The American Spectator

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:10:00 -0400

We're heard a lot about Bain Capital and how it throws people out of work in order to enrich investors, but how about the record of DOE Capital, which has compiled a fantastic record of defrauding investors while benefiting cronies and insiders?

DOE Capital is a Washington-based investment operation that looks for fledgling companies in the field of renewable energy and pours money into them in an attempt to get them get them up and running, building value and creating jobs. Although its purposes are noteworthy, its performance has been at best spotty, at worst catastrophic.

In 2008, for instance, DOE Capital invested in Range Fuels, a company that claimed to have solved the long-standing problem of extracting ethanol from cellulosic plant material. In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President George Bush, Jr. had charged America with being "addicted to oil" and promised cellulosic ethanol from "switchgrass" and other materials as the solution. Charging right ahead, Congress adopted the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandated the consumption of 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2010, 250 million by 2011, and 500 million in 2022 at a time when no one had yet mastered the technology.

Months later, Range Fuels, a Colorado company, claimed to have the answer. In November 2007, Range broke ground on a plant in Soberton, Georgia, promising to generate 100 million gallons of ethanol a year out of pine-logging wastes. Before it even built the plant, Range Fuels won the 2008 North American Fuels Technology Innovation Award for Green Excellence. Full production was promised in 2009.

By 2010, Range hadn't gotten anywhere, however, and so DOE Capital sunk $50 million into the project. The State of Georgia contributed another $6 million and the U.S. Department of Agriculture added an $80 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Biorefinery Assistance Program. Still, Range was unable to produce a single gallon of cellulosic ethanol. In January 2011 it finally opened the factory and produced one 200-gallon run of methanol, which can't be used in cars, and then closed down. Dozens of people were put out of work and the job benefits promised to the region never materialized. By making that single run of methanol, however, Range was able to collect the last $26 million from DOE Capital, leaving the venture outfit holding the bag. DOE lost its entire investment -- but Range tried to make up for it by donating to DOE's favorite causes.

In 2011, DOE Capital took another flyer with a small California company that had developed an unusual technology for solar electricity. While most solar panels are flat and made of silicon, this company had invented a tube-shaped device lined with a thin film of rare earths that it claimed could collect reflected light off a white roof, improving conversion by 20 percent. The company had built a fabrication plant in Fremont and had begun production. Silicon prices dropped, however, and conventional panels began gaining the upper hand. It was at this point that DOE Capital decided to try to rescue the company, providing $535 million in loan guarantees. Its CEO made a special trip to Fremont to celebrate the deal.

DOE's supervision was lax, however, and the company immediately took advantage of the new money by building an entirely unnecessary new fabricating facility along with a lavish new corporate headquarters. The market was already moving in the opposite direction and a year later the company went bankrupt, putting 1,000 people out of work. Once again, DOE Capital lost its entire investment, although again the owners tried to compensate by donating to DOE's favorite causes.

Another DOE venture that went sour was Massachusetts startup Beacon Power. Beacon had developed a 2,800-pound cylindrical flywheel that spins at supersonic speed in order to store electricity for smoothing voltage irregularities on the electrical grid. DOE Capital liked the technology and invested $43 million. This time its COO traveled to Boston to make the presentation.

Beacon was able to build an innovative 20-megawatt storage facility connecting to the upstate New York grid but state regulations wouldn't allow it to collect higher rates for providing short-term emergency power. Beacon secured a contract to build a second facility in Pennsylvania but by the time the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission got around to changing the rules in Beacon's favor, the company was forced to declare bankruptcy. Beacon was able to auction its assets and for once DOE Capital retrieved some of its investment.

In short, DOE's record of building companies and creating jobs has been abysmal. Worst hurt have been its investors, who have watched hundreds of millions of dollars go down the drain.

The California company that spent its way into bankruptcy, of course, is Solyndra. DOE's full name is the U.S. Department of Energy. Its COO is Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and its CEO is President Barack Obama. DOE Capital's favorite cause is the president's re-election campaign. Its unfortunate investors are you, the American taxpayers.

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:09:00 -0400

Jon Kyl is the sort of public servant who should have been running for president this year. Instead, we'll just have to make do with some of his wisdom as the U.S. senator from Arizona enters the seven-month closing stretch of 26 years in Congress.

Kyl, the second ranking Republican in the Senate and always among the most conservative, is one of those rare breeds who seem to make no strong enemies even while holding firm to a consistent philosophy. A leader on issues ranging from defense policy (especially missile defense) to criminal justice to tax cuts, Kyl is inevitably among the most knowledgeable people in the room on any subject about which he speaks -- but he often willingly pushes others toward the spotlight if he thinks, tactically, that those others can best advance his cause.

I sought Kyl out on Tuesday, therefore, as a voice of conservative thoughtfulness who might have a good sense of where things stand politically right now for cause and country. His outlook wasn't bearish, but it was decidedly sobering.

"As a general proposition I think right now the president and the Senate are 50-50 propositions and the House is only slightly better than that," he said. "I think that, ironically, President Obama has a firmer fix on what this election is going to be about than a lot of Republicans do. He is clear that he wants to fight for the fundamental progressive agenda to totally change the direction of our country, and I don't think Republicans yet appreciate what a radical change that would be. But we are beginning to figure that out.

"Obama is perfectly happy to litigate this question of the power of government versus the power of freedom. He believes in the power of government. That is all he has ever known. He doesn't appreciate the private economic market and he sees his role as president as managing all of this rather than allowing the private sector to manage itself. And I think Mitt Romney has to take up that challenge because he is on the side of traditional America, the system that made us great and can continue to keep us on top, but he's got to be able to articulate that kind of view against Obama's vision of a government-centered country."

Well, then, I asked, are we on the Right making our case?

Kyl's blunt answer: "No. We are not very good at it."

Then, unbidden, Kyl continued: "One of the people best at it is Arthur Brooks [president of the American Enterprise Institute]. He says we tend to get mired down in statistics. We do. But [Brooks says] we need to talk in terms of the concept of fairness because that's the concept the liberals like to talk about."

As it happened, one day earlier I had attended a speech by Brooks at the Heritage Foundation, explaining just this idea, which he develops in full in his new book, The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise. "We have to make the moral case for free enterprise," Brooks said. "The economic case is unambiguous, and we've been getting all the words right about free enterprise -- but we've been missing the music…. We've talked about efficiency, when most people care about a better life."

Case in point: welfare reform [of Aid to Families with Dependent Children] in 1996. Conservatives yelled for years about how expensive welfare was. But until conservatives started talking about reform as actually being a better way to help the people who needed it, they didn't get very far. "The morality, not the materialism, changed that policy," Brooks said.

Anyway, Brooks went on from there to explain that the happiest people in America are those who have experienced "earned success," which he called the opposite of "learned helplessness." The American people, he said, citing various studies, still believe that "fairness" is a matter not just of equal results, but of appropriately rewarding those who have earned it.

That's exactly where Kyl picked up the thread, as thoroughly conversant with the theme as if he had memorized the speech he hadn't even attended: "The Left, really, has a very materialistic view. We need to do a much better job of articulating the whole point about free enterprise…. Romney and the Republicans better be prepared to defend the system on fairness grounds the very way Brooks articulates it."

He cited a Brooks story about a brother and a sister arguing about the last of four cookies. The brother said he should get it since the sister already had eaten two while he just had one.

"Yes, that's true," the sister said, quite reasonably, "but I was the one who bought the ingredients and baked them."

Said Kyl: "Shouldn't there be some reward for effort, achievement, creation, production, responsibility? Most people innately understand the difference between makers and takers. When you point out to them that over half of American people are receiving some kind of government assistance -- food stamps have absolutely skyrocketed; half of all people don't pay income taxes -- people can realize that this redistribution à la Obama isn't 'fair.' If you keep doing this, pretty soon, there's not enough for anybody."

