A few months ago, in the bitter, turbulent aftermath of his Malibu Meltdown, conventional wisdom pronounced a gruesome end to Mel Gibson’s career. According to leading experts in public opinion and pop culture, no one would pay to see his movies after his drunk-driving arrest exposed his loathsome anti-Semitic attitudes.

Amazingly enough, despite some of the worst and most one-sidedly negative publicity endured by a major celebrity since the O.J. trial, Gibson has bounced back with a stunningly strong opening for his latest opus, “Apocalypto.” The film—despite a two-and-a-half hour running time that limited the number of daily showings per-screen—opened in the number one position at the box office with solid earnings of some $15 million. Among other things, “Apocalypto” now stands a real chance of qualifying as the top-grossing Yucatec-language film in history. Since it is also the only Yucatec language film in history, that actually counts as a safe bet.

Concerning the public’s unexpected embrace of all the Mayan-mayhem in Mad Mel’s maelstrom of malevolence, there are only four possible explanations:

1) Most people never heard about his anti-Semitic outburst.

Yeah, and most people never heard about Hurricane Katrina. Who are you kidding?

2) People knew about Mel’s anti-Semitic statements, but they didn’t associate him with this new film.

Right! The film’s been promoted as “Mel Gibson’s APOCALYPTO” since he’s the only recognizable name in any way associated with it.

3) People know about Mel’s anti-Semitic tirade, and they know he’s behind the film, but they embraced the project anyway because they share his bigotry.

Sorry to disappoint the energized Nazis out there, but poll-measured anti-Semitic attitudes continue to register at historic lows in the United States, and the recent election just brought to power two more Jewish Senators (for a total of 14), five more Jewish members of the House, and eight new Jewish chairs of major committees. If people are so anti-Semitic, how come no one (except for proud Jews) has noticed the recent surge in our political power?

4) People know about Mel’s outburst, they know he’s behind the movie, they condemn anti-Semitism, but they went to see “Apocalypto” anyway-- because they know it’s foolish to associate a man’s off-screen failings with the quality of his work.

Number four obviously represents the right answer, and it’s encouraging to see that consumers of American pop culture are smart enough to disassociate private-life foolishness with artistic production.

The fact that Mel’s poppa is a barking lunatic and holocaust denier doesn’t prove that “The Passion of the Christ” was anti-Semitic, any more than Mel’s drunken tirade in Malibu proves anything at all about his new film—which is brilliant, visually intoxicating, electrifying, unforgettable and unspeakably brutal. First rate art emerges all the time from reprehensible individuals—Beethoven was a louse and a grouch in his personal life, Richard Wagner was a committed, shameless Jew-hater, Tolstoy raped literally hundreds (if not thousands) of peasant girls, Picasso used and abused all the women he ever knew, T.S. Eliot drove his first wife, Viv, to the loony bin and also hated Jews, and so on and so forth.

The most serious objection to Gibson’s movie at the moment concerns not his prior expression of anti-Semitism, but the alleged hostility and distortion in his treatment of indigenous peoples. I actually believe Gibson went relatively easy on the ancient Maya – the historical record shows they were even more whacked and bloodthirsty and sadistic than the way they are portrayed on screen.

It takes singular courage for an embattled filmmaker (and celebrity) to defy political correctness by showing the arriving Europeans as rescuers and a source of enlightenment—rather than as predators and despoilers and exploiters of pure, warm-hearted natives.

In any event, his movie pulses and throbs and explodes with a life of its own – like all the most formidable works of art, cinematic and otherwise.

It’s only good news that Mel Gibson (who’s tried hard throughout his career and his personal life to be a decent collaborator and professional, husband and father, whatever his faults and shortcomings and addictions) defied expectations to connect with the public. As usual, the American people showed better judgment and more sophistication than elite opinion ever expected and embraced a fiercely original film despite the controversy surrounding its creator.

There’s an outrageous story out of Seattle (my home base) that shows the way that good intentions can occasionally produce disgusting results. Because of the prevailing climate of political correctness, a decent guy and honorable clergyman looks like a horse’s rear end and has provoked appropriate indignation from millions of people.

According to misleading news stories featured prominently in newspapers and on TV (including KING 5 TV News): “All 15 Christmas trees inside the main terminal at Sea Tac Airport (Seattle-Tacoma International) have been removed in response to a complaint by a rabbi. A rabbi wanted to install an eight-foot menorah and have a public lighting ceremony. He threatened to sue if the menorah wasn’t put up and gave a two day deadline to remove the trees.”

Who is this wretched rabbi who, apparently, wanted to spoil the holiday joy of his Christian neighbors out of pique and selfishness simply because he didn’t get the right to erect his own Hanukah display?

As a matter of fact, I know and like Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky, the now notorious clergyman at the center of this swirling controversy. He’s a good guy, a young father of five (including new-born twins), and the son-in-law of the wonderful Rabbi at the synagogue I attend each week. I know that Rabbi Bogomilsky harbors no animus whatever toward Christians or Christmas. In fact he told the Seattle Times that he felt “appalled” by the airport’s decision to remove all its Christmas trees without warning on Saturday night. According to Rabbi Bogomilsky, “Everyone should have their spirit of the holiday. For many people the trees are the spirit of the holidays, and adding a menorah adds light to the season.” According to the rabbi’s lawyer, Harvey Grad, “They’ve darkened the hall rather than turning the lights up.”

I spoke to Rabbi Bogomilsky less than a hour ago and he may join me on my radio show tomorrow to apologize to the community at large for the totally unintended consequences of his desire to include a large menorah along with the airport’s holiday decorations (according to various stories there were either 22, or 15, or 9 different Christmas trees before the airport cleared them away in the dead of night). When I asked the rabbi directly whether he would want the trees removed if the airport refused to put up his menorah he insisted, “Absolutely not.” He has no problem with the Christmas trees, which have brought seasonal joy to the airport (and provoked no complaints) for more than a decade. He would greatly prefer that the airport restore the trees – even if they fail to include the requested menorah alongside the seasonal greenery. In fact, another local rabbi and close personal friend, Daniel Lapin, has begun soliciting Jewish signatures on a petition to demand the return of the trees – and we will gladly recruit Jewish volunteers to provide free labor if that would help get the job done.

Those of us who are comfortable and secure in our own religiosity (which would surely include the rigorously observant Rabbi Bogomilsky) don’t feel threatened by public displays of faith by our Christian neighbors. Generally, it’s secular fanatics (of both Jewish and Christian background), militant separationists, who have waged war on Christmas trees, ten commandments monuments, crosses, and other benign symbols of the nation’s religious heritage.

So what went wrong with this whole miserable affair?

After two months of indecision from the Port of Seattle (the quasi-governmental agency that runs the airport) concerning the request for a menorah, the rabbi’s lawyer made the mistake (yes, it was a mistake) of threatening a federal lawsuit and the airport people panicked and ordered the removal of the trees. “We’re not in the business of offending anyone and we’re not eager to get into a federal lawsuit with anyone,” said Craig Watson, chief lawyer for the Port of Seattle. Patricia Davis, head of the Port Commission said, “We didn’t have other cultures represented and rather than scramble around to find representations of other cultures at this late date, we decided to take them down and consider it later.”

