The Most Life Affirming County In The Developed World

This graph and chart are mind-blowing, in showing which country, by a long shot, "by objective measures . . . is the happiest nation on Earth. . . one of the wealthiest, freest and best-educated; and . . . love[s] life and hate[s] death more than any other nation"

Santorum Now Available

There is perhaps no greater devotee of Donald Rumsfeld than me. The way his mind works is mind-boggling -- intellectual honesty and openness, super-rationality, an ability to separate his deservedly large ego from his policies and actions, an impressive lack of defensiveness in the face of even the most unrelenting criticism. I am not saying he should be made a sacrificial lamb. But if he has to go, who would be a better replacement than "The American Churchill,"Rick Santorum?

Or, if Bolton can't survive pea-brain Senate Democrats, Santorum would well fit the Moynihan-Kirkpatrick mold.

Even better, in light of Condoleeza's surprisingly disappointing showing, how about Santorum for Secretary of State?

Last, but not least, there is always higher office in '08.

REGENSBERG

The importance of the Pope's Regensburg speech can hardly be overstated. In asserting the divorce of reason and faith as the fatal flaw of both violent Islam and secularism -- and implicitly, Christianity itself over much of its history -- the Pope, as the chief representive of one of the world's great religions, unlike the call to political change (i.e., democracy and freedom) issued by the President, challenges Islam on religious terms. As instrumental as John Paul was in eviscerating the Soviet monster, so too, history may view Benedict's speech as a turning point in ultimately bringing about the "Reformation" which Islam so desperately needs. *

The Pope quotes an Islamic philosopher, Ibn Hazn, who states that "God is not bound even by his own word," much less reason, "and that [w]ere it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry."

Compare Rabbi David Hartman in Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest (JPS 1976), who states: "Regarding a 'prophet' commanding participation in idol worship, Maimonides writes:

... for the testimony of reason which denies his prophecy is stronger than the testimony of the eye which sees his miracles ...

According to Maimonides (at least through Hartman's lenses, and Hartman himself identifies multiple contradictory interpretations of Maimonides), as in apparently at least modern Catholicism, there is no conflict between reason and faith, and the ideal life is guided by both. By contrast, the Pope observes, secularists and Islamists converge, each taking the position that religion and reason are incompatible, tending toward "pathologies," when the fundamental relationship between reason and faith is severed.

Other than perhaps some of George W. Bush's addresses, is there another speech that has been more influential since 9/11? May the Pope's pen help vanquish the Islamic sword!
__________
* Query: has Judaism had or needed a "Reformation" -- in the sense of embracing rationality and religion, "Athens and Jerusalem," neither to the exclusion of the other? Has rationality been inherent in Judaism from inception (e.g., when Abraham, according to tradition, came to the realization that there is one God at least partly through the use of logic and deductive reasoning)?

Is "Islamic fascism" an oxymoron?

Not according to Emanuele Ottolenghi:

Radical Islam has been rightly labelled as fascist, not only because much of its roots lie in the West, but also because it acts like a totalitarian ideology, whose main aim is to create a new world order based on an Idea, the triumph of which justifies the murder of anyone who stands in the way

Characteristics of traditional Fascism which do not seem to fit include "right-wing" and the supremacy of political/secular ideology and the nation-state, but "experts" asked by The National Review mostly agree that the term is appropriate. Although not as mellifluous as "Islamofascism," how about "fascistic Islam," in contradistinction to "tolerant Islam", with the emphasis on the type of Islam rather than the type of terrorism (especially since all or virtually all terrorism is reprehensible, and substantially all terrorists today are Muslim) ? As usual, one of the best discussions is by Daniel Pipes, who concludes that:

The use of Islamic fascists should be seen as part of a decades-long search for the right term to name a form of Islam that is recognizably political, extreme, and often violent. I have already confessed ... that I am on my fifth term (having previously used neo-orthodox, fundamentalist, and militant, and now using radical and Islamist). While Islamic fascists beats terrorists, let’s hope that a better consensus term soon emerges. My vote is for Islamists.

Bone-Chilling Bernard Lewis

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Lewis, arguably the smartest guy in the world on these sorts of things, predicts that, if not stopped, when it is technologically able to do so, pursuant to its "apocalyptic worldview," Iran will seek to obliterate Israel with a nuclear attack, regardless of the facts that the Palestinians of the area would also be obliterated and Israel would retaliate with even greater force:

The phrase 'Allah will know his own' is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven.

* * *

For people with this mindset, MAD [the logic of deterrence of Mutual Assured Destruction] is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

Don't You Love It When Some Of The Clearest Solutions To Israel's Predicament Are Prescribed By Guys With Names Like 'Mohamed' And 'Mario'?

As Mohamed Eljahmi, a Boston-based Libyan American activist whose brother, Fathi Eljahmi, is imprisoned in Libya for speaking out for political reform, said recently, in calling for a "permanent solution," which at present can only be a military one, not political or diplomatic, because:

"Refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist is the root of conflict in the Middle East."

And:

"On the Arab side there are no legitimate and visionary leaders who are willing to take the risk [for peace]."

Meanwhile, Mario Loyola, a former DOD official, states that the only way to stop the missile terrorism, the purpose of which is to "depopulate Israel," is by requiring (e.g., through a Security Council resolution, authorizing "all necessary means, including the use of force") Iran and Syria to stop supplying Hezbollah. Loyola then makes this observation:

In the meantime, the world must recognize something about the innocent civilians in Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon whose homes and lives have been devastated by this war. Over a third of Lebanon’s population voted for Hezbollah in the last elections. They did not cast their votes for peace. What they voted for was war, and war is what they got.

Ralph Peters capturing the essence of Israel and its enemies

Ralph Peters is as pungent as ever:

Eight hundred years after a blood-spattered English king swung his sword by Jaffa's walls, ... the enemy remain[s] the same ... The struggle may never end.

* * *

the settlers and their children who built Israel did more than [make 'the desert bloom' and] irrigate orange groves. They built a civilization where there had been [and in places like Gaza, still is] only neglect, decay and oppression.

Kerry supporter says voting for him was like "killing a rat"

Actor Wally Shawn, on voting for Kerry in 2004:

"it's like killing a big rat that is running around your apartment." "[I]t's unpleasant," but "[i]t must be done."

Fouad Ajami on Bernard Lewis

Dont' miss A Sage in Christendom