The anti-Semitic rant which accompanied Mel Gibson's drunk driving arrest in Malibu raised the incident from the level of tawdry tabloid embarrassment to an act of image-shattering self-destruction, while providing abundant fodder to celebrity gossips, late night comedians, and the actor-director's innumerable enemies. Those of us who defended and praised Gibson for his outspoken Catholic commitment, and for his refreshing efforts to use the movie medium to advance his faith, now feel betrayed and, yes, a bit humiliated. In that context, six pertinent points may help keep the pathetic incident in proper perspective.

1. There is no defense and no excuse for Gibson's comments about "the f---ing Jews." The fact that his blood alcohol level only slightly exceeded the legal limit suggests that his assertion that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" expressed deep-seated, long-standing bigotry rather than some bizarre, booze-induced break-down.

2. When a long-married, 50-year-old father of seven gets arrested for drunk driving at nearly twice the speed limit at 2.30 in the morning, then it's safe to assume that he faces even more serious problems than exposing his anti-Semitic attitudes.

3. Gibson's comments about the "f---ng Jews" remain particularly perplexing in the light of a previous record free of personal, anti-Semitic incident. At the time of the world-wide controversy surrounding "The Passion of the Christ," the press would have jumped enthusiastically on any available story of a rude remark, of personal discrimination, or general religious intolerance. Instead, the media focused on Mel's Holocaust-denying father, and villified the filmmaker for insufficiently condemning the fringe ideas of the crusty codger. The public focus on a then 84-year-old nut case, rather than the world famous son who repeatedly denied that he shared his father's ideas, reflected an unmistakable lack of evidence of previous Jew-baiting comments or episodes involving Mel himself. This context makes Gibson's current unprovoked explosion of crude and appalling anti-Semitic sentiments all the more shocking.

4. At a time of surging Jew-hatred around the world, Gibson's drunken, after-midnight remarks to arresting officers on a lonely stretch of Malibu highway represent a less serious threat to the Jewish people than the very public anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments by numerous celebrities, academics, UN officials and politicians. In April of 1996, for instance, the Oscar-winning actor Marlon Brando declared on Larry King Live: "Hollywood is run by Jews, owned by Jews, and they should have greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering. Because they have exploited....We've seen everything but we never saw the Kike." The Anti-Defamation League criticized Brando, of course, but never suggested that he should be ostracized and boycotted, as they recently demanded in Gibson's case. Meanwhile, Gibson had already attempted a public apology for his loathesome private remarks, declaring that "I acted like a person who was completely out of control when I was arrested and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable.I am deeply ashamed of everything I said." Compare this contrition to the unapologetic, and ceaselessly repeated attacks on Israel by another controversial Hollywood director, Michael Moore, who declared in Liverpool (quoted in the New York Times, June 26, 2004) that the embattled Jewish state represented one of the modern world's centers of evil: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton." Ironically, Michael Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel (brother of a Democratic Congressman from Illinois), is one of the entertainment industry figures leading the charge to demand that the show biz establishment blacklist Gibson.

5. The "Mad Mel" Moment in Malibu may change the way we perceive the dark hatred that lurks within Gibson's heart but it alters nothing about the images and messages he put on screen in "The Passion of the Christ." It's still the same movie, frame for frame, line for Aramaic-and-Latin line, that it was before his tirade and arrest. The tens of millions of people who felt overpowered and inspired and uplifted by a remarkable piece of cinema need not now apologize because they responded in good faith to the work of a deeply flawed, bigoted filmmaker. Mel Gibson's personal disgrace makes me feel pity for his family but it does nothing to force my reconsideration of my critical admiration of his movie. At the time of its release, I argued vehemently against hysterical charges (many of them emanating from people who hadn't even seen the film) that "The Passion" represented some vicious, anti-Semitic screed, and I also decried dire predictions ("He'll have blood on his hands," thundered one commentator in The New Republic) that the movie would inspire anti-Jewish incidents around the world. I tell the story of my high profile involvement in this dispute in my recent book RIGHT TURNS (everyone should read it!), and in the aftermath of Mel's meltdown and arrest I wouldn't change a word of it. The fact remains that all the predictions of pogroms in Pittsburgh proved preposterous: while earning some 1 billion dollars in movie theatres and on DVD, "The Passion" inspired no anti-Semitic incidents anywhere in the world. In fact, several surveys of audience attitudes showed that anti-Jewish sentiments actually decreased when movie-goers saw the film. The worst part of this latest controversy is that Gibson's revolting statements give people like Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League a juicy, retroactive excuse to say "I told you so" --- long after the benign and warm-hearted worldwide reaction to the movie had utterly undermined all the smug denunciations claiming that this wildly popular entertainment would foment implacable hate.