Kyl then made a coherent case for solving the nation's economic problems through private-sector growth, not government spending; tax restraints rather than tax hikes; freedom rather than mandated behavior. Then:

"At the end of the day, where Obama wants to go is a very bad place from our perspective. People who haven't thought a lot about this can think, 'wait a minute, it can't be that bad.' So we've got to give real-life examples of things he has said and things he is trying to do, to make the point that yes, it could be that bad, things like rationing of health care under Medicare and Medicaid for example. A perpetual reduction in our standard of living, reflected in the fact that the government is taking so much out of our private sector that we are in danger of becoming like the European states. And he's reducing our influence in the world, so much that we are subject to the winds that blow rather than being in some sort of control over events that can harm us.

"I think it all gets down to the difference between liberty and opportunity on one side, and government power on the other side. The people in the middle are not 'moderates,' they are 'independents.' They do not like government; they don't like politicians, they do not like the power structure, but they do have core beliefs. I think Americans' core beliefs include a healthy dose of wanting to live their own lives the way they want to live it, not having the government control everything, I think we can appeal to that."

Coming from a man whose entire demeanor exudes common sense, competence and decency, the message is entirely believable and saleable.

One other point Kyl made is that Republicans "need to be prepared to talk a little more about foreign policy and defense policy than we are doing right now." If Israel attacks Iran; if some other crisis emerges, he said, we must be ready to offer leadership and show that we understand what's happening. And while defense savings can be achieved, he said, he warned strongly against "Draconian cuts" to the military.

In another nice coincidence, backing for that position came later that day from an unexpected source. In an otherwise off-the-record, high-minded, roundtable discussion with freshman U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Ayotte volunteered much the same idea, and said that advocating a strong defense isn't just good policy but good politics, too, even in her own state without major military bases. Mentioning Kyl's name, unprompted, among three senators she said who really understand these things, Ayotte said:

"I raise this at every town meeting…. People generally appreciate that the foremost issue of government is to keep the people safe…. This is something that resonates with my constituents: We are in a very real fiscal crisis, yet what are we putting in jeopardy first? The very people who put their lives on the line for us. My constituents understand that is not the best choice we can make."

Ayotte represents a decidedly "purple" or "swing" state, one with a Democratic governor for 14 of the past 16 tears -- yet she won her Senate seat, in her first-ever run for public office, by more than 22 points. Maybe she, and Kyl, is on to something.

But back to my interview with Kyl. "All that said," Kyl hastened to add after having brought up defense issues, "I still think we're talking about the economy first. The more people you have dependent on government, the less likely you are to be able to appeal to liberty and the more likely they [Liberals] are to win the argument. There is a tipping point. That's what you see in Greece."

Jon Kyl is a now 70 years old -- but such a young 70 that three years ago, in a small-group lunch that Vice President Dick Cheney hosted for conservative columnists just before leaving office, Cheney listed Kyl among four or five names (all the others were three decades Kyl's junior) he called "younger rising stars" of the Republican Party.

Conservatives, taking heed of that youthfulness, should yearn for Kyl not to leave the scene so quickly.

In a Class of His Own

Daniel J. Flynn — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:08:00 -0400

"We're pretty well stuck for life in the class we're raised in," Paul Fussell wrote in his 1983 book Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. Surely Fussell would have applauded Charles Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit character Montague Tigg, an amusing petty street chisler who morphs into Tigg Montague upon becoming an obnoxiously wealthy insurance swindler.

You can escape poverty. You can't escape yourself.

Paul Fussell died Wednesday at 88. The quickie obit initially posted by the New York Times failed to mention Class, perhaps an understandable omission given that the subject had authored and edited more than twenty books, earned two Purple Hearts during the Second World War, and taught at the University of Pennsylvania. He was even the villain of My Kitchen Wars, in which his author-exwife details bearing put-downs from her literary-figure husband as she pursued a writing career, entertaining patronizing professors as a faculty spouse, and catching her partner in marriage partnering with a student.

Hell hath no fury like a fiftysomething woman scorned for a twentysomething man.

Isn't the gutter decadence of the student-teacher liaison, and the ensuing poisoned-pen revenge, just so high society?

Paul Fussell didn't quite say that in Class. But he did say that "navy is the upper-middle-class color" and "purple is the prole equivalent." He instructs that "fishing in fresh water is classier than in salt." He informs, "Upper-middles like to show off their costly educations by naming their cats Spinoza, Clytemnestra, and Candide." He insists that young middle-class men say "no way" instead of "no."

According to Fussell, the curvature of one's driveway, the flowers displayed in the front hall, the proximity to a bowling alley, and the layering of one's clothes all advertise a person's public position. The pages even display drawings illustrating class physiognomy (delicate, pointy noses and squinty eyes for the upper crust; oversized facial features for the blue collars).

Class is one man's prejudices strung together to form a book. The randomness of its observations, such as the idea that there are nine classes in America, seemingly come out of nowhere. Fussell really didn't say anything therein save that he was proud of being a snob.

The boorish book even makes the reader long for Thorstein Veblen, whose Theory of the Leisure Class at least directed its venom at an exclusive club of the rich. The 1899 treatise excoriated duels, dead languages, walking sticks, estates, etiquette, and other pastimes and possessions of the wealthy the way Fussell went after gauche trucker hats and the bourgeois affinity for prominently displaying The Great Books of the Western World. Veblen's '80s-era imitator's equal-opportunity, cross-lineage-mocking demonstrated that snobs can be egalitarian, too.

One understands why a wealthy American would seek to construct a rigid hierarchy based on trivial matters of taste. The New World's greater economic fluidity than the Old World's made wealth a poor barometer on which to gauge one's social status. Surely the masses couldn't look upon the likes of Kim Kardashian, Mark Cuban, and Paris Hilton as their betters?

More puzzling is why this wealthy American would seek to construct a rigid hierarchy based on trivial matters of taste. Fussell, despite leaving the world this truly terrible book, entered it without having to accomplish much to be considered a success. Yet, he valiantly fought the Nazis in Alsace. He earned a Ph.D. from Harvard. And he transcended the babbling academic ghetto to write the accessible 1975 commercial and critical success, The Great War and Modern Memory. His admirable achievements, rather than his affluent origins, could have served as a reminder of his apartness from the mob.

Alas, where he came from, rather what he did, defined Paul Fussell. He at least fit his Class narrative.

Paul Fussell has now moved on up to that great classless society in the sky. Heaven must be a hell for the status-obsessed scribe.

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:07:00 -0400

Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
By Robert Spencer
(ISI Books, 254 pages, $27.95)

Go to a high-street or online bookstore, and one can find numerous biographies written about Muhammad -- the reputed founder of Islam -- by the likes of Karen Armstrong and Tariq Ramadan. These works -- generally apologetic in nature -- wholly rely on the traditional Islamic accounts of the Prophet's life, and if they ever delve into the question of the reliability of those sources, it is only in the hope of explaining away incidents in Muhammad's life that might come across as unsavory to modern readers.

Such an approach, however, simply will not do for genuine historical research. One cannot adopt a pick-and-mix method to determining what aspects of Muhammad's life actually occurred on moralistic grounds. It is in this respect that Robert Spencer's latest book differs from the writings of Armstrong and Ramadan.

Without indulging in polemics or pushing a partisan political agenda, the author simply investigates the question of whether we can really trust the traditional Islamic accounts for the life of Muhammad and the supposed early days of Islam during the Arab conquests.

To be sure, serious scholarship on Islamic historiography dates back to the latter half of the 19th century -- with the works of the Belgian Jesuit Henri Lammens and the acclaimed Geschichte des Qorans by Theodor Noldeke, to name just two pioneers of the field -- and Spencer makes no pretense to originality.

Yet a traditional problem with Islamic historiography has been the intended audience: that is, the academic specialist assumed to have extensive background knowledge, rather than the general reader. Thus, Spencer's book serves a useful purpose, for it flows nicely while providing the reader with a firm grounding for delving deeper into the subject. Indeed, the author provides a handy "Further Reading List" (pp. 239-40) for anyone interested in consulting specialist works. Spencer also deserves credit for integrating his sources nicely into his writing, avoiding the practice of simply quoting verbatim large chunks from other authors.