This is ridiculous, of course. “Other cultures” do not observe popular holidays at precisely this time (the Islamic month of Ramadan is over) and in thousands of public and private locations across the country the abundant, prominent and very beautiful Christmas decorations are harmlessly complemented (if hardly balanced) by menorahs.

Of course, in the current climate of hyper-sensitivity regarding public expressions of religious commitment, Rabbi Bogomilsky and Harvey Grad should have avoided the chilling, unnecessary phrase “law suit” at all costs --- even if the Port of Seattle refused to give them a timely answer on their menorah request. As a result of the threatened litigation, the whole world is witnessing a horrible situation in which the religious enthusiasm (however well intended) of one individual has led to the removal of decorations enjoyed by literally hundreds of thousands.

In addition to apologizing to those masses, and working conscientiously to restore the Christmas trees, I hope that Rabbi Bogomilsky and his colleagues in the sincere and warm-hearted Chabad-Hasidic movement in Judaism will reconsider their menorah strategy next winter. They’ve already succeeded in magnificent terms in installing some 6,000 highly visible menorahs in public places across the country (including, by the way, the Washington State Capitol in Olympia) – and even at unlikely sites like Red Square in Moscow. This is a singular, even inspriring, achievement. If, however, local authorities prove unwilling to accommodate the menorahs, it’s a terrible idea to try to force their hands by comparing our candelabra to Christmas trees or wreaths or Santa Claus effigies already in place.

Though some of my fellow Jews may howl in protest when I say so, there are strong arguments to be made against public menorahs that can’t be made against Christmas trees. It’s not just that Christians outnumber us in this society by about 40 to 1; it’s that Christmas trees reasonably can be construed as a secular symbol but a menorah (despite some prior court decisions) emphatically cannot. The eight-branched “Hanukiah” or “Menorah” that we light every year for the holiday specifically recalls the seven-branched menorah that was a sacred element in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem up till 70 A.D. Though the big menorahs with bulbs that are prominently displayed in public places are not, strictly speaking, sacramental objects (because they don’t use candles or oil), they distinctly resemble the smaller menorahs we use at home and over which we recite blessings (citing the Almighty, of course) every night of the holiday. In fact, the chief mitzvah (holy commandment) of the Hanukah holiday requires the lighting of these candelabra and reciting the blessings, so it’s deeply misleading or, at best, a stretch, to call the menorah a secular symbol. Christians do not routinely pronounce blessings or recite prayers over Christmas trees.

This doesn’t mean that I think that menorahs should come down from public places: they belong in parks and plazas and airports, shedding the light of their message, but so do nativity scenes and other holiday symbols that bear unmistakably religious trappings. When the founders prohibited “an establishment of religion” they did not mean to banish all faith-based imagery from the public square.

Nor, for that matter, did Rabbi Bogomilsky mean to banish Christmas decorations from the Seattle airport.

Spokespeople for the Port of Seattle say they’re “not in the business of offending anyone,” but when did Rabbi Bogomilsky ever say, or even imply, that he was offended by Christmas trees? As a matter of fact, he welcomes the trees, as do I, as do all people of good will – Jewish and Christian alike.

What offended the rabbi and should offend all of us is the banning of religious symbols, not their presence. The airport may not be “in the business of offending anyone” but they’ve just offended just about everyone with their stubborn, wrong-headed, and utterly misguided decision.

Should the federal government recognize a dubious religion called “Wicca” (often identified with witchcraft and earth-worshipping paganism) when it comes to honoring a dead soldier?

That’s the question raised by the family of Sergeant Patrick Stewart who gave his life for his country while fighting in Afghanistan. He was buried more than a year ago in the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley, Nevada and his widow requested a memorial plaque with a Wiccan pentacle- a five pointed start enclosed in a circle, and sometimes associated with Satanism and witchcraft.

Ultimately, the Nevada Office of Veterans Services granted the right to install the plaque and five family and friends turned up to dedicate the memorial last week.

While I have little personal respect for Wicca—it’s a trendy, phony potpourri of druidical, primitive and New Age elements that’s more a pagan cult than an organized faith – there’s no question that a dead soldier and his family should get the right to choose their own memorial.

In this spectacularly diverse country, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has approved the symbols of 38 different faiths in military cemeteries – including more than a dozen distinctive versions of the Christian cross. Soldiers may also choose the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim Crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Bahai, and an “atomic whirl” (like the old school book drawing of a nucleus surrounded by electrons) to honor self-proclaimed atheists.

No matter how much we might dislike Wicca/witchcraft, the Constitution leaves no room for the government to discriminate against its adherents. According to Department of Defense figures from 2005, some 1,800 active duty personnel list their religious preference as “Wiccan.” The First Amendment gives them an absolute right to do so.

Like the recent controversy over Congressman Keith Ellison, the newly-elected Muslim who plans to take his oath of office on the Koran, the issue of the Wiccan plaque in a military cemetery forces us to come to terms with the true meaning of pluralism.

In America, we enjoy a vastly more robust and vibrant religious life than Europe because of the dazzling diversity of religious expression. Free-wheeling competition insures more energetic religious faith for everyone: we’re all strengthened and energized by the wide-open, free market in religious ideas-- with government neither privileging nor persecuting any faith.

The right approach to people silly enough to proclaim allegiance to Wicca is to talk them out of it—show them the error of their ways and the superiority of the faith we happen to practice. But denying hundreds of active duty military personnel their freedom of choice in religious orientation because we disapprove of their preferences is, in the final analysis, not just unconstitutional but un-American.

Mel Gibson’s “Apocalypto” is an audacious, unforgettable triumph and, undoubtedly, one of the richest, most electrifying cinematic experiences of the year. In that context it’s unfortunate that the filmmaker has coupled his brilliance as a writer-director with a display of unalloyed idiocy as a commentator on his own work.

The stupidity began in September when he spoke to an audience in Austin, Texas after an early screening of his still unfinished film. At the time, he succeeded in getting advance attention for his work by drawing parallels between the fantastically brutal and dysfunctional Mayan civilization he portrays on screen and the current political situation in the United States. “The precursors to a civilization that’s going under are the same, time and time again,” he explained. “What’s human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?”

His comments came across like an unexpected punch-in-the-nose to many of the conservatives across the country who had rallied to his defense during the furious dispute over “The Passion of the Christ,” and even pleaded for forgiveness and reconciliation in his behalf in the wake of his toxic combination of drunk driving and anti-Semitic drivel.

Nevertheless, with his film finished, ready for its Friday (December 8) release, and overwhelming audiences everywhere with its eye-popping visual splendor and relentless narrative energy, the Gibsonian interpretation of his own work has gotten, if anything, even more inane.

The official press kit from Touchstone Pictures (a division the Disney Company) quotes Gibson as saying: “Throughout history, precursors to the fall of a civilization have always been the same, and one of the things that just kept coming up as we were writing is that many of the things that happened right before the fall of the Mayan civilization are occurring in our society now. It was important for me to make that parallel because you see these cycles repeating themselves over and over again. People think that modern man is so enlightened, but we’re susceptible to the same forces – and we are also capable of the same heroism and transcendence.”