6. Once again, the most visible leaders of the Jewish community are in the process of horribly mishandling this latest incident with their indignant denunciations of Gibson's initial attempts to apologize, and their profoundly ill-considered calls for ostracism and banishment of one of today's most influential and successful filmmakers. After Gibson's comments on the incident (which included the abject line "I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry")  Abe Foxman of the ADL officiallly categorized this apology as "unremorseful and insufficient." Aside from obvious questions about who appointed Foxman as the ultimate judge of Gibson's damnation and possible redemption, doesn't it seem patently unfair to describe a statement that includes the words "I disgraced myself" as "unremorseful."?  Even worse, Foxman concludes the official ADL statement with the words: "We would hope that Hollywood now would realize the bigot in their midst and that they will distance themselves from the anti-Semite." Super-agent Ari Emanuel calls even more unequivocally for a new industry blacklist that focuses, for now, on Mel Gibson alone: "People in the entertainment community, whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him, even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line." The most ill-considered aspect of such calls for "distancing" and "shunning" is that they stand no chance of eliminating Gibson's ability to make movies (he has enough money to pay for his projects himself for the rest of his life, just as he did with "The Passion of the Christ") or destroying his influence on popular culture. Like it or not, Mel Gibson will not simply disappear (though he might well take some time off for rehab) and the Jewish community will hardly benefit by isolating him as a permanent enemy and encouraging him in the far more open expression of anti-Semitic attitudes. Does Ari Emanuel believe it would somehow help the Jewish cause if his client, Michael Moore, could now welcome a new colleague --Mel Gibson -- as a participant in the poisonously anti-Israel rallies, conferences and demonstrations that Mr. Moore regularly addresses? Those who believe that Gibson's anti-Semitism couldn't get any worse simply lack imagination. Public amplification of the bigotry that Mel revealed privately in Malibu might well spoil his popularity in the United States, but imagine how it could boost his already considerable following in Europe, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union-- not to mention the Islamic world!

   Rather than driving this tormented, self-destructive, deeply disturbed but vastly talented artist into the arms of active Jew-haters (like his father), wouldn't it make more sense to try to reach out to him at a moment of vulnerability and disgrace? The Jewish community need not approach the tarnished star with a message of "poor baby, all is forgiven" but it makes sense to offer at least some ladder to help him crawl out of the dank pit he has dug for himself. At a time when Israel finds herself isolated as never before, imagine the impact of Gibson announcing a supportive trip to Jerusalem in the company of selected Jewish leaders--- with a reverent, remorseful stop at Auschwitz on the way. Yes, cynics will decry any attempt by Mel to rehabilitate his reputation as a cheap publicity stunt, but wouldn't such an an effort serve the interests of Jews and Israel more than a frozen state of permanent animosity? Even if you assume that Gibson's anti-Semitic demons never can be excorcised, isn't it preferable that he try to control or hide them? My own limited acquaintance with Mel Gibson suggests that at this dark and tortured moment in his life, after the worst, most corruscating embarrassment of his long career, he might welcome a sincere effort to enrich his obviously pathetic understanding of Jewish identity and history. In any event, an attempted reconciliation -- no matter how tentative, no matter how limited -- can only be good for Gibson, and good for the Jews.     

   Neo-Nazis, Islamists and other Israel-hating fanatics regularly slander the Jewish community as elitist and arrogant, promoting a racist, xenophobic us-vs.-them mentality. Emerging details of Friday's shooting at the Jewish Federation of Seattle, however, should help clear away some of those lies and distortions while revealing the true nature of Jewish life in the United States. 

  The demented Islamic killer Naveed Afzal Haq (who yelled proudly about his Muslim identity as he fired repeatedly at his unarmed female victims) apparently meant to kill Jews in order to punish Israel, but it turns out that the majority of those he wounded (three out of five) were Christian employees at the offices he attacked. One of them, Cheryl Stumbo, 43, was identified as a board member at Seattle's University Unitarian Church. The single fatality in his rampage, Pam Waechter, 58, also grew up in a non-Jewish home; though raised as a Lutheran in Minnesota, she converted to Judaism after her marriage and became a Tenple president and universally beloved leader of the Seattle Jewish community.

  The fact that four of the six women shot by the Muslim fanatic turned out to be products of non-Jewish backgrounds doesn't make the attack any less (or any more) tragic and heinous. In Judaism as in Christianity, all children of God, regardless of ethnic and religious identity, hold equal claim to life and dignity. But the facts of the Seattle incident should help to educate people who somehow believe that the American Jewish community remains incurably clannish and insular.

  On several occasions, callers to my radio show have criticized Judaism for an alleged obsession with "blood purity" and expressed their belief that gentiles cannot convert to Judaism. This ignorant assumption flies in the face of the fact that for nearlt two thousand years, several of the revered rabbis whose teachings play a central role in our tradition have been clearly identified as converts to the Jewish faith. All traditional congregations-- including the most scrupulously Orthodox -- recite a prayer three times a day asking special blessings for the "garay ha-tzedek," the righteous converts. In the United States, close to 10% of the Jewish population of slightly more than five million count as "Jews By Choice" -- or converts to Judaism. 