SO WHAT ARE THE MAIN arguments against the historicity of the traditional Islamic accounts of Muhammad's life and the subsequent rise of Islam through the Arab conquests?

To begin with, contemporary non-Muslim sources of the 7th century do not corroborate the canonical story. For example, the Doctrina Jacobi (a document dating to 634-40 CE and probably written by a Christian living in Palestine; p. 20), an account of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Sophronius -- the patriarch who is said to have surrendered the city in 637 -- and a letter written in 647 by the patriarch of Seleucia make no reference to the Arab conquerors as Muslims, or show any awareness of a religion called Islam.

The earliest account that can reliably be taken to refer to Muhammad is a chronicle by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, dating either to the 660s or 670s but containing material that sharply diverges from the traditional Islamic accounts: thus he has Muhammad "insisting on the Jews' right to the Holy Land -- even if in the context of claiming that land for the Ishmaelites, acting in conjunction with the Jews" (p. 32).

Only by around 730 CE, nearly one hundred years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE according to the canonical story, do we see an account by John of Damascus make detailed reference to parts of the Qur'an, but even then he does not name the Qur'an or allude to the existence of a complete holy book for those he calls "Hagarians," "Ishmaelites" or "Saracens" (but not Muslims).

Instead, we have reference to Qur'anic chapter titles like "The Women" (this is the fourth Sura of the Qur'an today), implying that he was drawing on fragments of text that were later incorporated into the Qur'an.

Arabic epigraphic evidence from the 7th century similarly fails to validate the canonical account. An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph -- Muawiya -- in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Qur'an as revealed scripture.

On coins from this period, we do find the word "Muhammad" inscribed, but curiously the inscription comes under kingly figures bearing a cross, a symbol of Christianity that is totally antithetical to traditional Islam (pp. 43-4).

Bearing in mind that "Muhammad" can also mean "the chosen/praised one," the coins could well be conveying the idea that the ruler is praised or chosen in God's name (p. 45). Alternatively, they could be referring to Jesus -- at a time when the religion of the Arab conquerors was still a vague monotheism -- or a proto-Muhammad figure still very much unlike the man depicted in the traditional accounts of his life. Even the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock -- completed in 691 CE and often thought to be the first elaborations on traditional Islamic theology -- could be referring to Jesus, explaining how he ("Muhammad") is a mere messenger and not divine as orthodox Christianity held (pp. 56-7).

IT IS ONLY TOWARDS the middle of the 8th century (735 CE onwards) that we begin to see very clear epigraphic evidence referring to Muhammad as we know him from the Ahadith (plural of hadith) and Sira (pp. 61-2). This observation leads nicely to an examination of the reliability of biographical material from the Ahadith and Sira concerning the sunna (i.e. example) of Muhammad. The centrality of the Ahadith and Sira in interpreting various Qur'anic verses, whose meaning would otherwise be entirely obscure, cannot be overstated.

However, as Spencer points out, it is notable that the invocation of Muhammad's example begins with the same caliph who had the Dome of the Rock built and issued the first coins invoking Muhammad as the Prophet of God: Abd al-Malik (p. 69), whose successors would do likewise.

Since Muhammad now became such an important figure as a paragon of moral virtue, there naturally arose a need for people to know what the Prophet said and did in various matters of life. The Ahadith in particular then became political weapons, liable to be completely fabricated. Even in the first half of the 8th century, one Islamic scholar wrote that the "emirs forced people to write hadiths" (p. 71).

Factionalism is an especially noteworthy phenomenon here behind the invention of Ahadith.

For example, in the midst of the dispute between the followers of the caliph Muawiya, who Shi'a believe usurped the place of Ali's son and designated successor Husayn, and Ali's followers who would later become the Shi'a, a hadith arose in which Muhammad declared that Ali's father was burning in hellfire (p. 73), while Ali's partisans invented a hadith in which Muhammad declared, "I go to war for the recognition of the Qur'an and Ali will fight for the interpretation of the Qur'an."

It is little surprise that in light of all these disputes, the Ahadith are riddled with contradictions.

To be sure, Muslim scholars did try to devise criteria by which to separate forgeries from Ahadith they deemed to be authentic: for instance, how well a hadith is in accordance with the Qur'an. Yet however reasonable such a criterion may be, "it doesn't get us any closer to what Muhammad actually said and did" (p. 81).

Another devised standard was the supposed reliability of an isnad (chain of oral transmission from the Prophet to the narrator), but this is even more dubious.

While Arabia may well have had "an established practice of memorizing poetry" (p. 84), the Ahadith are not pieces of poetry, and in any event must have been plagued by "embellishment, clarification, or alteration of any kind until the hadiths were finally collected and written down in the ninth century" (p. 85).

In fact, I would add that even if we suppose that we are dealing with poetry in an oral culture, it is erroneous to think that oral poets can transmit verses with perfect recall, word-for-word. Oral poetry is constantly subject to reworking and improvisation.

Hence, for example, the Iliad and the Odyssey were certainly not transmitted through generations of oral poets until they were finally written down. Rather, we understand each of these epics to be the work of a single poet, who would have picked up numerous "formulaic phrases" and stories and then improvised and reworked his material numerous times, while striving for an artistic structure.

In all probability, the poet had his work dictated to a scribe. If the Iliad and Odyssey were subsequently memorized wholesale by bards, the bards were working from written texts, not via oral transmission of the poems.

If the Ahadith cannot be taken as a reliable guide to what Muhammad said and did, then what are we to make of Ibn Ishaq's Sira? It is often noted that Ibn Ishaq's biography, which does not in fact survive intact and is only partially preserved by later transmitters, dates over 100 years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE. Tradition tells of earlier historians, but their purported works have not survived and little is known about their lives.

That Ishaq's work dates so long after the time in which Muhammad supposedly lived is not proof of the Sira's unreliability, but the fact is that Ibn Ishaq would undoubtedly have been working from oral material that would have been embellished and fabricated.

Many of the stories transmitted by Ibn Ishaq would have been tailored to convince the audience that Muhammad was a prophet of God, hence tales of Christians already recognizing him as a prophet in his youth before his prophetic career began (p. 96).

NOW COMES A CRUCIAL PART of the book. One of the key reasons many critics of Islam think that the traditional accounts of Muhammad's life are rooted in historical reality is the argument from embarrassment: that is, Muhammad is presented as doing things that might be deemed abhorrent to pious sensibilities. Ibn Hisham states that his own transmission of Ibn Ishaq's work omits "things which it is disgraceful to discuss" (p. 88).

Even in the traditional accounts, there are still events recounted that have embarrassed Muslim apologists of the modern era: perhaps most notably, Muhammad's marriage to his daughter-in-law Zaynab.

Yet as Spencer notes, "what constitutes a negative depiction is not necessarily constant from age to age and culture to culture" (p. 111). This is certainly true, for example, of the tradition that Aisha married Muhammad when she was six and consummated the marriage with him when she was nine: no one in the traditional accounts is shown having a problem with this betrothal (p. 112).

In any case, Spencer shows that the Zaynab incident is likely to have been a much later invention to explain the fact that there is an apparent doctrine in the Qur'an of a "prophetic bloodline": that is, "the prophetic office is handed down from father to son" (p. 115).

Since Muhammad is regarded as the final prophet, it had to be emphasized that he did not have any sons -- biological or adopted -- who reached puberty. Thus, the status of Zayd as Muhammad's adopted son had to be marginalized, hence the attendant Qur'anic doctrine delegitimizing adoption (Qur'an 33:4) and the emphasis that "Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men" (Qur'an 33:40).

Nevertheless, if the Sira and Ahadith are unreliable, the question arises of where the Qur'an came from. A superficial reading -- noting the consistent message of uncompromising monotheism -- might suggest that the book is the work of a single author.