The press kit also quotes Farhad Safinia, who co-wrote the screenplay with Gibson, making similar observations: “We discovered that what archeologists and anthropologists believe is that the daunting problems faced by the Maya are extraordinarily similar to those faced today by our own civilization, especially when it comes to widespread environmental degradation, excessive consumption and political corruption.”

On the one hand, these fatuous remarks distort the situation in the United States today--far from “widespread environmental degradation,” for instance, the quality of our air and water has improved dramatically over the last thirty years, at the same time that reforestation has substantially enlarged the acreage of our already impressive woodlands.

Even more startling is the vast, unbridgeable gap between the politically correct comments by Gibson and his collaborator and the raw integrity of the film they actually made. Their observations about the “extraordinary similarity” between Mayan decadence and degeneracy and the realities of American life in the 21^st century receive no support whatever from the thrilling adventure story that unfolds in the nearly two-and-a-half hours of the final version of “Apocalypto.” In fact, their interpretation of the project bears so little connection to the film itself that you wonder not only whether they truly made the movie, but whether they’ve ever actually seen it. Nothing—not one scene, one character, one set, or one passing detail in the film – in any way echoes contemporary America, even as seen by this society’s most embittered critics. The movie contains no sequences emphasizing “environmental degradation” (unless you count a heart-pounding chase through a corn field where the stalks look somewhat withered) or “political corruption.” (The spectacle of enslaving primitive tribesmen, binding them with ropes and sticks, marching them to your capital and then slashing open their chests to rip their hearts out in human sacrifice can’t rightly be described as “political corruption”—nor does this pagan savagery connect in any way with current controversies in our society. No matter how much Mr. Gibson may disapprove of the Iraq war, it’s a stretch to suggest that sacrificial victims captured very much against their will, and after their spirited struggle (and after their village has been utterly destroyed) bear any relationship to the volunteers who chose to fight in the Middle East.

The cruel, sadistic, masochistic, deeply demented culture of the Mayas, with its self-destructive emphasis on mutilation and mysticism, slavery and superstition, emerges with conviction and flair on the screen but will cause no one to think, “Oh, wow, that really reminds me of New York and LA!”

So why would a brilliant artist like Mel Gibson insist on ludicrously describing his masterpiece as a commentary on today’s social, cultural, political problems, when no sane viewer of his picture would note or even suspect those messages?

Perhaps Gibson is so eager to transcend the humiliation of his drunk driving incident, and to bury the lingering suspicions that “The Passion” (despite its huge commercial success) was a right-wing, hate-filled screed, that he’s saying stupid things that he believes will endear him to the “progressive” Hollywood establishment.

Clearly, the film (with dialogue in the ancient Yucatec language, with subtitles) represents a major risk and he needs great reviews to get the attention required for decent box office performance. By cooking up some preposterous lefty interpretation of Mayan collapse (is the big chieftain with the body scarring and the elaborate tattoos and the distended ears and the carved piece of jade in place of his nose supposed to represent George W. Bush?) Gibson may be trying to position his adrenalin-soaked, breathlessly paced chase picture as an “important, daring” message movie that indicts the U.S.

Even if there’s no basis whatever in the substance of the film for Mel’s alarmist, we’re-all-guilty-and-doomed commentary about US society, the attempt to fabricate a political subtext for a visceral, straight-ahead action-adventure may prove an effective strategy. The positioning of a relentlessly fast-moving thriller set in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula more than five hundred years ago as some searing, timely indictment of “over consumption” and “political corruption” in Bush-era USA, may force some high brow critics to take “Apocalypto” more seriously than they would without the pretentious preaching surround it’s release. There’s another advantage concerning the movie’s distribution overseas: Gibson’s comments will help to produce the warm reception in France that’s all-but-guaranteed for any work plausibly classified as anti-American.

I’ve known Dennis Prager for 29 years and in those three decades of friendship we’ve seldom disagreed. Dennis is a powerful voice for decency and common sense, I’ve learned a great deal from him over the years, and I’m proud that our shows are broadcast on many of the same radio stations across the country.

We part company, however, regarding his impassioned efforts to dissuade newly-elected Representative Keith Ellison (the first Muslim ever elected to Congress) from using his Koran—instead of the Bible – for his ceremonial oath-taking.

Given the intensity of our disagreement, I invited Dennis to join me on my radio show in the hope that we could find common ground. I also wanted to ask him three unavoidable questions about his very public arguments against Representative Ellison’s decision to bring the Koran (for the first time) to the Congressional swearing-in.

Question Number One: In the column that launched this national controversy, Dennis made the “slippery slope” argument—suggesting that if we allowed each member of Congress to choose his own holy book to a swearing-in, then “what will happen one day should a racist decide to use ‘Mein Kampf.’?” It’s a provocative question, and I asked Dennis on the air to think it through. If the voters in some Congressional district were, in fact, stupid and hateful enough to elect an Adolph Hitler fan to Congress would we, after all, have any choice but to accept his service in the House and to acknowledge (and condemn) his admiration for Der Fuehrer?

To my surprise, Dennis was honest enough to agree with me that voters in a constitutional republic must retain the right to choose any representative they want—no matter how much we may disapprove of their choice. If they choose a Hitler-lover or a Stalin-lover or an Osama-lover, there’s no legal, legitimate, Constitutional way to block their choice; it’s up to decent people in that Congressional district to get to work immediately to drive the Nazi out of office and choose a more suitable legislator to represent them. Any attempt to block the will of the people – using judges or bureaucrats or restrictive regulations to deny them the ability to choose their own representatives – would be more typical of the liberals who trust the values of “elites” (judges in particular) more than they do the orientation of ordinary Americans.

In that context, and given our agreement on the right of voters to make their own stupid choices, Dennis agreed that he chose the wrong word when he talked about “not allowing” Representative Ellison to take the oath on his Koran. This is a matter of public pressure and condemnation – not an attempt to change the law or alter Congressional rules. Dennis questioned whether the voters in the Fifth District of Minnesota actually knew before the election that Ellison would want to use the Koran for his oath-taking, but I maintain that his religious commitment to Islam played such a prominent role in the campaign that any reasonable people, had they thought about the process of his taking office, would have expected his preference for the Muslim holy book over the Bible.

Question Number Two: Would Dennis agree with me that it would be clearly unconstitutional to make any attempt to pass a law declaring the Christian Bible as the only acceptable Holy Book for oath-taking in Congress (or in courts), or else recognizing the Bible as the sole publicly endorsed, officially sanctioned sacred scripture for all operations of the US government?

To my relief, Dennis quickly rejected the very idea of such legislation, and agreed that the First Amendment ban on “an establishment of religion” made it unthinkable for government to privilege or promote one Holy Book over another. He believes, however, that the public should use unofficial pressure to compel special status for the Bible. I disagree with him on the need for influence or compel people who don’t respect or care about the Bible to take the book of books seriously. Scripture remains a vibrant force in American life not because Bible-believers push others to share their enthusiasm but because the overwhelming majority of Americans revere the Bible as the Word of God.