  Of course, generations of comedians, moviemakers, novelists and other producers of pop culture have familiarized the public with sometimes impassioned Jewish resistance (by parents and religious leaders) to intermarriage between Jews and gentiles. But these attitudes arise out of concern for religious integrity, not racial purity: even the most rigorously traditional, meticulously Orthodox rabbis will proudly officiate at weddings involving those who have converted to Judaism according to the rules of "HaLakha" (Jewish law).

   I'm always surprised to discover otherwise well-informed people who believe there is some sort of ban on non-Jews attending Jewish worship services. Even our small Orthodox congregation in a Seattle suburb draws a number of non Jews every week who participate in our Sabbath services. Some of these people are in the process of conversion to Judaism -- or at least considering conversion. Others are merely curious, and feel drawn to our syngague (despite services almost entirely in Hebrew) for reasons of their own.

   Far from practicing isolation and exclusivity, the Jewish community in the United States has become comfortably, even intimately integrated with our non-Jewish neighbors --- some might argue too intimately integrated for the sake of the survival of a distinctive Jewish identity.  At a time when Israel faces implacable enemies, however, we recognize the importance of our Christian friends in fighting for the Jewish state's right to exist and defend itself, and supporting our right to our own religious expression. For an organization like Jewish Federation (a charitable umbrella group that functions like United Way for our community) it's not suprising or negative that many of its employees happen to be sympathetic non-Jews. Jewish Federation in Seattle (and in all major cities across the country) is concerned with outreach, and with building coalitions on the issues that matter most to our communities.

  Jew-haters may nurse fantasies of secret rituals and ancient cabals and power-mad banking-media conspiracies that are based solely on shared Jewish ancestry. But when one of these anti-Semites picks up a gun (in the style of Naveed Afzal Haq) and begins firing at visible Jewish targets, he's likely to hit some people of non-Jewish background -- in our Federation offices, our congregations, or even in our homes.   

In the press coverage of Wednesday’s fateful decision in Washington State, nearly all media outlets featured similar headlines: “COURT UPHOLDS GAY MARRIAGE BAN,” or “NO RELIEF FROM GAY MARRIAGE BAN” or “COURT WON’T OVERTURN GAY MARRIAGE BAN.”

References to “gay marriage bans” have become so ubiquitous across the country, in fact, that no one bothers to note that there is no such thing. A definition of marriage in terms of the natural family, or even a “Defense of Marriage Act” is in no sense a “gay marriage ban.”

Consider the State of Washington, for instance. The Defense of Marriage Act just upheld by the state Supreme Court doesn’t even mention gay marriage. How can a law be described as “banning” an institution it doesn’t even mention? As in most other states, our legislature merely re-emphasized the traditional definition of marriage as an institution limited to one man and one woman. Is this a “polygamy ban”? Obviously, plural marriage is ruled out with equal force to any exclusion of same sex unions.

Since state laws limit voting rights to those who are age 18 or above, do these regulations amount to “youth voting bans?” Does the requirement to get a license before you’re allowed to drive amount to an “unlicensed drivers ban”?

By calling any attempt to re-enforce traditional definitions of marriage as a ban on something, the media make such attempts look oppressive and nasty. The term “gay marriage ban” naturally produces groans in much of the populace who may shrug and say, “Why not leave the gays alone! Why do you have to ‘ban’ anything?”

Of course, such sentiments utterly misstate the nature of the argument: it’s actually gay radicals who won’t leave the institution of marriage alone, and agitate ceaselessly for its alteration. In this context they make progress when they characterize any resistance to their campaign of redefinition as a “ban.” Actually, preserving natural marriage as it’s always been defined isn’t a ban, and interferes with no one’s privacy, as marriage by its very nature is a public institution that validates intimate relationships.

Sodomy laws once attempted to interfere with such intimate connections, but the Supreme Court voided those regulations a few years ago as violating the “right to privacy” invented in 1965. Not even the most radical justice, however, could contend that a contractual relationship requiring a government license, witnesses, and public adjustments in legal status should exist in some secret zone beyond the control of the very government called upon to support and enforce it.

Clear thinking on the marriage issue requires clear talking and clear writing about the true nature of the ongoing disputes. The term “gay marriage ban” only adds confusion, and supports the ongoing (and embarrassing) attempt to portray all homosexuals as unfortunate, horribly oppressed victims. By upholding the long-standing definition of marriage (with all its limitations for multiple and same-sex partners) the Washington Supreme Court did nothing to interfere with the homosexual love that, we’re endlessly told, is already so beautiful, noble, enriching, joyous and pure. A committed gay couple is no less committed because the judges refused to overturn the status quo.

In the long-run, it’s far healthier for the gay community to trumpet proudly the achievements of its long-term, successful relationships (when they exist) rather than to claim that limiting the governmental definition of marriage to one man and one woman somehow makes those cherished homosexual connections less durable and less valuable. In this ironic sense, opponents of same sex marriage actually show more respect for gay relationships (as they function today) than do the advocates of matrimonial redefinition who claim those couplings lack something significant as long as they fail to win governmental endorsement.