On closer examination, however, there are good grounds to hypothesize that the Qur'an developed over the 7th and 8th centuries in the religious and cultural milieu of the Arab conquests, rather than just within Arabia itself during Muhammad's purported lifetime (570-632 CE).

For one thing, the Qur'an displays a lack of careful organization: frequently there is an abrupt shift in subject matter and grammatical persons, suggesting at the minimum a rather clumsy process of redaction.

Islamic tradition itself hints at early losses of parts of the Qur'an, with one hadith as follows: "Let none of you say, 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an.' How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say, 'I have acquired what has survived'" (p. 137).

Also of interest here is the Qur'an's repeated emphasis that it is a work of "pure" Arabic. This could only be in response to claims that the Qur'an was not wholly Arabic. Indeed, there is evidence of a substantial non-Arabic substrate, as evinced by numerous loan words in both religious and cultural vocabulary. Even the word for God -- Allah -- is thought to derive from Syriac (p. 156). What follows in Spencer's book is a nicely summarized exposition of the arguments of recent scholars like Christoph Luxenberg who have theorized that the Qur'an was originally -- at least in part -- a Syriac Christian liturgical text. This hypothesis does explain many of the linguistic obscurities of the Qur'an.

I am still unsure what to make of this theory, but even if we suppose a text wholly derived from Arabic oral traditions, the canonical accounts of the Qur'an's origins are not vindicated, for reasons outlined above in this review as regards oral transmission and poetry.

In light of this research vis-à-vis the Qur'an, taken together with the fact that the conquered peoples had no idea of the existence of a Muslim holy book in the mid-7th century, it seems unlikely that the third caliph -- Uthman (579-656 CE) -- was responsible for the compilation and distribution of the Qur'an as we know it today, despite the claims of Muslim orthodoxy.

There are reputed Qur'anic manuscripts dating back to the 7th century, but since they lack the diacritical marks that are integral to the Arabic alphabet, we cannot tell whether they were written as the Qur'an in the first place, or separate documents later adapted as part of the Qur'an (p. 192). There is also no complete Qur'an dating from the first century of the Arab conquests.

Moreover, it is possible that the Qur'an's second and longest sura (chapter) was originally a separate book. As late as 730 CE, John of Damascus referred to the "text of the Cow" (p. 196: "The Cow" being the name of the Qur'an's second sura), implying it was a separate text, which in turn suggests that the Qur'an "was not yet fixed in its present form" even towards the mid-8th century (p. 197). It was noted earlier that the first caliph to invoke Muhammad as a messenger of God was Abd al-Malik.

Thus, "from the historical records available to us, it makes sense that the Qur'an was not collected until Abd al-Malik's reign" (p. 197), as part of a collaborative effort between Abd al-Malik and Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, the governor of Iraq (661-714 CE). The work of Hajjaj in collecting the Qur'an is in fact attested in many Ahadith. The compilation was then traced back to Uthman in an attempt to give the project an authentic feel.

From all these findings, the most plausible conclusion to draw is that Islam as we know it emerged over a protracted period between the 7th and 8th centuries, developed in such a way as to (i) unify the vast empire created by the Arab conquests that conquered a vast amount of territory (stretching from Spain to Sindh by 750 CE) and (ii) justify the expansionism.

This "imperial theology" (to borrow Spencer's term; p. 208) was based on a monotheism that perhaps was more tolerant towards Judaism and Christianity in its very early days (hence Qur'anic verses such as 2:62 that include Jews, Christians and Sabaeans in the fold of salvation; p. 209). Yet from the end of the 7th century onwards, Islam takes on a much more distinct identity, with a separate prophet and holy book, supplanting Judaism and Christianity.

SPENCER'S EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGINS and development of early Islam is significantly corroborated by analogy with the rise of the Roman imperial cult after Augustus' creation of the Principate.

Needing to hold the Roman state together with concentration of power in his hands, he made much of the reputed divine descent of his family line (the Julian line), and commissioned Virgil to write an epic celebrating the founding of the Roman race by his supposed ancestor Aeneas. In the same way, we have Muhammad as the founder of Islam and the Muslim ummah. For the first time, we see a coherent and emphatic articulation of an expansionist outlook:

tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (hae tibi erunt artes), pacique imponere morem, parcere subiectis et debellare superbos

Remember, Roman, to rule the peoples with your power (these will be your skills), to impose mos on peace, to spare the subdued and war down the proud' -- Aeneid 6.851-3.

Here we have ideas that closely parallel Islamic expansionism in the concept of jihad, as articulated in the classical theology that developed from Muhammad's life and example as a warrior prophet: the notion of establishing peace through warfare and bringing civilization to the subdued.

Though the above lines are instructions from Aeneas' father Anchises to the hero, they have the force of emphasizing the Romans' destiny. The divine mandate to rule the world is corroborated by the chief god Jupiter's famous saying: "imperium sine fine dedi" ('I have given empire without end' -- Aeneid 1.279). Like Mohammed, Aeneas engages in fierce warfare, becoming master of Latium in central Italy.

While the Aeneid's borrowings from earlier epics are apparent, the text also drew on the value system promoted by Augustus and his inner circle (in particular Maecenas) that drew on Stoicism. Thus, the poem had a paradigmatic function, becoming a virtual school-text for Roman boys, and Aeneas himself soon became an idealized figure in the same way that Muhammad came to be seen as a moral paragon among Muslims.

The point of this comparison is not to say that the Arab conquerors borrowed ideas of expansionism and the like from the Romans (they didn't), but rather that Spencer's explanation of the rise of Islam should not be implausible from a historical perspective. It is therefore hardly shocking that Islam was bound with politics from the beginning (p. 214).

As for the question of Muhammad's existence, Spencer gives a concise answer to round off his book: "the full truth of whether a prophet named Muhammad lived in seventh-century Arabia, and if he did, what sort of a man he was, may never be known" (p. 216), but for too long, the topic of Islamic historiography has been confined to highly specialized academia, with the growing problem of Islamist intimidation.

Thus, an accessible primer on the subject as we have here is most welcome. In addition, the project of translating this book into Arabic is to be commended.

In the years to come, it would be good to see Spencer's book prescribed as introductory reading for courses on Islam in schools and universities. I myself have taken the step of donating his book to Brasenose College's library, and hope that others will similarly distribute the work upon reading it.

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:07:00 -0400

Tests of a nation's honor have a way of coming out of left field.

A Pakistani surgeon and senior medical administrator, Dr. Shakil Afridi, who apparently helped the CIA in finding Bin Laden, has been sentenced by a Pakistani tribal court to 33 years imprisonment for this crime, and fined 320,000 rupees.

He had worked for many years as a doctor in Pakistan's lawless tribal area. (The Afridis are reputed to be among the most ferocious of the Pathan tribes, with an explosive sense of personal honor. An Afridi flag carries pictures of a Lee-Enfield Rifle, and an AK-47, their most beloved weapons.) It is alleged that he obtained DNA samples from Bin Laden for the CIA under cover of a vaccination program.

Dr Shakil Afridi was not present in the tribal court and was not given a chance to defend himself.

It is a statement so obvious as to be hardly worth making that playing a part in bringing one of the worst mass-murderers in history to book, if true, should be a matter of reward, rather than a Draconian punishment which if it is carried out must mean a completely ruined life.

He is to serve the sentence in the Peshawar Central Jail. This is not a pleasant place at the best of times and his life in prison will plainly be at extreme risk from the Taliban and al Qaeda, who regard Bin Laden as a super-hero, in a culture steeped in traditions of blood-feuds and vengeance.

It has been suggested that the sentence is in retaliation for a supposed snub by President Obama to the Pakistani President and that it has the specific purpose of humiliating the U.S.