In the most illogical aspect of his argument, Dennis disagreed with my assessment that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens still cherish the Bible, and that there’s little that government can do to increase or undermine respect for scripture. Mr. Prager believes that secularism has made gigantic inroads and he’s no longer sure that scriptural faith remains the prevailing persuasion in the nation at large.

The problem with this aspect of his argument is that if he believes a majority of people don’t care about the Bible any more, how can he hope to mount public pressure to force our elected representatives to care? In a democratic republic, the government must reflect and honor the will and values of the people – not attempt to foist some unpopular set of principles on a resentful and unwilling populace.

Trying to force all members of Congress to swear their oaths on the Bible is a bad idea; if you believe the majority of the public doesn’t even honor the Bible, it’s an even worse idea. Tyranny of the majority is bad enough; tyranny of a minority is far worse. If Dennis is right that the wide-spread reverence for the Holy Bible has already collapsed, then his whole effort to compel our Congressmen to honor the Book is utterly unjustified and illogical.

Question Three: Because Dennis needed to run off to a luncheon speech, I didn’t get the chance to ask him the third question directly, but I did pose it my listeners this afternoon. In view of all the high-profile controversy surrounding Mr. Prager’s efforts to get Keith Ellison to bring the Bible instead of the Koran to his swearing-in – or at least to bring the Bible in addition to the Koran – does he believe that the bitter national debate on this issue has actually helped the conservative cause?

I happen to believe that this whole argument has been a disaster for conservatives and Republicans, for several reasons—

1- It makes us look like sore losers, grousing about oath-taking details after our “thumpin’” in the recent elections

2- It lends credence to liberal charges that we’re mean and cold-hearted and theocratic—especially given the timing of this dispute in the midst of the warm emotions of the holiday season. It obviously illustrates theocratic tendencies (which we’ve been at pains to deny) to argue that the Bible is the only holy text that deserves recognition in Congress.

3- It’s a winning political strategy to divide your opponents while uniting your supporters. This argument, this cause, does precisely the opposite: it unites our opponents while dividing our base. As Dennis acknowledges, many thoughtful conservatives and libertarians indignantly part company with him on this one.

4- Since we’re going to lose anyway, the whole fight makes us look like losers (especially just a month after an already disastrous election). The chances that Keith Ellison will decline to bring his Koran to his oath-taking – or that he will honor Mr. Prager’s request and bring along a copy of the Bible as well—seem non-existent to remote. Ellison will take the oath his own way – that’s his right (just as it’s the Constitutionally stipulated right of dissenters to avoid any oath and to substitute the words “I do solemnly affirm” for “I do solemnly swear.”). Launching a major fight when you’re certain to lose is a terrible, horrendous strategy – militarily and politically.

I know Dennis believes with all his heart that this debate has been enlightening and informative for the American public. I wish I could agree with him. I actually believe that on balance it’s been a silly distraction and a significant setback for conservatives who need to back away from fringe issues that alienate most Americans and concentrate instead on the kitchen-table concerns (the war, the economy, jobs, taxes, schools and so forth) that can help us rebuild our recently dissipated majority.

If nothing else, I’m glad that I had the chance to talk with Dennis because our conversation should signify a new ability (for both of us) to move on from this intriguing but ultimately irrelevant argument and focus (like a laser beam) on other, vastly more significant challenges for our movement and our country.

What causes terrorism?

If you ask that question of policy experts or ordinary citizens, you’re likely to receive the same answer: that terrorism stems from hopelessness, poverty and oppression. According to the conventional wisdom (rarely questioned in polite company) the only way to curb terrorism is to address its “root causes” – to take decisive action to address the suffering, despair and tyranny that prevails in so much of the Islamic world.

This prescription for curbing the murderous excesses of Muslim societies sounds reassuring and logical, suggesting that a determined effort to deliver prosperity and democracy to benighted areas of the Middle East will reduce the terrorist threat for the United States and other decent countries.

A new study demonstrates, however, that commonplace thinking about the origins of terrorism is horribly, tragically wrong and that western policies based on the unproven assumption that destitution breeds violent radicalism may end up making us even less safe than before.

Dalia Mogahed, executive director of Muslim studies for the Gallup organization and John Esposito, a professor of religion at Georgetown University, recently collaborated on an analysis based on 9,000 interviews in nine Muslim countries. They classified their respondents into “moderates” (those who hope to co-exist with the West and Western values) and “radicals” (those who hope to spread uncompromising Islamic values throughout the world). They published their conclusions in “What Makes a Muslim Radical?” which appeared in the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine.

Among their conclusions:

“It’s no secret that many in the Muslim world suffer from crippling poverty and lack of education. But are radicals any poorer than their fellow Muslims? We found the opposite. There is indeed a key difference between radicals and moderates when it comes to income and education, but it is the radicals who earn more and who stay longer in school….

“Whenever a suicide bomber completes a deadly mission, the act is often attributed to hopelessness – the inability to find a job, earn a living, or support a family. But the politically radical and nor more ‘hopeless’ than the mainstream. More radicals expressed satisfaction with their financial situation and quality of life than their moderate counterparts, and a majority of them expected to be better off in the years to come.”

Perhaps those positive expectations related to their anticipation of getting up close and personal with 72 virgins, but even without considering obscene delusions of rewards in paradise, it’s obvious that the old paradigm of “hopelessness and poverty breed violent fanaticism” doesn’t apply to the Muslim world.

The crucial, ground-breaking work of Mogahed and Esposito helps explain the surprising fact that disproportionate numbers of al Qaeda terrorists come from the most privileged precincts of Islamic society – very much like Osama himself. For all its oil wealth, Saudi Arabia has produced far more terrorists than truly destitute Muslim societies like Tunisia or Yemen.

By the same token, the prevalence of terrorism among the Palestinians in the so-called “Occupied Territories” doesn’t reflect their pathetic conditions, but their relative prosperity and political liberty under Israeli rule where the people indeed enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the region. Whenever suicide killers strike at Israel, they are disproportionately well-off and well-educated – often the products of extensive education and the possessors of impressive professional credentials as nurses, lawyers, even doctors. It’s no accident that most the current leaders of Hamas (in both Syria and the Palestinian Authority) live in comfort and luxury, and that one of the recently dispatched heads of the terrorist network, Abdul Azziz al Rintisi, was one of the most prominent physicians in the area.

On the other hand, the most destitute and abused Muslim populations produce hardly any terrorists; the members of such truly nightmarish societies are simply too busy trying to stay alive. With more than 300,000 civilian deaths, for instance, the ratio of killing in Darfur as opposed to the Palestinian territories since the year 200 is close to 100 to 1 – yet the Islamic victims of the hideous Janjaweed Arab militias have never organized themselves into terrorist cells to punish the rest of the world.

For Islamo-Nazis, in other words, the old formulations don’t work --- education and financial resources don’t produce peaceful behavior, nor does ruthless oppression generate terrorism. The odd belief that sending money to Palestinians (or Iraqis, or Egyptians, or Lebanese, for that matter) will make them more cooperative and less violent is based on hope rather than experience, wishful thinking more than reliable studies.