Anyone who requires governmental approval for a sense of wholeness or personal pride clearly suffers from much deeper problems than a lack of automatic survivor benefits, or pre-assigned visiting rights at the hospital. If anything should be banned, it should be claims on competitive victimhood and misleading press slogans– which dishonor the gay community, as well as the rest of America.

   Well-intentioned American media outlets may strive for "even-handedness" in their coverage of the Middle East conflict, but such attempts at balance produce the worst sort of bias.

   A recent article in the Washington Post ("Media Bias is in the Eye of the Beholder") stands as an unwitting case in point. "There was only one thing on which pro-Israeli and pro-Arab audiences agreed," writes Shankar Vendantam. "Both were certain that media coverage in the United States was hopelessly biased in favor of the other side...The results say a lot about partisan behavior in general - why Republicans and Democrats love to hate each other, for example, or why Coke and Pepsi fans clash."

   Most obviously, it's profoundly offensive to compare a life-and-death struggle in Lebananon and Gaza with disagreements over favorite soft drinks. This outrageous comment trivializes the conflict and makes Israel's determination to defend herself look incomprehensible: who, after all, would want to die -or to kill- on behalf of a soda preference? Even the analogy with Republicans and Democrats who "love to hate each other" misleads the reader. That partisan hatred looks silly and unnecessary precisely because most citizens understand that Elephants and Donkeys both feel loyal to the same country, and want basically the same positive outcomes for the USA. Between Hamas and Hizbollah on one side, however, and the State of Israel on the other there are no common desires. The Islamist terror organizations want Israel wiped off the map, and the Jews driven from the Middle East; the Israelis want to mind their own business and live their own lives within internationally recognized borders, free from fears of ongoing rocket attacks.

    This essential asymmetry makes even-handedness an altogether unworthy goal. Hamas and Hizbollah want their enemy utterly destroyed -- obliterated from maps everywhere in the world just as Israel is already excluded from school room maps in all Arab nations. Official documents and declarations by terror chieftains never talk of a "two state solution" or living in peace with "the Zionist entity;" at best, Israel's enemies talk of a temporary true ("Hudna" in Arabic) or ceasefire, not a permanent settlement of the argument.

   Israel, on the other hand, seeks to wipe out no state, nor to erase any entity from maps. For more than 13 years, the Israeli government has officially endorsed the emergence of an independent Palestinian State-- as has the government of the United States (repeatedly). To facilitate that goal, Israel forcibly evicted civilians from Gaza-- not Palestians, but Jews! It's easy to criticize various actions or policies of the Israeli government, but the essential imbalance in the nature of the struggle makes "balanced" coverage impossible and inherently unfair. Would it have made sense to provide balanced coverage in September, 1939, between the invading Nazis and the gallant Poles who wanted only to defend their homeland? Would even-handedness apply in 1991 to Saddam Hussein's attacking troops and the Kuwaiti defenders who never threatened or harmed Iraq in any way? On United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, would the ruthless and suicidal hi-jackers hold equal claim to our sympathy with the brave passengers who fought back against them?

   In each of these cases, context matters-- as it does in the Israeli conflict with Hizbollah and Hamas. On the one side, officials honor teenagers who have blown themselves up in order to murder women, infants and other innocents: several Palestinian Authority elementary schools are named after "martyrs" who exploded bombs to slaughter Jews. A mural in one of Beirut's appalling Shiite slums shows a mother and child together with the message: "Motherhood is sweet. Martyrdom is Sweeter." On the other hand, Israelis who practice excessive cruelty -- even in the heat of battle -- are condemned by nearly all their countryman and prosecuted by military authorities.

   At times, a picture-- or even an unsigned cartoon-- really IS worth ten thousand words. I recently received an anonymous image that powerfully clarifies the underlying issues in the current struggle. It shows one soldier under an Israeli flag, facing off against a geurilla fighter under the Palestinian flag. The Israeli wore an army helmet, the Palestinian wore a black ski mask. The image showed them both kneeling, and firing directly at one another. But the Israeli is kneeling in front of a baby carriage, and the terrorist is firing from behind a baby carriage. The point is obvious but profound. The Israelis fight to protect women and children; the Palestinian terrorists use women and children to protect themselves. The Israelis fight in order to make their civilians safer; the Palestinians (and their Hizbollah allies) make their civilians less safe in order to fight.

   With these core contrasts, media even-handedness makes no sense -- and in fact amounts to a disgrace. You can use a balanced approach to cover the dispute between Coke and Pepsi, but not to report the eternal battle of good and evil. 

   To her supporters, Hillary Clinton counts as one of the most brilliant, best-educated women on the planet, so how can they justify her sloppiness in an embarrassing misquotation of Abraham Lincoln?