We do not know Dr. Shakil Afridi's motives, or how much truth there is in the accusation, but it is equally obvious that his action, if correctly reported, was done in the interests of a country that is officially an ally of Pakistan. Pakistan, of course, receives a great deal of U.S. and other Western aid. He did nothing to damage Pakistan's interests -- rather, he did what the Pakistani government should have been happy to do itself.

A resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council after 9/11 required member states to assist in bringing Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network to justice.

The alleged charge is treason, though Dr. Shakil Afridi aided no enemies of Pakistan unless the U.S. is considered an enemy. He has simply given aid to the fight against international terrorism. Although tried under Pakistani tribal law, Dr. Shakil Afridi's "crime" was not even committed in Pakistani tribal territory. The sentencing court had no valid jurisdiction in the matter. Bin Laden himself -- assuming this is a consideration - was not even a Pakistani: He was born in Saudi Arabia and was ethnically a Yemeni.

The question is: what is the U.S. going to do about it?

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has called the sentence a "real mistake," a comment that seems somewhat feeble.

It is to be hoped that the U.S. is exerting stronger diplomatic pressure behind the scenes to have Dr. Shakil Afridi released and that he will be allowed to live in the U.S. If it fails to give him real help, the demonstration effect on America's friends and allies in the Muslim World (assuming Obama's diplomacy has left it with any), and indeed elsewhere, will be catastrophic. Further, in addition to both diplomatic and humanitarian considerations, U.S. honor is plainly at stake.

The case brings to mind the Don Pacifico incident of the 19th century.

Don Pacifico was a Portuguese Jew living in Greece whose business in Athens was destroyed by a mob of anti-Semitic rioters -- including the sons of a Greek government minister -- in 1847. The Greek police either did nothing or actively supported the riot.

Don Pacifico applied to the Greek government for compensation and was told, in effect, to get lost. Don Pacifico was plainly one of the little people who are ground like insects under the wheels of international politics. The fact he was a Jew probably did not increase sympathy for him.

But one little point of law had been overlooked when the Greek government threw out his claim: Don Pacifico had been born in Gibraltar and was therefore a British subject.

One morning shortly afterwards, the good citizens of Piraeus, the port for Athens, awoke to find their view of the sea had been embellished by the addition of a squadron of British battleships.

They blockaded the port for two months, until the Greek government had second thoughts and decided Don Pacifico had a case for compensation after all.

British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston said in Parliament: "As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say, Civis Romanus sum [I am a Roman citizen], so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong."

The parallel is not exact -- Dr. Shakil Afridi is obviously not an American citizen -- and what to do in this case is not quite so obvious, but the principle at stake is the same.

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:07:00 -0400

There’s a uniquely American ritual that has so far escaped the attention of cultural anthropologists. A group of people huddle, near a water cooler perhaps. One of them lowers his head, looks nervously from side to side, and then begins to speak softly, so that no one else might hear.

You’ve caught him in the act of perpetrating a joke.

This isn’t exactly the golden age of humor, as Rush Limbaugh discovered. For which our morality police will breathe a sigh of relief. They don’t have to worry about an edgy Saturday Night Live (“Jane, you ignorant slut!”) or National Lampoon. In fact, they don’t much have to worry about laughter at all, since there isn’t a lot of it. Laughter is dangerous, you see, because in every joke there’s a butt, someone at whom we laugh. Otherwise, it’s not funny.

That’s precisely the problem, however. Our laughter tells the butt that he’s a fool, a chump, a hypocrite. In short, he’s ridiculous. That’s a useful message, since our laughter tells the butt to shape up. Poor sap, he should thank us. Not that that’s likely, since there’s nothing more humiliating than ridicule.

That explains the death of laughter, since it collides with its arch-foe, the modern duty of respect. We used to think that social justice was all about economic needs, but now we’ve got a stronger safety net and it’s about banning expressions of disrespect. Gay marriage, the “war on women.” It’s all about feelings.

By the way, have you ever noticed that the modern definition of “social” is “not”? Social science is not science. Social work is not work. Social justice is not justice.

Forgive me, but I’m rather short on socially approved feelings these days. I don’t like being told that conservative views “disrespect” the whiners, and mostly I’m simply not interested in their complaints. I’m the last person I know who supports “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” You’re in a wonderful relationship? Fine. I just don’t want to know about it. It may well be the most faaabulous thing in your life at the moment, the only thing you want to talk about, but at best you’ve committed the unpardonable sin of becoming a bore. At worst, you’re passive-aggressive, and are churlishly claiming a right to my expression of respect. Either way, I’m defriending you.

Too many Americans today are, like Jefferson’s cousin, John Randolph of Roanoke, “born without a skin.” Every snub is magnified a hundredfold, and burns like fire on their souls. The easy grace that permits the strong man to laugh off a jest has been replaced by a touchiness that feels a slight from ten feet away. The difference is that, unlike Randolph, we’ve replaced the duel with the petition: “We, the undersigned, are outraged that…”

We, the undersigned, are pretty much outraged all the time, in case you haven’t noticed. Which is another reason for the death of laughter. So little time, so much to hate. In George Orwell’s 1984, every citizen was required to participate in a daily two minute hate-in. They were shown a film of Enemies of the People and required to express their hatred for 120 seconds. They got off easy. If MSNBC had only two minutes to get the hate in, they’d have nothing much left to broadcast for the remainder of their time.

Which brings us back to Limbaugh. In case you’ve been living on Mars, Rush said a Bad Word on February 29, and there’s been Hell to pay ever since. A lady called Sandra Fluke (rhymes with…oh, never mind) complained before an agitprop Democratic committee about Georgetown Law School’s policy of not providing insurance coverage for contraceptive pills. She said that a prescription cost $1,000 a year. Actually, it’s closer to $100, and Rush wondered what the extra money was all about. And so he used That Word, causing 300 million hearts to go all-aflutter.

Georgetown is a Jesuit university, and from this some might have concluded that it was a Catholic institution. If so, one might have wondered what Ms. Fluke expected when she got there. What she expected, she said, was that Georgetown would live up to the Jesuit creed, as enlightened people understand it, and Georgetown seemed eager to oblige her. The university’s president, John DeGioia, hastened to condemn Limbaugh for the disrespect he had displayed to a Georgetown student.

One reads that her parents are proud of her. That’s not surprising. After all, they were responding to President Obama’s demands, for he had telephoned their daughter to say that her parents ought to be proud of her. How their hearts must swell at the fame and respect she has brought to the name Fluke, which will live forevermore as a symbol of…something or other.

The entire episode was shame-making, but not because of some fictitious war on women. Rather, it revealed the essential triviality of modern politics. The economy is tanking, a fifth of Americans are out of work, the public debt load is wholly unsustainable, and what we want to know is whether Obama will come out publicly in favor of gay marriage. The Iranians are about to get the bomb, the Arab spring has turned to winter, we’re embroiled in an Afghani quagmire, but the real question is whether Rush’s advertisers will dump him.

So far they’re hanging in, for the most part, because Rush still commands what appears to be the largest audience in American radio. His listeners like his politics, of course, but that’s not the only story. Rush is also a humorist of a particularly American type, the teller of tall tales, the man behind the golden microphone, the orator who invites you to laugh with him at his exaggerations. He also offers an astute analysis of American politics, but sensible policy advice doesn’t make for an audience said to be of 20 million people a week. He is, above all, an entertainer, and entertainers sometimes tell bad jokes, especially if asked to perform for upward of 600 hours a year, for more than 20 years.

That’s not good enough for people on the left, and it’s also not good enough for the many people on the right who joined in the opportunistic show of hypocritical outrage. The latter are an interesting group. Some are prigs, of course, who are shocked, just shocked, when Foster Friess tells a joke about aspirin pills as a form of birth control. Others are what the French call vendus, the sell-outs who owe their celebrity solely to their willingness to dump on their colleagues on the right. For the banal Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, the Fluke episode was a godsend, since it permitted her to move on from the awfulness of Sarah Palin, volume CXI. Am I the only one who misses CNN’s Parker-Spitzer? She was Little Nell, and like Oscar Wilde one had to have a heart of stone not to giggle at her stunned befuddlement, a vapid grin fixed on her immobile face, when teamed up with motormouth Eliot Spitzer. (But then who could have handled Spitzer? Oh yes, Sarah Palin.)