The new 007 movie “Casino Royale” fell short of blockbuster status at the box office but drew some of the strongest reviews of any movie in the long series depicting the exploits of the celebrated Mr. Bond.

Many commentators praised the greater realism and relevance of the new spy saga without taking note of the film’s most conspicuous blind spot concerning contemporary terrorism.

For instance, Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop wrote: “In the post 9/11 era, James Bond can’t be as much fun as he once was. And in the new movie ‘Casino Royale’ he’s not mean to be, either. ‘Given the world situation,’ producer Barbara Broccoli told an assembled media, ‘we felt the need to do something more realistic and more serious.’… Some events in ‘Casino Royale’ seem ripped from the newswires. There’s an attempted attack on a passenger airliner, a chase scene through African misery and a torture episode… In short, ‘Casino Royale’ plunges the audience head-first into 2006.”

It’s certainly true that this Bond faces more believable threats than his predecessors in fantasies like “Goldfinger” or “Moonraker,” but for all the references to international terrorism the movie remains more silly than serious because it contains no references whatever to violent, conspiratorial threats by Islamist fanatics. In place of the diabolical jihadists who threaten to blow up our cities in the real world, the movie depicts an international terror network comprised entirely of suave Europeans and subhuman thugs from sub-Sharan Africa. Actual counter-terrorism combatants focus their attention on Muslim killers and plotters in every continent but in the latest “Bond” adventure this dire threat simply doesn’t exist.

In this regard, the movie follows the tradition established by nearly all Hollywood thrillers since 9/11. In “Sum of All Fears,” the Iranian-Palestinian terrorists of Tom Clancy’s novel became German neo-Nazis led by Alan Bates; in “Bad Company” with Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock the bad-guys are Serbian, in the airline nightmare “Red Eye” they’re Russian, and in Jodie Foster’s “Flight Plan” they’re American security personnel. The “Mission Impossible” and “Bourne” movies consistently feature assorted non-Islamic Europeans or Americans (like the truly chilling Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the most recent “Mission”). Even Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” avoided any on-screen depiction of the villains of 9/11 as Arab-Muslim crazies; only “United 93,” alone among feature films, depicted the al-Qaeda killers as devout, demented Islamists. The obscene puppet comedy “Team America: World Police” also deserves some credit for depicting Osama and Company as the Koranic crazies that they are but for the most part, that edgy exercise treated the terrorist threat (and everything else) as a source of jokes.

Meanwhile, high profile and top-rated TV series like “The Road to 9/11” and “Twenty-Four” showed that the public could and would respond to entertainment that faced the Islamic threat head-on. That record only intensifies the obvious question about Hollywood’s unwillingness to use Muslim murderers as convenient, obvious bad guys in films, like “Casino Royale,” that pretend to take terrorism seriously.

In one sense, the movies may avoid the obvious association of Islamism and terrorism in an effort to avoid projects that look so realistic and reflective of reality that they lose some of their entertainment value. “United 93,” for instance, remains a uniquely powerful and stunningly accurate recreation of the events of the darkest day in American history, but its box office performance proved disappointing if not altogether disastrous.

Movie industry decision-makers also fall under the ubiquitous influence of political correctness – buying into the highly debatable idea (promoted by no end of Muslim-American pressure groups) that any depiction of Islamic conspiratorial killers will promote bigotry and hate-crimes against law-abiding Muslims around the world. Organizations like CAIR (The Council of American-Islamic Relations) stand ready to denounce any movie that associates Arabs or Muslims with deadly violence, and most big studios and prominent filmmakers want to avoid that sort of controversy. Even a laughably awful, big budget film about the Crusades (“Kingdom of God”) went to great lengths to portray the Muslims as heroic, even saintly, while most of the Christians received distinctly unflattering treatment.

Looking back at Hollywood of the 1930’s, film historian Annette Insdorf and many other scholars have asked why the movie industry didn’t do more to show the world the emerging, blood-thirsty evils of Nazi Germany. For the most part, the big studios wanted to avoid threatened boycotts from Germany and other major markets for their releases, and feared that the Nazis and other anti-Semites would attack the movie business for its disproportionate representation of Jews in influential positions. Today, the Islamists already attack the entertainment industry for alleged Zionist bias, despite the absence of a single major studio release (no, not one) of the last thirty years that offers a distinctly positive vision of Israel, and despite the obvious, irrational, and ultimately shameful shyness about showing Islamo-Nazis as the demented, degenerate, terrorists they truly are.

The reactions to Michael Richards’ racist rant at an LA comedy club have proven more outrageous than anything about the tirade itself. As a matter of fact, for all the talk about the one-time TV star wrecking his career, this over-hyped controversy may end up placing the comedian on the road to a major comeback.

Consider, for instance, the soaring sales of the latest “Seinfeld” DVD. Season 7 of the popular sitcom is outselling the Season 6 edition (released on the same day in 2005) by at least 75%, and it’s outperforming Season 5 by more than 90%, according to TMZ.com.

Professor Robert Thompson of Syracuse University opines: “I think the only explanation that could be is that there’s a Kramer curiosity factor.”

He’s undoubtedly correct. Obviously, the last few days have brought about more news stories about the Seinfeld show than at any time since it left the air – suddenly, a has-been, washed up, truly pathetic figure like Michael Richards is a hot media property, with everyone clamoring for interviews as he continues his nationwide “apology tour.”

Before his shameful explosion into ethnic animosity, I couldn’t have commented with any certainty as to whether Mr. Richards was alive or dead. How many people in this broad Republic ever thought about or talked about Kramer, or Richards, prior to the avalanche of negative publicity associated with his outburst?

When shyster-ette Gloria Allred stepped forward to demand monetary “reparations” for the two African-American audience members Richards had insulted, when the club owner suggested that Richard donate $500,000 to charity for each invocation of the n-word during his audience-clearing monologue, when Jesse Jackson attempted to use the occasion to demand more African-American presence in the world of entertainment, Kramer’s pursuers and critics helped keep his name and face in the news.

With Mel Gibson now offering his utterly gratuitous plea for mercy on the unfortunate Richards, we’ve clearly entered the “pity the poor guy” stage of this media sensation. Because of his lavishly publicized problems, casting directors on TV shows and movies will consider Richards in a way they’d never considered him before. At this point, his next appearances will bring a flurry of attention for any project to which he lends his lame presence.

I don’t wish ill to Michael Richards, but it does seem obvious that he harbors deep-seated racist attitudes. If his resort to the n-word to abuse black audience members who had been mildly disrespectful doesn’t demonstrate real racism, than what does? Do we really believe that you have to get to the level of lynchings and burning crosses and threats of overt violence to earn the r-word (racist)?

Ironically, this whole pathetic episode will end up reviving Richards’ all-but-moribund career. The whole discussion (Is he racist? Is he cured of racism? What will he do to make amends to the African-American community?) grants the comic the sort of national importance that such a thin, limited talent hardly deserves.

In the end, shouting the n-word repeatedly from a public stage ends up serving as a brilliant career move. If it can transform a stalled, cold comedian into a suddenly hot property, could the same sort of bigoted abuse provide further momentum for a career that's already going well?

