Opinion

In what can only be described as a perplexing review Lorraine Adams, New York Times Book Review 12/14/08, examines The Jewel of Medina, the Sherry Jones novel about the Prophet Mohammed and his marriage to the nine year old A’isha.  Employing a sneering tone, Ms. Adams skewers the book as historical romance, a swipe recognizable to the cognoscenti.
       
What makes the review notable is that Random House, the original publisher refused to issue the book on the grounds it would offend the Muslim community and might result in a violent reaction.  As a consequence, this decision planted the novel squarely in a free speech controversy.

Ms. Adams seems to suggest that since the novel doesn’t have literary merit, the Random House decision was appropriate, notwithstanding the fact officials at the publishing house did not use merit or lack thereof as a reason to suspend publication.

Ms. Adams employs a form of moral equivalence in her review suggesting that both Satanic Verses and Martin Scorsese’s film Last Temptation of Christ resulted in violent reaction from Muslim and Christian communities.  Presumably when religious groups are offended by an unflattering presentation of doctrine or prophets, violence results.

In the words of our first president George Washington, "religion and morality are indispensable

Tis the season to be jolly."

But this year it's going to be a challenge for many Americans. A Washington Post survey this week reported two thirds saying they were being impacted by the current recession. In another poll, 57 percent said they'd be cutting back on their Christmas spending.

Nothing unsettles the human heart and mind more than the unknown. I think our general discomfort is compounded by a feeling of not knowing exactly what is causing this economic tsunami and how and when we will recover.

Maybe as we consider all this, and particularly at a time of the year when we think about the blessings we do have to count, we might ponder what produced all the prosperity we have to begin with. What 's behind this great economic miracle -- the greatest of all time -- the United States of America?

Based on Vice President elect Joseph Biden's comments to Israeli officials and back channel discussions with the Obama team, the new administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran.  Presumably any attack on Israel will be followed by a devastating U.S. attack against Iran.

Needless to say, how this will actually play out is anyone's guess, but the presumption is that the guarantee makes deterrence increasingly robust. It is the Obama team's response to the alternatives of "doing nothing" or the military option.

In effect it is an admission that Iran will most likely acquire nuclear weapons and despite claims that this is unacceptable, the nuclear guarantee suggests we will do nothing to prevent this development. While this decision is less belligerent than the so-called military option, it can not allay Israeli fears.

After all, as one Israeli official noted, "What kind of credibility would this guarantee have when Iran is nuclear capable?"  If Iran will not acquiesce without this weapon of mass destruction, why should it acquiesce with this weapon?

Republican national campaigns of recent years that have been defined by Willie Horton and Swift Boats may have defeated the other side, but they brought candidates into office with no clear mandate and eroded party definition and discipline

There are now nine capable candidates vying for the chairman's job at the Republican National Committee. The day of reckoning will be Jan. 29, when 168 committee members from around the country will vote their preference.

The stakes are high this time around. It's different when you are looking for a caretaker - someone to keep a good thing going - as opposed to a turnaround specialist - someone to transform a loser into a winner.

Clearly after consecutive electoral shellackings led to Democratic takeovers in both houses of Congress and the White House, and significant drop-off in the number of self-identified Republican voters nationwide, it is the latter type of executive that the RNC needs. What kind of leadership talent should the RNC seek?

Republicans think of themselves as the party sympathetic to free enterprise. But the party has gotten off track applying sound business principles to its own operation.

From the founding of this nation to the present there has been an understandable tension between equality and individualism.  Clearly we, as Americans, want both assuming they are reasonably defined.

Equality presumes equal before the law, equal or roughly equal opportunity and even equal in the eyes of God.  But it does not mean or should not mean equal in the race for success and equal economic results.

Yet curiously the nation is moving from the safety net designed to assist those in peril to redistribution or the attempt to equalize economic results, i.e. “spread the wealth around.”

This condition I would describe as a belief in compression at the mean, a belief that has penetrated almost every aspect of American life.  It is the egalitarian project launched by John Dewey in the 1920’s and embraced by President-elect Barack Obama.

Take education as an example.  Almost all recent funding in this arena is designed to assist those in the bottom quartile of performance. Schools that are not performing well receive more funding than schools that meet state guidelines, based on the assumption that additional funding can influence performance.  And in some cases, this has proven to be the case.  The bottom moves closer to the middle of the pack.  Yet totally ignored in this distribution scheme are those in the highest quartile, those who might be described as excellent.  The consequence, of course, is decline at the top of the achievement pyramid, some upward movement at the bottom and a bulge in the middle.

The autopsies of the 2008 presidential campaign are the story of the week as pundits put on their thinking caps to explain the Obama success and the Republican failure.

On one matter there appears to be consensus: bread and butter issues dominated this election.  Contrary to the widely held opinion that youthful voters were caught in the whirlpool of Obamamania, it turns out they were principally concerned with the price of consumer products.

To my astonishment, the 18 to 25 year olds were not motivated to support Obama because of the war in Iraq or Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement.  It came down to the standard of living they either want or expect.  So much for the new idealism.