   On July 24th, the Senator from New York presented her long-awaited "American Dream Initiative" -- a series of policy proposals meant to activate her liberal base-- to the "National Conversation" of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) in Denver. At the conclusion of a very, very long speech, she meditated: "This is a Democratic agenda for the 21st Century. But as we were working on it, I find myself thinking about a 19th Century president, Abraham Lincoln, who I secretly believe would be a Democrat were he here right now....Lincoln understood that who we are in the world begins with how we live at home. And during the darkest days of that war he said, my dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last best hope of earth."

   The phrase "the last best hope of earth" is familiar, of course; it's even provided the title for Bill Bennett's excellent new book of U.S. History, AMERICA: THE LAST BEST HOPE. But Mrs. Clinton (who provided the text with exactly the punctuation cited above) altered, in fact butchered, the 16th President's noble words.

  Lincoln didn't "dream" of an American restoration ("my dream is of a place and a time where America will once again..."). He understood that even in the midst of a bloody conflict of national survival, the nation remained "the last best hope of earth." The actual quotation (from the President's Annual Message to Congress on December 1, 1862) declares: "We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."

   If nothing else, compare this spare, dignified prose to Hillary Clinton's flabby effusions "my dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen..." Lincoln didn't care so much how America was seen. He cared about truth, reality. He meant to "nobly save" the "last best hope of earth" not to restore America's image in France, or Belgium, or the Upper West Side, by a resoration of Clintonian rule.

   This may seem like a small matter, but imagine if President Bush, or Dan Quayle, had sloppily, stupidly misquoted Lincoln in a carefully prepared, high profile address. Wouldn't we hear constant harping over another Republican "gaffe"? If nothing else, Hilalry's inability to quote Lincoln accurately should lead to serious questions about her preposterous claim (her "secret belief" as she charmingly put it) that the first GOP president would be a Democrat were he alive today.

   Meanwhile, to purge the foul aftertaste of Senator Clinton's rhetoric, it might be worthwhile here to provide a more substantial citation from the great Lincoln address she distorted .

   "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

   "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation... We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free-- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

   No, Lincoln didn't go to Wellesley or to Yale, but even more than the junior Senator from New York, the man knew how to write. And to lead. And to build a Republican Party that still "holds the power, and bears the responsibility."

  Democrats claim that they want to reconnect with people of faith but their betrayal of Joe Lieberman raises serious questions about their intentions. Recent polls show the three term Democratic Senator, who was praised by his entire party as a candidate for Vice President a mere six years ago, losing the Connecticut primary to his lttile known challenger, Ned Lamont. Of course the main issue in their intramural battle is Lieberman's eloquent and impassioned support for President Bush's leadership in the war against Islamo-Nazi terror, but more recently major liberal voices also attack the Senator's outspoken commitment to his Orthodox Jewish faith. New York Times columnist Frank Rich (himself of Jewish heritage and, according to his own declarations, an active synagogue member) recently ripped  Lieberman as "a fellow traveler in the religious right's Schiavo and indecency jeremiads.... Lieberman is hardly the only Democrat in the Senate who signed on to the war in Iraq, but he's surely the most sanctimonious." Rich goes on to slam the Senator for his "incessant Bible thumping" and to cite the increasingly liberal and strident Anti-Defamation League as condemning Lieberman's public Scriptural citations as "inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse society such as ours."

  Actually, I thought that Lieberman's unapologetic observance of ancient Jewish rules of Sabbath observance, dietary laws and other traditions profoundly advanced the cause of religious diversity-- rather than threatening it. While secularist extremists like Frank Rich may have persuaded themselves of the absurd notion that Evangelical Christians want to "ram their beliefs down the throats" of all other Americans, they certainly don't suggest, do they, that religious Jews like Lieberman (or like me) want to enforce kosher rules or Passover observance through the force of law.

   The new Jihad against Joe by uncompromising secular militants shows that it's not Christianity, or "the Religious Right" that scares them: it's any politician, of any denomination, he speaks too openly about taking his faith seriously. Though I can't yet bring myself to provide open support for any Democratic US Senator (maintaining GOP control of the Senate is simply too important), I do hope that the voters of Connecticut will rebuff the attempts by intolerant leftists to discredit and marginalize a decent and conscientious man of faith.

As I’ve confessed several times on the radio show, I make it a habit to stop and pick up litter every day in the neighborhood where we live. One of my big frustrations while walking to services on the Sabbath (Saturday morning, a two-and-a-half mile walk) is that Jewish law doesn’t allow me to pick up the trash and carry it to an appropriate receptacle. But I certainly notice it--- and today took special note of several cigarette packages tossed carelessly, thoughtlessly to the side of the road.

This particular form of litter gave rise to several thoughts: first, most obviously, that it shouldn’t be surprising that smokers who are careless about their own health should also behave carelessly by tossing their trash to the side of the street in a pleasant suburban neighborhood. I also recognized that my angry annoyance at this sloppiness and lack of consideration ought to be tempered with compassion, or at least pity—many smokers (I know, not all) would ultimately pay a price for their habit (smoking, not littering) in terms of health and longevity.