I wonder if the same approach would work for a radio host….mmmmm…

And don’t you dare forget, you must tune in EVERY DAY (from 3 PM to 6PM, Eastern Time) to listen, live, to find out if I’ll actually try to employsuch outrageous strategy on the air. Yet another potent reason to catch every precious minute of the Michael Medved show…..

Critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies have been obsessed for more than a year with an odd effort to designate the struggle as a “civil war.” This week, NBC News as a matter of policy agreed to call the conflict a “civil war,” while UN Secretary General Kofi Anan and even former Secretary of State Colin Powell also suggested that this might be an appropriate description for the current state of the struggle. Anti-war forces are jubilant over their apparent rhetorical victory, but offer no explanation whatever as to why it’s important. Even if the whole world embraces the “civil war” phrase, why is that significant in any way for shaping future policy?

Obviously, anti-war forces would maintain that once we acknowledge that a civil war is raging on the ground, it becomes clear and inescapable that we have no role to play and we’ll be forced to pull our troops far away from the warring combatants.

But where has it ever been established that the U.S. can’t get involved in “civil wars”?

In Afghanistan in 2001, we entered a long running civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance and helped the good guys to decisive victory within a matter of weeks. No one looked at the situation and said, “Uh-oh, there’s a bloody civil war that’s been going on in that country for years, so the U.S. can’t possibly send its forces!” As a matter of fact, there’s another “civil war” raging in Afghanistan right now –-- a conflict that fits the classic “civil war” model far better than the situation in Iraq. In Afghanistan, there are two clearly recognizable sides (the Taliban and the Karzai government) warring for control. In Iraq, there’s no organized, recognizable, anti-government leadership of the insurgency, no program or even ruling clique that the terrorists seek to impose, no prominent leaders with whom the U.S. and our allies can negotiate or around whom the opposition can rally. The real struggle is governmental authority vs. bloody chaos—and the fact that bloody chaos is winning at the moment doesn’t mean that it’s a civil war.

In any event, the fact that Afghanistan does face a continuing civil war (unequivocally) doesn’t mean that the NATO countries (with 26 of our allies gallantly providing forces, some of them expert and significant) feel the need to pull out and disentangle themselves from the conflict.

In Bosnia and Kosovo the United States (under President Clinton) also inserted itself into the midst of horrible civil wars and, in both cases managed to reduce the nightmarish killing which, in its genocidal horror, far exceeded even the current misery of Iraq. During the 1980’s America also took sides in civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, eventually helping to establish functioning democracies in both Central American nations. Going further back in history, the Spanish American War of 1898 represented U.S. insertion into a Cuban civil war; our much less successful 11-year involvement in Vietnam also initially aligned us with one side in a civil war in South Vietnam (with the government forces verses the Viet Cong) before the North Vietnamese openly invaded.

One of the first major triumphs of the Cold War saw the U.S. and Britain helping the Greeks fight off a Communist insurgency in the Greek Civil War (that claimed some 100,000 lives in 1946-49). Going back to the Wilson and Harding administrations, we also sent a major expeditionary force to fight alongside the “White” forces in the spectacularly deadly Russian Civil War (with literally millions of casualties) that followed the Bolshevik Revolution (my father’s five sisters – who he never met – all died as civilian victims of that conflict).

Moreover, our unwillingness to take decisive action to stop genocide and senseless bloodshed in Rwanda, the Congo and Sudan/Darfur may register in histories of the era as some of this nation’s most significant moral failures.

This history is worth reciting only to defeat the idiotic leftist assumption that if Iraq gets classified by everyone as a civil war (a bogus classification, but one that’s gaining ground) then it means that the argument is over – we most get out.

Why? Since when? Who says?

Given our long, long record of involvement with properly designated “civil wars” (with some of those interventions major triumphs, others embarrassing setbacks) the idea that we can’t ever, under any circumstances, intrude ourselves into such conflicts in ludicrous.

No, I don’t think “civil war” is the right term for the chaotic, multi-faceted struggle in Iraq. If anti-war commentators want to say it’s become a sectarian conflict, Shiites vs. Sunnis, then which side does the government and its coalition supporters represent. Is Moqtada al Sadr (Shiite leader) on the side of the government (in which he’s represented) and its coalition partners or should he be classified as one of the insurgents? The inability to give any clear answer to that question demonstrates the difficult and inappropriate nature of the inane effort to squeeze and distort the Iraq situation to fit the paradigm of civil war.

And even if you succeed in forcing this unique and tragic war into that classic label, you’re still left with one huge, unanswerable, inescapable two word question---

SO WHAT?

Why would any well-meaning citizen deride the widely-acclaimed “Poverty Camp” program in Ceres, California that allows privileged American teenagers to experience some of the hardship and destitution of the developing world?

On my radio show today I made dismissive comments about this enterprise in order to expand on the same point featured in yesterday’s blog (about the recent SUICIDE FOR PEACE by a lefty activist in Chicago): that contemporary liberalism often exalts feelings above results, intentions above impact. While conservatives will try to measure a private action or public initiative based on the way it affects other people or changes the world at large, leftists emphasize the sincerity or emotion that motivated the behavior – regardless of its consequences broader, long-term consequences..

“Poverty Camp” takes teens and pre-teens from middle class and upper middle class backgrounds and gives them an immersion experience in a sort of Third World Disneyland. By chance, the kids are assigned to try to survive for a weekend in an African round house, a Cambodian bamboo shack on stilts, a Latin American urban slum, or an Appalachian cabin. The least fortunate campers are those who are designated “refugees” with no assigned home, no food rations, no possessions – forced to seek shelter and nourishment by imploring for mercy from the others. The food is meager and the means of preparation are primitive – in order to convey the sense of developing nation authenticity. The aim of the program is to underscore our absurdly privileged status in the United States, and to inspire young people to feel compassion and comprehension regarding the plight of the wretched of the earth.

That’s a worthy goal, but the weekend experience itself does nothing – absolutely nothing – to improve the lives of suffering masses. Instead of using precious resources to provide a memorable “slumming it” experience for pampered punks, that money could go directly to unfortunates in Africa, Asia, Latin America, even Appalachia (though equating America’s poor to the impoverished billions of the Third World is a misleading obscenity).

Even better, parents who want their kids to come into contact with poverty and suffering could actually encourage those children to volunteer at homeless shelters, feeding programs, battered women homes, senior citizen centers, day care centers, you name it. With no shortage of hurting and hopeless human beings (especially worthy of sympathetic attention in Christmas season) why not introduce youngsters to real poor people rather than getting them involved in an elaborate, lavish game of poverty-let’s-pretend? If the kids volunteered they’d not only learn about their unfortunate neighbors but might also get some satisfaction from making attempts, at least, to ameliorate their pain.

Many Christian organizations send kids out to do international mission work precisely for this purpose: to gain a new appreciation of our own blessings and the desperation of others, while simultaneously engaged in a real effort to help transform the victims by providing new values and new faith that can deliver them from their misery.