Finally, there’s a third group: the conservative who yearns for left-wing approbation. I am so reasonable, my facts so irrefutable, my conclusions so logical. How can you deny me respect, Keith Olbermann? That’s an intellectual failing, of course, one of high silliness, but it’s also a moral failing. It’s an example of the narcissism at the heart of the ethic of respect.

You know what one should do with all such people? Laugh at them.

Terrorism à la Carte

George H. Wittman — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:06:00 -0400

For any terrorist group, the ability to project destructive power is more important than the power itself. Having a large quantity of explosive, chemical or biological material that can be used only in a limited target geography may be useful for attacking that locale -- but to be able to use destructive devices on a broad international basis, however, establishes the terrorist group as a "player" in global political terms.

This is not merely a matter of organizational egotism: It corresponds to the terrorists' ambition to be recognized as representing an important ideological concept. Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden had that characteristic. Somali-based Al Shabaab does not. The result is different only in the scope of the two organizations' transnational terror activities and thus the perception of danger as viewed by the world community. Al Qaeda is now as widely known around the world as the Mafia. Al Shabaab has that distinction only in its own region.

Such definition is not academic but rather an operational factor. Al Shabaab has the potential of reaching out to black Americans, but so far there has been limited evidence of this happening. Some African-American dissidents have sought to associate their ambitions as a fraternal outreach to their self-proclaimed Somali cousins. Al Shabaab is not a centrally directed organization and has at least three principal leadership groupings. Outreach is limited by these divisions.

Although there is a growing community of former Somali fighters now residing in Yemen, al Shabaab's activities beyond the borders of Somalia are restricted to eastern Africa. Its external support structure depends heavily on financial infusions funneled by members of the Somali diaspora through Nairobi and other centers in East Africa as well as regular transfers from Yemen. This is along with their traditional income from piracy, hostage-taking, and thievery. The Nigerian Islamic terror organization, Boko Haram, initially was said to have an al Shabaab connection, but so far that has not proven to be the case.

The Islamic terrorist mechanism with the smallest base yet the broadest ambitions is al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Embedded in the Yemeni community, AQAP has developed assets stretching from the Gulf monarchies to contacts in Europe. Uniquely, it is said to boast various participants who held original enlistments in bin Laden's al Qaeda who administer secret training facilities -- recently a major target of Yemeni special forces. AQAP's best known member currently is the "scientist" Ibrahim Hassan al Asiri, the man credited with creating the "underwear bomb" and other exotic devices including recent ventures into cyberwarfare. One of the best known al Qaeda operatives, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al Quso, was killed in a drone attack on May 6 in Yemen.

It is interesting that what would appear to be an otherwise limited parochial terror affiliate of al Qaeda has assumed this broader international role. The explanation seems to lie in the technically sophisticated personnel hiding out in Yemen along with Saudi AQ fighters on the run. Counteraction by the Americans, British, and Saudis of course has centered on eliminating the talent base, while Yemeni Army units attack defended al Qaeda and anti-government positions in the south.

While Pakistan still harbors many former al Qaeda veterans, other than very small groups and individuals with tribal relationships still in Afghanistan, most of these are monitored by ISI's internal surveillance. Pakistan is now more of a retirement center for actual al Qaeda "made members" than an operational hub. Nonetheless, the country remains a principal training, recruiting and financial source for other Islamic terrorists.

The name al Qaeda has had a value strictly by association with its already established deeds and reputation. By affixing "al Qaeda" to its name, any terror organization seeks to have the ability to project an image of sophistication simply through that presumed association. This is more or less the background of what is referred to as al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM). One would have thought that an organization of that name would at least have had a recognizable role not only in the anti-Qaddafi Libyan civil war, but also to some degree throughout the experience of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Morocco. Various explanations have been offered, but the fact remains AQIM is not credited with any substantial participation.

Another factor of particular importance is the automatic assumption that terror organizations with Middle East or South Asian connections actually have a strong Islamic commitment. In practical terms loyalty to Islam is an initial requirement for membership in an "Islamic" terror group, but it is not the degree of piousness that is the determinant of leadership within that group. In fact, as Bernard Lewis has written in The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, "The first primal and indelible mark of identity is race."

In the Islamic world "race" is often interpreted in different ways: Tribe, clan, family are often seen as the basis for the term. Ethnicity in the Maghreb, for example, has a great deal to do with skin color and thus the varying degree of genes inherited from the several ancient sub-Sahara and European invasions. Islamic religion may tend to unite the many groupings, but the separate identities remain within and often express themselves by creating competitive components. Sunni and Shia belief systems are only the beginning.

While limiting this commentary to some of the Islamic-related terror organizations, it is important to remember: "Terrorism is the principal military weapon of a wide variety of organizations with greatly differing characteristics," as Graham Benton wrote in 1984 pointing to the contrasts and similarities among the Uruguayan Tuparamos, the PLO, the IRA, the Red Brigades and the Basque ETA. At that time only the Palestinian group had any Islamic connections, and those were tangential. In today's world the emphasis is on Islam and the terror groups associated with it. Terrorism, terrorist acts and terrorists, however, are not limited by today's preoccupation.

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:05:00 -0400

OMG! If you go to see just one documentary in your recreational career -- one solitary measly foray into film as real life -- I have just the ticket. It is playing right now in Miami on a limited run and it is a sin to miss. If you live elsewhere pound on the doors of the local theater until they screen this gem. It is Follow Me: The Yoni Netanyahu Story.

Yes, quite that good without exaggeration. Your heart, your soul, your mind and your gut will be doing cartwheels and the bucket you empty of popcorn will be filled with hot tears.

Yonatan "Yoni" Netanyahu, late brother of the sitting Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, grew up as one of three sons of the recently deceased historian, Benzion Netanyahu. Benjamin in Hebrew means Son-of-the-Right, although the many Israelis who named their sons that were not choosing a political side, they were honoring the memory of Theodore Herzl, whose Hebrew name was Benjamin Zeev.

Yonatan in turn means "God gave," implying a special gift to the generation, and the son of King Saul who first owned the name was a hero who won battles when vastly outnumbered, an unselfish person who put his friendship with David ahead of his own profit and a martyr who was killed in battle by the Philistines. It is hard to imagine a more apropos appellation for this remarkable young man.

Young Israelis are still familiar with Yoni's story, less because of his military valor than because of his posthumously published diary and letters, which have enjoyed a wide popularity.

The Netanyahus were a traditional family who observed Jewish holidays, not religious but not anti-religious. This enabled them -- similar to Menachem Begin and his children -- to have rare crossover appeal in Israel. For example, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not Orthodox but is married to an Orthodox wife. The only other public figure to pull that off was Natan Sharansky. As a result, Israelis across the political and religious spectrum can appreciate Yoni's letters. I recently heard a rabbi speak of how inspired he was by Yoni writing that he hoped at the end of his life to be able to account for every moment as well-spent.

The documentary combines readings from the letters with the story of the buildup to the raid at the airport in Entebbe, Uganda. Interspersed in there are interviews with friends, with an ex-girlfriend and an ex-wife, and a sketch of the high points of his biography. Amazingly, his father was still alive and lucid at age 100 during the filming two years ago, and his recall is razor-sharp.

We follow his life from early childhood in Israel to teenage years in Philadelphia, where his father assumed a professorship. Eventually the family all made their way back to Israel but he was the first. Along the way he spent a year doing a fellowship at Harvard. He had an inkling of devoting himself to scholarship like his father but he would not allow himself to shirk the call of duty. Before heading to the battlefield in 1967 he wrote: "Let it not be said that after thousands of years we Jews finally managed to reclaim our own land but we could not hold it for longer than twenty years."

