enculturation of American values (More is better!) when it comes to prayer. I also know that when a meeting or prayer event has a SMALL turnout, we are quick to quote "where ever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, there I will be in the midst of you" Kind of a theological safety net for those who gather to pray in small numbers. [Name withheld] p.s. I do believe in the power of prayer- to change circumstances or to change me in the midst of them.

Two representative emails:

Jonah,

Boy, did you ask for it.

From what I can gather, sheer numbers don't matter. One verse of the NT "promises" that when two or more are gathered together in prayer, ask what ye will and it be done. (paraphrased, but close).

But then again, in another place the Book says the prayers of a righteous man avails much.

The concept of agreeance (sorry!) is pushed heavily in evangelical circles. The BIG HOWEVER, however, is that those praying must be in accordance with the will of God.

In my experience, it is folly to rest one's theology on any of the above. Sometimes God makes you wait a hell of a long time before answering (if at all).

It is very, very difficult to know the mind of God, and anyone who tells you they can, is a presumptuous fool.

I am currently reading, CS Lewis' The Problem of Pain. His approach to difficult questions is usually spot-on. He's a great apologist for a reasoned faith, who never took himself too seriously.

One last thing: The importance of brokenness cannot be overstated. I think it is only then that we can begin to see the invisible hand of God in everyday life, and, begin to understand the paradox of living beyond ourselves.

[Name withheld]


How fortunate you are to have this forum, and the blessing of so many who care about you! Hope you find the answers you seek.

And...

Jonah,

I come closer to thinking your second answer is the more likely.

Personally, I go with C.S. Lewis's approach which was fairly well put in the movie Shadowlands. I'll paraphrase:

"I don't pray to change God. I pray because I have to. I pray because I can't help myself. It doesn't change God. It changes me."

For the record, I adopted this philosophy later in life. I held a decidedly different view during my little league and dating periods where I was all too eager to seek divine intervention.

One thing that I have always thought particularly curious is the practice of having one individual lead others in prayer. For if prayer is our method of discourse with the almighty, why is it that so many seem to be so willing to subordinate such an important matter to another?

Okay, I've gotten a lot of email on this in a very short period of time. I'm just gonna post various responses -- without comment -- for a while (though I just installed Panther on my new Mac G5 and it's making AOL work very weird, so this may be sporadic as I try to fix the problem with my thimbel-full of computer savvy).

Later today I might make some comments, but so far most of the email is far more informed than my own views. I'd love to encourage other members of the Corner to join in.

Something's been bugging me all weekend and I thought maybe the Cornerites around here might have an answer. First, a disclaimer: This is purely a theological question and not an attempt to denigrate or single out anyone's religious views.

I constantly hear about the power of prayer. Often, when I listen to televaneglists, represenatives of the Catholic Church and a host of lay and civil leaders there is a declared or implied view that the more people who pray for something the more likely it is that it will happen. Televangelists are the most obvious example. They often ask viewers to join with them in prayer to do this or do that. But what made me think of it was a A&E documentary on the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Various peoplee said they needed as many people as possible to pray for her recovery.

Anyway, so my question is: Why should the number of prayers or praying petitioners matter? Surely God isn't a politician. Surely he doesn't ignore the just and deserving prayer of one man while heeding the same or lesser request from 10,000? God, after all, is a dictator of inifinite wisdom and justice. His will is no less His will if everyone disagrees with it.

Of course, Abraham (and Moses) both argue with God. And Abraham in fact negotiated God down to a minimum number of good people in Sodom and Gamorrah that could save it from destruction ("And what if there are ten good people, will you kill them too?" I'm quoting from memory.) So presumably numers and persuasion have always played a role in God's thinking.

So what is the theological underpinning of this widespread religious locution? Without doing any research I can think of only two answers. The first is that prayer is considered a good in itself and therefor anything which brings people in closer contact to God or the Church is therefore a good thing and should be encouraged. But, when pressed, theologians would say "No, no, God doesn't take a poll."

The other answer is that this is the product of three centuries of mass-politics bleeding into religious affairs. Anyway, I thought it might be an interesting topic for Monday morning chit-chat.

A thoughtful, interesting and favorable profile of Paul Wolfowitz. He's an idealist, not a war monger. He likes Arabs, doesn't hate them. He circumspect, not power mad. What a nice change of pace.

Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, looked south and said, "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished."

Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, "I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell."

Hi, KLo,

I've been telling myself to subscribe to NRODT for more than a year. Nagging myself, even. But then you hired Steyn. The subscription order went into the mail within days.

Episode Number 11
First Aired December 7, 2001
Production Code 119
Writer Wayne D. Stamps Jr.