And this gave rise to another question: why should non-smokers pay for the health problems of people who choose to consume cigarettes? Obviously, the notion of subsidizing a dirty, self-destructive habit is absurd. But that kind of subsidy would be an almost inevitable consequence of the sort of sweeping governmental health care program liberals have long advocated. In fact, we already subsidize smokers to the tune of billions of dollars, no doubt, through the Medicare Program.

Think about it: life-long smokers who reach the age of 65 are likely to endure all sorts of health care problems and costs that non-smokers will avoid--- that’s why private medical insurance policies provide lower “non-smoker” rates. But since Medicare is a taxpayer supported program, smokers and non-smokers pay in their money at the same rate. It’s horribly unfair!

Expanding governmental financing of the health care system would only expand the unfairness. Isn’t it appropriate that the people with self-inflicted health problems or risks (smoking, alcoholism, obesity, irresponsible sex and the resulting diseases) should pay higher premiums for their insurance?
Of course, since everything is supposedly a “disease” today, and beyond any element of individual control – sex addiction, alcoholism, heroin, obesity, etc.—it’s politically incorrect to make people responsible for their own behavior. That’s why it’s so important to allow the market to work!

In fact, even with our private insurance system, there’s too much governmental interference. Why shouldn’t insurance companies be allowed to evaluate the health risks of their customers and price their policies accordingly? For instance, it’s well known that gay males have a much lower life expectancy than straight males – and single guys have a much lower life expectancy (and generally worse health) than those of us lucky enough to be married. Why should it be against the law (as it is in nearly all states) to set health insurance premiums based on marital status and sexual orientation?

With all Americans rightly complaining about the crushing cost of health insurance (a much bigger burden than the price of gas, by the way), we ought to help people save money by allowing more choices, not fewer. For instance, in Washington State the legislature just passed a bill requiring that every health insurance policy must include protection for psychiatric illness… and this particular requirement could raise the yearly cost of a typical policy as much as $300 a year—or much more, after a few years.

This is absurd. I would strongly prefer to avoid “mental health” insurance and if I lose my mind (some people believe I already have) we’ll just have to pay for treatment ourselves. In any event, I prefer to save my money and take my chances (after all, I have a wife in the business—as a psychologist). But my choice to avoid psychiatric protection – or to save money on my policy by declining any coverage for myself in the case of HIV/AIDS infection—isn’t allowed, by state law.

In other words, government already won’t let us benefit from good health decisions, nor will it require us to bear an extra burden from bad health decisions. Of course, an enlarged governmental role in health care will, inevitably, make it even harder to get people to pay for the consequences of their own decisions or lifestyles.

This suggests a new way to argue against socialized medicine – or “health care for all” as the new Democratic slogan would have it. We should ask the public – do you believe that non-smokers should subsidize the smoking related health problems of smokers? If you don’t think that’s fair (and since over 80% of Americans are now non-smokers, you can bet most people will think it’s wildly unfair) then we should rise up together to stop the insanity of turning over health care financing to the government.
It seems that this is a strong new way to make an argument that even enlightened smokers (yes, there are many such people) would support.

Like most American Jews of my post-Holocaust generation, I’ve never suffered significant harm from anti-Semitism. Sure, I’ve experienced the random rude remark, or expression of distaste, or hints of ethnic and religious hostility, but Jew-hatred in no way has interfered with my success, happiness or sense of well-being in this grand, glorious and good-hearted nation.

Recent debates about the Middle East war, however, make it inescapably clear that anti-Semitic attitudes remain a significant factor for an embittered minority of Americans, emerging with special force at times of stress. When callers to my talk radio show insist that Israel remains at fault for the current fights in Gaza or Lebanon, traditional Jew hatred (or delusional psychology) probably plays a role in the analysis.

It doesn’t matter that Israel withdrew from both areas—occupying no square inch of Gaza, nor of Lebanon’s internationally recognized territory. It doesn’t matter that the Israelis endured daily Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza, and frequent (and much more deadly) Katyusha rocket assaults from Lebanon: even if Israelis go to war to defend their innocent civilians, for some people it’s still the Jews who must be at fault. The instinct for “blaming the Jews” flourishes alongside the similar instinct for “excusing the terrorists” – as long as their chief targets happen to be Jews.

Callers to my talk show have fingered the long-retired Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz (head of the World Bank), AIPAC (The America Israel Public Affairs Committee), the Illuminati, “international bankers,” “the Rockefellers”(in the mistaken belief that they’re Jewish and somehow connected to Israel),” “the media elite,” and other traditional anti-Semitic bogeymen in their efforts to discredit the Israeli response.

“Pitchfork Pat” Buchanan even accuses Israel (and her American supporters) of an “un-Christian” approach to self-defense – a very peculiar charge from a long-time advocate of muscular, self-interested, tough-minded policy for his own country.

I resist imputing bigotry as an explanation for legitimate dissent, but isn’t it logical to assume some underlying prejudice when Israel is judged by a different standard from any other nation? What other people on earth would be expected patiently to absorb literally hundreds of rocket attacks, not to mention the kidnapping of its soldiers from its own sovereign territory, without launching some firm, decisive response?