He was injured in that war but he would not allow his damaged hand to keep him out of the fray. He eventually came to command one of the most elite units, many of its missions comprised of secret sorties into enemy territory. He lived a quiet unassuming life as a hero, and he died heroically in one of the most daring escapades in modern military history.

Yoni commanded the team that landed in Entebbe, surprised the Ugandan army by driving a Mercedes similar to Idi Amin's and eventually rescued 96 hostages, flying them back to Israel without injury. The only casualty was the head of the team, a leader who showed great confidence in his men; that confidence was rewarded by their completing their mission without a hitch.

The experience of seeing this film is astonishing, a multi-layered jamboree of the emotions. The liberal critics are panning it, because their bitter hearts and their shrunken souls are offended by its message. It reminds us that greatness is still possible, that loyalty is still a virtue and that history can only be advanced by those who are willing to give their lives. If I was you, I would give 87 minutes of yours; it will be time well spent.

We Have To Do Something

Ben Stein — Thu, 24 May 2012 08:42:00 -0400

Saturday
A tiring day indeed. I flew in from Jacksonville, Florida, last night, took a car to Santa Clara, California, and checked into a spartan but perfectly fine Hilton. This morning, I spoke to and with my pal Ray Lucia and his friends about the economy.

The economy is getting to be a depressing subject. This is a feeble recovery indeed, and I would not be at all surprised to see either flat growth or negative "growth" in 2012.

Basically, this recession has been going on since 2008. This is a uniquely long postwar recession. A mood of discouragement is settling in around the nation, as far as I can tell.

Just for me, I see no way around a major league default by the U.S. Treasury at some future date. I do not know when. But the debt is so large and growing so fast that we simply cannot pay it off without wrenching changes in entitlements and taxes. Is the nation ready for such changes? We had better be. Otherwise, if we get to default, it will not be pretty.

After the speech, I went up to San Mateo to visit my dear pals, Al and Sally Burton and their lovely daughter, Jenny. Al and Sally have been incredibly encouraging, supportive friends since 1975. They are more than friends. They are saints. Truly saints. Among many other kindnesses, Al invented "Win Ben Stein's Money." It was life changing. As I said, they are saints.

Then, I went to SFO to get my Virgin America flight to LAX. What a shock! The terminal for Virgin and for American has been totally redone. It is spacious, light, enticing, with bewitching restaurants and shops. The Admirals' Club is as open and bright and welcoming as any space I have ever been in. It was a miracle of design.

The terminal where the Virgin flight took off was as welcoming as most waiting areas are barren and gloomy. A charming check in agent talked to me as if I were person, not a superannuated number.

The flight itself had lush leather appointments and smoked glass and a space age purple light. The seats were roomy and firm. It was the best looking airplane I have ever been on.

What geniuses designed this terminal? What geniuses designed this airplane's interior?

What a difference actually giving a damn about one's passengers can mean.

Wednesday
I am out here in this very hot desert in Rancho Mirage. The news about the economy continues to worsen. "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" Not for most of us. For most of us, Mr. Obama has added about many thousands per person of national debt. The unemployment rate is still horrific. We have a crumbling stock market and a moribund real estate market. As I said above, the national mood is awful.

Naturally, I have a few ideas, which I am putting together as "A Positive Program for a Lasting Recovery." Borrowing lavishly from my father and others, I have three preliminary ideas:

1.) Taxation to produce a budget balanced over the business cycle. Taxes cut automatically when unemployment reaches uncomfortable levels. That would yield a deficit and government spending to stimulate demand. Taxes raised to create a surplus when (and if) there is ever a frothy recovery. That would take money out of the system and retard demand. And taxes unchanged in (what we used to think was) normal prosperity. This is the full employment budgeting and taxing model. My father thought it up. He willed it to me and my sister.

2.) An educational system that makes sure that every graduate, whether planning to be a physicist or a dropout, knows a useful trade -- plumbing, electrician, roofer, TV repairman, power steering specialist, landscaper, picture framer -- a trade that will yield an actual job in case the graduate needs one.

3.) Cable TV and Internet channels teaching skills needed in the workplace around the clock.

4.) A prison system where our nearly 2 million prisoners will each have a trade and a skill he can use for a job when he gets out.

5.) A matching system that hooks up young people with retirees with useful skills and connections as teachers and mentors....

More to come. This Positive Program will be a mixture of public policy and private responsibility.

We have to try something. I know we can do it.

Greg Sowards Battles Queen RINO

Jeffrey Lord — Thu, 24 May 2012 06:10:00 -0400

They call her RINO.

Queen RINO.

So here we go again.

It's Indiana in New Mexico. On June 5^th.

The race: the Republican nomination for a vacant US Senate seat.

This time the part of insurgent Richard Mourdock is being played by New Mexico conservative businessman Greg Sowards.

And Queen RINO?

The feminized Richard Lugar of the piece? That would be former New Mexico GOP Congresswoman Heather Wilson. A member of a GOP group that opposes the repeal of Obamacare.

Sowards is being supported by reform conservatives, most notably Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul. Said Paul in his endorsement:

Greg supports dramatically shrinking government. Greg supports the 5-year balanced budget proposed by myself and Senators [Jim] DeMint and [Mike] Lee. He agrees that our future generations of Americans do not deserve to be enslaved by debt, and we need more champions like him in the U.S. Senate.

Wilson is the GOP Establishment favorite. She is being supported by the usual suspects, including Alaska's RINO Senator Lisa Murkowski. As seen here at the Huffington Post, Murkowski was the featured speaker at a Carlsbad fundraiser for Wilson in April of this year. In the article, Murkowski is cited favorably for her support for Planned Parenthood -- and for something else.

Let's let the HuffPo describe Wilson's senatorial fundraiser from Alaska. Reports the HuffPo of Murkowski, in a story about Murkowski's endorsement of Wilson:

She criticized GOP presidential candidates for not condemning right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh for calling Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute." Wilson's campaign did not return a request for comment about whether she agreed with Murkowski's comments.

Which is to say, Wilson couldn't quite bring herself to take on Rush -- although as Queen RINO she's touched every other liberal Republican base out there, thus drawing support from the left-leaning Murkowski. Then again, presumably neither Murkowski nor Wilson are fans of the "Limbaugh Rule." As articulated by Rush Limbaugh in September 2010 as that year's elections approached. The Limbaugh Rule as stated by its author:

In an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism and socialism -- and when the fate of the country as founded is at stake -- you vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary. Period.

In an ominous development that may affect conservative support for a second spot on a Romney ticket, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has joined with Murkowski in opposing conservative Sowards. In Christie's case, the endorsement came at a $2,500 a head Wilson fundraiser in New York's primo 21 Club. Christie has been making forays around the country, recently for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Virginia and a Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner. New Jersey media believe his actions are designed to help Romney -- and possibly help Christie onto the Romney ticket.

Which makes Christie's fundraising for Wilson over her conservative opponent a curious approach.

THE NEW MEXICO SENATE race is but the latest battlefield in an ongoing conservative revolution that is sweeping the country state-by-state. The most notable example in 2012, of course, was the upset of longtime Indiana Republican moderate Senator Richard Lugar by the Tea Party supported state treasurer, Richard Mourdock.

Wilson, as a House Republican, had nowhere near the 36-year longevity on Capitol Hill that Lugar had. Yet for the ten years she served after winning a 1998 special election and remaining until 2008 (when she ran and lost a Senate primary for the seat now held by Democrat Tom Udall), Wilson firmly established herself as a leading member of the dwindling band of GOP officials who won the derisive nickname RINO -- Republican In Name Only.

It is this record -- an across-the-board record on issues that ranges from the economy and fiscal issues to big government issues to social issues -- that has won Wilson the nickname among Sowards supporters as "Queen RINO."

This record includes:

• TARP: Wilson voted for "TARP" -- the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" or "Troubled Asset Relief Program" that bailed out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion.