And that’s my other problem with the “Poverty Camp” concept. Apparently, the organizers treat hardship and deprivation as facts of life – some kids are randomly assigned to bamboo huts, others live in cardboard boxes in urban slums, still others are homeless refugees. But there’s no explanation of the fact that poverty in real life is hardly random: it’s the product of bad decisions by individuals, or bad values and bad governance by their societies. The conditions in the African round house may be appalling, but they reflect long-standing, dysfunctional elements in local cultures – very much including the sexual mores that have hugely facilitated the spread of AIDS. This doesn’t mean that poor people in developing nations deserve to die or to suffer: all human beings should, ideally, get some opportunity to escape the squalid circumstances that still afflict nearly one-third of humanity. But to pretend that those circumstances have no connection to the cultures, economic systems or political leadership that produced them is to ignore history and current reality.

In short, when teaching kids about poverty it’s important to stress the relationship of values and ideas to real-world consequences – rather than encouraging feelings of guilt and empathy as an end in itself. “Poverty Camp” is undoubtedly well-meaning, but ultimately masturbatory—producing pleasurable reactions of righteous and empathy among participants, but signifying nothing at all to anyone else. The kids may feel idealistic and pure and determined at the end of the experience, but those noble emotions (like all the good vibes produced by Hollywood celebs when they participate in some wildly hyped benefit concert) count for nothing without practical actions to change benighted, backward and unproductive societies.

Is it heroic to kill yourself for peace – even if your suicidal gesture does absolutely nothing to advance your agenda?

The fact that many liberals seem to answer this question in the affirmative speaks volumes about the empty, dysfunctional nature of contemporary leftist thinking.

On Monday morning (November 27^th) the Seattle Times featured an AP story under the headline, SUICIDE CAPTURES ATTENTION, BUT MESSAGE UNCLEAR. It describes the death more than three weeks ago of an experimental musician, writer, philosopher, photographer, anti-war activist and self described “renaissance man” named Malachi Ritscher. On November 3, on the eve of the fateful national elections, Mr. Ritscher, 52, arose early and set up a video camera on a freeway off-ramp in downtown Chicago. With tape running, he then proceeded to douse himself with gasoline and to set himself on fire. He intended his flaming corpse as a “call to the nation,” what the Associated Press described as “a symbol of his rage and discontent with the U.S. war in Iraq.”

The manifesto he left to the human race proclaimed: “Here is the statement I want to make: if I am required to pay for your barbaric war, I choose not to live in your world… If one death can atone for anything, in any small way, to say to the world, I apologize for what we have done to you, I am ashamed of the mayhem and turmoil caused by my country.”

Ironically, his self-immolation drew little attention until a recent article in the Chicago Reader, an alternative newspaper. When Ritscher’s story belatedly appeared on its pages, he began drawing admiring tributes on the publication’s website. One 28-year-old graduate student has committed herself to organizing protests and vigils to honor Ritscher’s commitment. “I can’t sit by and let this go unheard,” she said. When I discussed his death on my radio show today, four different callers expressed varying degrees of respect and approval for Ritscher’s deadly gesture.

Of course, no one can explain how a decision to burn yourself to death on a freeway off-ramp will help to rescue the “innocent civilians” Ritscher mentioned in his suicide note. Given the fact that nearly all of those unarmed bystanders have been killed by insurgents or militias in Iraq, and that the U.S. military devotes itself for the most part to protecting rather than murdering civilians, it remains unclear how even the immediate withdrawal of our forces would spare innocent lives. It’s even more perplexing to think that sane individuals could believe that a showy suicide would influence U.S. policy makers or sway public opinion in any way. Doesn’t the very nature of Ristcher’s unspeakably painful death suggest a mental derangement that’s hard to blame of George W. Bush and his policies?

Nevertheless, the dead man’s admirers cite his courage, his conviction, his idealism--- typifying the liberal tendency to judge intentions rather than results. To them, it doesn’t matter that his suicide achieved nothing. What counts is his sincerity, his fervent desire to advance the cause of peace.

In the same way, liberals judge national policies based on idealistic motivations rather than practical impact. They revere the “War on Poverty”; despite the fact that it almost certainly harmed the long-term interests of poor people, at least it reflected governmental concern for the less fortunate. In the same way, leftists supported Clinton’s interventions in Bosnia, Haiti, or Kosovo because the President meant to advance the cause of peace, not to serve any parochial U.S. interests. On the most elemental and intimate level, liberals love feeding programs or other handouts for the homeless – even though they help to extend the cycle of hopelessness. Motives count more than consequences.

Conservatives, on the other hand, focus on results, on real world outcomes, and appreciate those who benefit humanity even if they’re driven by selfish motives. Drug companies, for instance, save millions of lives, regardless of their concern for the profit motive, and those who build new homes or develop beautiful new neighborhoods deserve credit for their contributions, even if they hope to make a killing in the process. Yes, conservatives may express admiration for those who sacrifice themselves, but only if that sacrifice serves some worthy cause – saving people from disease, or turning the tide of battle in one of this nation’s necessary wars.

It’s hard to imagine conservatives ever saluting a suicide—especially a suicide with no beneficial consequences for anyone at all. Religious martyrs who willingly sacrifice themselves may lay down their lives, but they die, blameless, at the hands of others and seek to convey a message about their faith.

What message did Malachi Ritscher convey, beyond his hatred and disdain (“I am ashamed for the mayhem and turmoil caused by my country”) for his own nation? Does masochistic, suicidal America-bashing actually advance the cause of peace?

The fact that Ritscher (who proudly operated several anti-war websites) and some of his admiring mourners believe that discrediting America through self-slaughter can actually achieve some higher goal demonstrates the demented depths of these deviant dissenters.

Peggy Noonan is an eloquent columnist and an insightful conservative but her recent attempt to cut through the national confusion on immigration shows the way that this issue warps the thinking of even normally clear-minded commentators.

In this weekend’s Wall Street Journal she wrote a piece under the heading, “What Grandma Would Say,” invoking the fact that “in most everyone’s family there was a grandma who used to sit quietly in the corner and say nothing. Then someone would ask her opinion just to be polite and she’d say something so wise, so commonsensical it stopped everyone in their tracks. And you realized that she was smart, that she’d lived a life and seen things.”

Okay, with this homey set-up, what is it that “Grandma” wants to say about immigration?

According to Noonan, “I think grandma would say, ‘Stop it. Build a wall. But put doors in the wall so when the problem is over, you can open the doors.’”

Sorry, Peggy, but there’s nothing there “so wise, so commonsensical” that I’m stopped in my tracks.

First of all, nearly all Republicans agree on the wisdom of building a wall (or fence)—and patrolling it effectively, much as the Border Patrol has been able to do with “Operation Gatekeeper” in the San Diego sector. Better border enforcement will certainly reduce the flow of illegals (there’s strong evidence, in fact, that it already has) while enhancing our ability to deal with the problems and challenges presented by the millions of the undocumented who are already here.

But Noonan’s appealingly simplistic posturing ignores two of the most salient facts about the current situation regarding illegal immigrants.