Buchanan tried to compare Israel’s reaction to the kidnapping of its soldiers to America’s restrained reaction to the seizure of our troops in Iraq – without making the obvious point that our GI’s were thousands of miles from home in a dangerous war zone, where the captured Israelis were safely in their own nation, clearly on their side of a recognized international boundary. Would the U.S. have reacted differently if Islamo-Nazis had kidnapped our troops from San Diego – rather than from Baghdad? Every American knows the answer to that.

It’s eminently possible to disagree with Israeli policy, or to oppose American aid to Israel, without raising suspicions of anti-Semitism—after all, Israeli Jews and American Jews frequently (in fact, incessantly) argue over government decisions made by the Cabinet and the Knesset in Jerusalem. But when attitudes toward the one Jewish nation on the planet suggest that this state possesses less right to exist, less right to defend itself, than all other nations on earth, it raises questions about underlying bias.

Classical anti-Semitism insisted that Jews deserved less respect, fewer rights, than other members of a given community. The new anti-Semitism suggests that the Jewish State deserves less respect, and fewer rights, than all other members of the community of nations.

This current struggle isn’t about the survival of Lebanon – not even the most rabid right-wingers in Israel advocate a long-term occupation or annexation of the deeply troubled nation to their north. Nor is the fight about the right of Palestinians to live in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank; no Israeli government has ever tried to dislodge the millions of Arabs who live in those territories, or the million more who live (as citizens) within Israel proper, for that matter.

The battle, as always, is ultimately about the survival of Israel – and the right of the Jewish people to live in their ancient homeland. There is no significant opposition to the continued existence of other sovereign states (Montenegro? Slovakia? Uzbekistan? Trinidad-Tobago?), which were created and recognized far more recently than Israel.

Those who suggest that Israel is ultimately to blame for its current war of self-defense may advance various conspiratorial and cynical claims to justify their position but the chances are that those arguments only mask a deeper, irrational hatred.

If left to function naturally with a minimum of interference, the free-market system and the profit motive will insure ongoing improvements in living standards and affordability.

I saw a small illustration of this big claim when I went away the weekend with my family at Washington State’s scenic Hood Canal. We stayed at sprawling old resort that had recently received a glamorous refurbishing and I particularly noted the soap and shampoo arrangements in the bathrooms. In place of the usual individual, sample-sized amenities, each one neatly wrapped and arranged on the counter, this facility featured refillable bottles of very fine shampoo, conditioner and liquid soap, bolted to the wall of the shower-bath. The sink included similar bottles with liquid soap and hand lotion, complete with a plastic pump that gets the goo immediately onto your hands.

The advantages of this approach seem so obvious, so overwhelming, that I feel confident that within a few years most hotels in the country will move in this direction. For the guest, you have fresh soap or shampoo whenever you want it--- no complicated wrappers to remove, no half-melted bars or half-used, unsealed little bottles on, say, the second day of your stay. For the hotel, the benefits may be even more substantial, allowing the business to avoid a huge waste of money and natural resources.

When a guest leaves behind a partially consumed bottle of lotion, or a partially dissolved bar of soap, there’s nothing to do but to throw it away. With the new system, there’s no waste at all: the hotel pays for only the soap and shampoo and conditioner and lotion that the guest actually uses – no more, no less.

The refillable-pump-bottle approach will also assist many Americans—including me – overcome the ravages of an embarrassing addiction. I’ve been a frequent traveler all my adult life, crossing the country for lectures or book tours, and over the course of more than 30 years I’ve developed the stupid habit of bringing home those little soaps and shampoos. In order to get fresh little bottles or bars of soap to my collection, I’ll remove the half-used soaps and hair supplies from view so that the hotel cleaning staff will provide new, unopened amenities. Then I’ll bring out the partially-used supplies so I can stuff the fresh little bottles into my luggage.

I know it’s crazy and dumb and childish and reflective of the Depression era mentality my mother (may she rest in peace) instilled in me: what if one day you couldn’t afford fine soap and shampoo? This way you’ll always have supplies (provided free!) to satisfy your needs.

Those supplies now amount to an insanely over-developed collection – with two huge drawers crammed with hotel soaps from around the world (London, Berlin, Jerusalem, Mexico City, even Warsaw) plus all the states of the union. Unless I live way beyond the normal life expectancy, I’ve already acquired more than enough exotic soaps to keep me clean the rest of my days. There’s also another overflowing drawer in my bathroom crammed with shampoos and conditioners (I stopped bringing home hand and body lotion some years ago).

I suspect that there are others out there (you don’t have to admit it but you know who you are) who have built up similarly impressive accumulations of these bathroom “souvenirs.” Picking up these supplies is nearly irresistible (to many of us) because they are handed out “free” – but of course they are not free to the hotels. To paraphrase the famous statement about “free lunch”-- there is no such thing as a free hotel soap sample.