• Kyoto Protocol: Wilson voted to begin implementing the controversial global warming-based Kyoto Protocol, legislation that included the even more controversial concept of "Cap and Trade" taxes.

• Planned Parenthood: Yes indeed, she was an enthusiastic supporter of federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

There's more, of course.

Perhaps the most glaring indication of the "Queen RINO" tag was Wilson's membership in a group called the "Republican Main Street Partnership." Founded in 1998 -- the year Wilson first took her seat following a special election -- the group's members, all current or former elected Republicans in the House, Senate and governorships, have included several notable Republicans who themselves have been tagged with the "RINO" label. That list includes names like former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter (who left the GOP in 2009), Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee (who also departed the GOP and is now governor), and ex-Connecticut GOP Congressman (and current Senate candidate) Christopher Shays.

A visit to the group's website shows that it is not devoted to conservatism but rather its chief objective is "to further a centrist, pragmatic Republican agenda." Read: no social issues here (hence Wilson's support of Planned Parenthood) -- and big government is really not so bad after all.

A startling example of the latter -- the passive acceptance of big government and a watered down leftist agenda -- is the group's opposition to repealing Obamacare.

You read that right.

The oft-stated, much repeated first goal of soon-to-be GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney -- repealing Obamacare -- is opposed by Wilson's group. Says this Republican group:

"We believe that the provisions of Obamacare that are not working should be repealed, that thos provisions that are working should be retained…."

In other words, members of this Wilson-favored-Republican-group have already signed on to the idea of a government takeover of health care -- just, you know, not so much.

This being the classic RINO position that Barry Goldwater once labeled "the dime store New Deal."

Wilson underlined her commitment to the dime store New Deal concept when she was quoted by the Santa Fe New Mexican as saying:

"I've been very honest with members of my own party. We're not going to agree on everything. I'm not going to play political games. I will always tell you the truth. I also am not averse to bipartisan compromising when it is in (the) interest of New Mexico."

Where is the National Republican Senatorial Committee on the Wilson-Sowards race?

The NRSC was burned in the last cycle when it openly supported RINO Florida Governor Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio. Mark Levin was the first to spot Rubio's potential and repeatedly brought the now-Florida senator to the talk radio spotlight. Crist, of course, eventually left the party. The NRSC also raised money to defeat now Kentucky Senator Paul, who in turn, like Rubio, defeated the NRSC's favorite. Without doubt the most contentious NRSC intervention was it's considerable opposition to Delaware's Christine O'Donnell in her primary against GOP Establishment candidate Congressman Mike Castle, a former Delaware Governor and SEIU ally.

This time around in New Mexico the NRSC has been studiously neutral -- or has it?

A Sowards source says that when the NRSC held a retreat for prospective candidates and donors in Austin, Texas, Heather Wilson was there. While Wilson was provided a break-out session with donors, Sowards' invitation "never materialized." To make matters worse, Wilson was eclipsed by rising Ohio star Josh Mandel, according to a source present at the event.

Eyebrows were also raised by an anti-Sowards story that suddenly appeared in, of all places, the Weekly Standard. The Standard piece picks up the Wilson campaign theme that Sowards business -- child care -- has received government money, thus making Sowards a hypocrite. To which Sowards replies:

Career politician Heather Wilson has a big spending, liberal record she cannot defend, so it comes as no surprise her campaign and ruling class elite Republicans in Washington, D.C. are desperately twisting the truth in their hit piece by the establishment favoring Weekly Standard against the Sowards for Senate Campaign. The article referenced is a factually flawed misrepresentation of my long held belief that subsidies are not part of the free market.

During her tenure as Cabinet Secretary for Children Youth & Families Department for the State of New Mexico, before she began her ten years in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998, Wilson was the author of a short sighted and destructive program. Because of her lack of business understanding, her crowning achievement, the "Gold, Silver and Bronze Program" de-incentivized the quality care of New Mexico children and offered additional subsidies for poor quality care. The policies that she pushed forward, created a "join or die" dilemma. Wilson helped force the Child Care industry into this situation.

I am thankful that Wilson brought up the issue of subsidies, because it gives me a platform to talk about the destructive effect that career politicians have had on our lives and businesses. They and their obnoxious sense of entitlement have long crippled small business owners with unnecessary and burdensome regulations. It is the height of arrogance to attack my successful small business where we employ 75 people and care for over 600 children so their mothers can work and go to school, while their children are well cared for.

Wilson is part of the heavy thumb of State Regulation and the very person that helped put these policies in place. She of all people should understand why these subsidized programs are harmful. For Wilson to expect us to not accept the state program for low income families is akin to a grocery store not accepting food stamps, which could be construed as discrimination.

In the 2010 cycle, the Wall Street Journal's Neil King Jr. reported that

…the Republican brass in Washington and Delaware are doing all they can to tarnish Christine O'Donnell, who is taking on Rep. Mike Castle in the GOP primary for the Senate seat in Delaware…. The GOP establishment has been shipping out reams of opposition research and links to negative news stories…. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is also piling on, briefing reporters on negative aspects of O'Donnell's record.

In other words, out there in New Mexico there is conservative suspicion the NRSC is up to a more subtle version of the same old tricks it pulled in 2010. Piling on Sowards by quietly dumping on Wilson's opposition to the Washington-based Standard. Sowards' response is on his website.

Notably absent from the negative story on Sowards was any mention of Wilson's own problems that have nothing to do with ideology.

Problems that alarmed conservatives believe would serve as a drag on presidential nominee Romney's ability to carry the state.

Those problems that reportedly have Democrats sharpening their knives?

• A vanishing child abuse file -- on Wilson's husband. The 2006 story is outlined here at the progressive site Raw Story and is headlined this way:

Congresswoman on page board buried file on husband's child abuse allegation

Raw Story, no friend of conservatives, sums up the accusation this way:

In 1995, just three days into her tenure as Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, Wilson removed a routine working file alleging that her husband had engaged in inappropriate contact with a minor. The file was then transferred to the department's attorney in her own Albuquerque office, where it soon went missing.

• Wilson's role in a U.S. Attorney firing. As the liberal site TPM instantly began circulating when Wilson announced her candidacy, Wilson was at the center of the furor over the firing of U.S. Attorneys in the Bush-era, specifically New Mexico's David Iglesias.

The Sowards camp believes passionately that New Mexico Democrats, not to mention the Washington crew led by Harry Reid and Patty Murray, along with media allies from MSNBC to Media Matters, are salivating to trash Wilson on this issue if she wins the nomination to face Democrat Congressman Martin Heinrich.

There are other New Mexico-centric issues Democrats are chatting up, but the concern among conservatives is clear. Focused both on Wilson's liberal streak and her personal vulnerabilities.

Perhaps the most quoted assessment of Wilson comes from Red State's Erick Erickson:

The number one goal of conservatives in 2012, other than defeating Barack Obama, has got to be defeating Heather Wilson in New Mexico. She'd be Mike Castle terrible in the United States Senate.

All of which means: just who is Greg Sowards, anyway?

As seen here, not unlike others in the conservative reform movement Sowards is pro-capitalism (he's a businessman), pro-life, and, perhaps most importantly in the Age of Obama? That would be pro-Constitution.

Will he win?

No one gave Indiana's Mourdock a chance, either.

If Sowards does win, however, it will be for one reason and one reason only.

Heather Wilson spent 10 years in Congress advocating every big government or big government-lite solution that came down the congressional pike.

She clearly intends to do more of the same if she gets to the Senate.

Without the slightest sense of irony the Wilson campaign has put out this ad saying that "Washington politicians in both parties are driving us off a cliff."

For ten years, say her New Mexico conservative critics, Heather Wilson had her hands on the wheel, her foot on the gas.

Now that the cliff is in sight…Greg Sowards is determined to keep the woman he calls Queen RINO from taking a Senate throne.

And the Establishment GOP wants his head.