Guest Stars: Raven-Symone (as Angel Stephanie) Cedric the Entertainer (as Bobby Proud) Vivica A. Fox (as Angel Margaret) Samuel L. Jackson (as Angel Joseph) Pat Crawford Brown (as Agnus) Jeff Bennett (as Joseph) Carlos Mencia (as Felix Boulevardez (uncredited))

Synopsis

As the Proud family goes Christmas shopping, they meet a homeless family. Oscar (of course) doesn't do anything to help them. But Trudy tells Oscar to find the family and give them some money. When Penny and Oscar find them, Penny ask them if they want to have a Christmas dinner with them. They'd love to! But Oscar wouldn't. On Christmas, they arrive seven hours early and presents the Prouds with a fruit cake. Nobody thinks much of it so they give it to Bobby. He throws it out the window! When Penny gives them their presents, they don't seem to like them. Trudy, feeling a bit concerned, asks them. They say that they celebrate Kwanzaa. Oscar asks, "Kwa-whoo?" The family tells the Prouds all about it and celebrate it with them. This may be when the Prouds learn the true meaning of the holidays.

She continues to seek out [her father’s] opinion on issues of the day; for years, Couric called her parents after every Today show. “My dad’s opinion, especially about how something went, was really important to me,” she says. She’s equally admiring of her mother, who was a homemaker and a Planned Parenthood volunteer when Couric was growing up. “She’s clever and smart and she’s a great artist,” says her daughter. “She’s very savvy.” Though “she’ll be embarrassed for me to say this,” Couric goes on to relate that when AIDS first appeared in the press, her mother “bought a lot of stock in condom companies.”

"Arrogance" is a natural follow-up to the veteran CBS newsman's 2002 bestseller "Bias." He's outed the liberal bias; now he wants to expose the reason for the bias. Back in February, during the run-up to the Iraq war, Washington Post columnist Mary McGory wrote, "Among people I know, nobody was for the war." "Imagine that," observes Goldberg. "What a single-minded little world she must live in where, among all the people she knows, nobody - absolutely nobody thought that invading Iraq was a good idea."

And that is exactly the problem, Goldberg argues. "The real problem," he writes, "is liberal groupthink - the idea that if everyone at all the right Manhattan cocktail parties thinks guns should be banned, there's nothing more to be said on the subject. Being against guns becomes the noncontroversial, reasonable, civilized position. End of discussion."

Another reader:

I think the main point here, and it is something that most journalists in the Northeast are oblivious to, is that in the rest of the county there are negative stereotypes of Northeasterners just as there are of Southerners. If a candidate from the Northeast wants to win any of the states in the South, he will have to prove that he is not just another snobby liberal who looks down on the little people as he flies over them, based on images he has from movies made 50 years ago. Dean's comments come close to lumping almost 1/3 of the country's population into a negative stereotype held dear by a large portion of Northeasterner's. If it truly represents how he thinks, it might help him win Maine, but not Georgia.

From another reader:

Regarding your Corner posting of an e-mail from a reader who stated that no Southerns drive around in their pickup truck with a Confederate flag I'd have to disagree. While I agree Dean was pandering, I do believe your reader is also trying to force the South to be in their world. I do not find it hard to believe that many of those who living in Atlanta, Nashville, and Charlotte do not come into more daily contact with those pickup trucks/Confederate flags. They do exist, they just live in more rural areas. I'd venture to guess they are also the ones who Democrats have been calling the "NASCAR" voting block. Dean should have just said NASCAR voters instead of pickup and battle flags. And these people do vote, they voted for Jim Hodges (D-SC) to the governorship in SC in 1998 and helped Sonny Perdue (R-GA) oust Gov. Barnes in Georgia. Generally though when the Confederate flag is not at issue [aside: now that it's been removed from the Capitol domes across the South let's hope this issue is now dead], they vote Republican for their beliefs in family values, patriotism and smaller government.

What I wonder though is if Dean was using that statement as a broader trial balloon for him to make a stand on the 2nd Amendment, ie we have to win those truck owning with the gun rack and Confederate flags in back voters to win the Presidency so we must stake out issues they care about.

From a Southern reader now living in the West:

Do the voters in Atlanta, Knoxville, Raleigh, etc. identify with the kind of southerner who owns a confederate flag? The majority of southern males do not drive around with confederate flags on their trucks. I suspect that those who do, rarely vote anyway. Is Dean pandering to racists? No. He's trying to pander to southerners. What strikes me as funny is that the other candidates have not responded appropriately. Dean tried to pander; instead he insulted many voters in the South. Dean shows a complete misunderstanding of the South, and the other candidates -- by not picking up on this -- show a similar lack of understanding. Surely John Edwards should get it right.

Dean strikes me as not quite ready for prime time -- similar to Jimmy Carter making comments about Montezuma's Revenge during his first trip to Mexico.

The whole pack is pitiful. If this is the best the Democrats can offer, I may have to join the Republican party.

Now, as never before in your lifetimes, your future is full of hope. In this blessed time, we share a common vision that:

• You will live in dignity.

• You will live in peace.

• You will live in prosperity.

• You will live in the quiet enjoyment of family, of friends, and of a decent income honestly earned.

• You will live in an Iraq governed by and for Iraqis.

These things will come to pass.

These things will come to pass because you, the people of Iraq, will make them come to pass. By calling on your great past, you, the Iraqi people, will build a great future, a future of hope.