In fact, looking at the literally hundreds of soaps in my drawers, the total cost to the hotels that purchased them might well be substantial. In other words, the hotel is paying real money – but no one is receiving real benefit (I can’t even use up all the soaps) – so it’s a classic case of inefficiency. Moreover, even as an unusually soap-and-shampoo-conscious consumer, the lack of such “free” supplies would in no way discourage me from patronizing a given hostelry. I’m more eager now to use accommodations that follow the pump-bottle-on-the-wall approach, because efficiency appeals to me far more than meaningless free goodies I really don’t need.

The new approach therefore will save the lodging business big money (think of all the millions upon millions of individually wrapped bars of soap no longer needed!) without losing customers or damaging service in any way. Ultimately, the profit motive – the eternal imperative of finding a way to a better job at lower cost – will help provide better, more rational accommodations and customer care. At the same time, the benefits to the environment (are you listening, Al Gore?) should be real and considerable. Bottles-on-the-wall will save a colossal yearly waste of wrapping paper, little plastic bottles, soap and lotions.

In the same way, the profit motive will ultimately work to develop a more sensible approach to energy consumption, automotive transportation, personal nourishment, and more. The only places the free market can’t work are those areas of the economy in which the government plays an overwhelming, even dominant role: most notably health care and education. Is it any wonder that the only two areas in which the cost to consumers has consistently and considerably outpaced the general rate of inflation are in health costs, and the fees for higher education—precisely those endeavors in which massive governmental intrusion makes it impossible for markets to function in a sensible way.

Meanwhile, I’m so struck by the sensible, ingenious nature of the bottle-on-the-wall scheme that I think I’m finally ready to give up my embarrassingly extensive soap and shampoo collection. If anyone wants to buy it in return for a worthy contribution to an institution promoting free-market economics (Heritage Foundation, say, or American Enterprise Institute, or even Cato Institute), I’m ready to sell (on the free market) and to provide you with an exotic, aging, and occasionally elegant collection of personally-sized bathroom supplies. Any takers?

The new coinage carries several advantages. First of all, the average American maintains much stronger images of “Nazis” than “Fascists.” No matter how historically illiterate he may be, every American knows that the Nazis were genocidal, sadistic maniacs, but he may not possess a clear idea of what the word “Fascist” even means.

Moreover, the Islamists of Al Qaeda and Hisbollah and the Mullah-ocracy of Iran promote grandiloquent dreams of world conquest that more closely resemble Hitlerism than the more modest domestic Fascism of, say, Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain.

Finally, it’s unmistakable that anti-Semitism of the crudest and cruelest variety formed the true, impassioned core belief of both yesterday’s Nazis and today’s Islamists; it’s no accident that Islamic leaders proudly circulate and republish “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and other Jew-hating classics, while recent film of Iran’s elite “Revolutionary Guard” in military review shows the sort of sky-high goose-stepping unseen since the salad days of the SS.

The term “Islamo-Fascist” sounds a bit bookish, complicated, even philosophical, but the phrase “Islamo-Nazi” carries unmistakable impact.

On another crucial issue, I believe that conservatives need to find a new phrase to replace “traditional marriage.” The common come-back to that term from advocates of redefining marriage is “just because it’s traditional doesn’t make it right” or “nobody follows the old traditions anymore.” When we talk about male-female relationships as “traditional,” we set ourselves up for the other side to talk about all the ways that those time-honored arrangements have already changed—with women working out of the home, rampant divorce, living together—even having babies-- before weddings, and so forth.

The tireless promoters of same sex unions argue that in many ways the “traditional marriage” we claim to cherish has already disappeared and so can hardly count as worth defending. It’s true that the number of couples who fulfill traditional norms – with the mother staying home to raise kids, both parties perennially faithful, and waiting to have sex until marriage – represents a distinct minority in today’s America. That’s why I’ve  become convinced that we need to strike the phrase “traditional marriage” and replace it with “natural marriage.” For one thing, this change will drive the gay activists crazy, raising immediately the one argument they find most impossible to answer-- that as a mechanism for preserving the species and raising a new generation, same sex unions are undeniably unnatural.

That doesn’t mean the people who participate in such relationships are bad people, but it does mean that these romantic associations are less organic, less eternal (with power to influence countless future generations) than the natural coupling of a man and a woman.

Rather than placing us in the uncomfortable, reactive position of trying to defend “tradition,” the new term “natural marriage” will force the other side to try to assert the obviously absurd proposition that it’s just as natural for a same-sex couple to raise somebody else’s baby as it is for a heterosexual couple to raise their own.

The overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens will understand that homosexual partners can be great human beings, credits to their community, and even loving adoptive parents, but there remains something synthetic, artificially constructed about such unions that contrasts with the instinctive, logical, productive and natural connection between a man and a woman.

Employing phrases like “Islamo-Nazis” and “Natural Marriage” won’t instantly end our most persistent public debates, but their introduction into public discourse can help advance the long, essential process of persuasion.