1) Close to half of the estimated 12 million illegals currently in the United States entered the country legally --- and then over-stayed their welcome, violating their visas or otherwise ignoring their obligation to turn in more paperwork, or just generally disappearing into a vast nation of 300 million. In other words, even a totally air-tight wall on our southern border (an obvious impossibility) would block less than half of the current flow. Other entrants would cross over from the all-but-unguarded Canadian side (an increasingly common practice with immigrants from everywhere, including Mexicans and Central America, who get into Canada with little difficulty and then head south) or else enter the country legally, as temporary visitors, and then decide to stay – a practice already followed by literally millions of their predecessors.

2) Noonan seems to suggest that “closing the borders” is as easy as flipping a switch, when there is no practical or realistic way to seal-off the US, reliably, from those who are determined to enter the country. Noonan berates our leaders for “trying to confuse people into thinking they’re closing the borders without actually closing them…It’s not convenient for any of them to close the borders… One wonders why we don’t stop illegal immigration, now.”

Isn’t it possible that “closing the borders” isn’t just inconvenient – but virtually impossible? That we “don’t stop illegal immigration, now,” because even the construction of hundreds of miles of high-tech fencing, and the stationing of hundreds of thousands of border patrol agents and federal troops, can’t halt the human tidal wave as completely as Noonan’s dreams and desires?

Given our current desperate struggle in Iraq, with 140,000 US troops fighting valiantly in an unpopular war, we’ve been unable to “close the border” with Syria or to stop the flow of jihadist combatants into that country. That Iraq-Syria border, by the way, is only a fraction as long as the US border with Mexico. Is our failure to block armed combatants from entering Iraq also because “it’s not convenient” or is that inability based upon the undeniable fact that patrolling hundreds (not to mention thousands) of miles of a desolate desert frontier is a profoundly difficult proposition?

Okay, so what does it mean to “close the borders” anyway? Noonan seems to suggest that it means more than merely blocking illegals – or else why would her “Grandma” suggest that “when the problem is over, you can open the doors.” Surely, Grandma doesn’t mean that at some point in the future we would welcome illegals, does she? So when she suggests we close the doors today until “the problem” is over she seems to suggest blocking all new entrants, legal and illegal alike. That’s the “solution” favored by Pat Buchanan, by the way.

Could we really shut out all immigrants (including the more than half-a-million who enter legally each year) and block all visitors too? Does any sane individual believe that sealing off the United States from all foreigners for some period of time would help our economy or our country? Would we also make it impossible for, say, the Japanese managers and automotive engineers from Honda and Toyota to enter the country to help supervise the new production plants that employ tens of thousands of Americans?

The reason that mainstream conservatives insist on comprehensive immigration reform rather than simplistic sloganeering is their recognition of government’s limited ability to control human behavior. Millions of immigrants seek to enter this nation every year to take the millions of jobs that open up for them in an ever-expanding economy. That doesn’t mean we should abandon all efforts to secure our borders or to take legal, operational control of the immigration we need – nor should we fail to restrict entry for all those with criminal records, or the intent to cheat the system once they arrive. But economic and logistical reality makes clear that a sharp reduction in illegal immigration must accompany some increase in legal immigration – or a guest worker program. If we don’t legalize and supervise some of the newcomers entering the United States, unfilled positions will prove so potent a lure that illegals will still find the means to enter our country. The best way to cut—very sharply-- the traffic of the undocumented is to make it far harder than it is today to enter the country illegally, while making it somewhat easier than it is to enter legally. For those who do enter legally, they should be closely monitored to make sure that they either go home after a period of time, or else begin the long, slow, orderly, meaningful path to permanent legal residency and citizenship.

Especially in light of the depressing Democratic victories in the recent elections, we need to get serious and realistic about the whole issue of immigration – rather than leaving the debate to liberals who will only open our borders further. For them, the only pre-requisite for earning legal status would be a commitment to vote Democratic, ideally for the next four generations.

Meanwhile, on our side of the aisle discussion of elegantly, instantly, effortlessly “closing the border” or wondering “why we don’t stop illegal immigration, now” isn’t helpful, and amounts to childish wishful thinking. H.L. Mencken offered two highly relevant observations that deserve citation now.

“For every great public problem,” he declared, “there is a simple solution that is obvious, appealing and wrong.”

He also noted: “The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.”

So much for Noonan’s confidence in “grandma’s” vaunted wisdom and commonsense. It’s entirely possible that in the fictional old lady’s simplistic approach to a serious national challenge she’s demonstrated senility more than profundity.

With two weeks' perspective on Republican reverses in the Congressional election one factor emerges as undeniable –

The American people wanted to vote AGAINST Washington, D.C., and against the perceived increase in power, corruption and mismanagement in the nation’s capital. Of course, it’s ironic that their anti-Washington vote delivered a majority for the Democrats—the party that specifically favors more, not less, centralized government over individuals, localities and states. It’s the Democrats who want federalized health care, an immediate increase in the federal minimum wage, more federal money for college expenses, more federal power in restricting trade, more federal tax dollars, more federal environmental controls, and so forth.

To rebuild a Republican majority, the GOP must rediscover its anti-Washington roots and run against the mess in D.C. – which will be identifiable as the Democratic mess in D.C.. The Bush administration will not be on the ballot next time, so if the American people want to vote against Washington corruption and to punish incumbents, the governing incumbents they can punish will be Democrats.

Of course, the anti-Washington strategy requires the right Presidential candidate – which means a former governor (Romney) or even a former mayor (Rudy) is probably better for that purpose than a current Senator (McCain). But even if McCain is the nominee, he’s been enough of a nag and a scold concerning D.C. corruption (particularly with his emphasis on curbing corporate welfare, earmarks, and campaign finance abuses) that he could, conceivably, pose as a credible anti-Washington candidate.

The people were in a mood to punish Congressional insiders in 2006. The continuance of Democratic control will depend on the very questionable ability of Pelosi, Reid and company to alter that mood. If they fail, the Republicans can embrace a great opportunity to return to their roots as the anti-Washington party.

Most of the traditions surrounding Thanksgiving involve food, but none of the nourishment normally associated with the holiday – Turkey, stuffing, cranberries, sweet potatoes, pecan pie – played any role in the Pilgrims’ “First Thanksgiving” in 1621. Yes, they ate with the Indians (who turned up more or less uninvited, with 90 hungry warriors) but the main course was venison, freshly hunted from the woods. As Godfrey Hodgson makes clear in his fine, informative new book “A GREAT AND GODLY ADVENTURE: THE PILGRIMS AND THE MYTH OF THE FIRST THANKSGIVING” (I’ll be speaking with him about it on my radio show on Friday, at 4 PM Eastern Standard Time) there were no Turkeys in Massachusetts at that time, and cranberries were inedible without sugar (which didn’t arrive until fifty years later).

Among the foods frequently consumed today, the one Thanksgiving staple that most authentically connects with the Pilgrims (and their Puritan counterparts of the Massachusetts Bay Colony) is beer. They loved the stuff and brewed it themselves – as did many of their descendants, including “Sons of Liberty” leader Sam Adams –whose beer-making efforts (largely unprofitable for him, alas) helped inspire a contemporary (and much more successful) brewery to honor his name. In any event, as a fish-a-tarian (I eat vegetables, dairy products and kosher fish, but not meat or fowl) I will enjoy the consolation of some fine, expertly prepared craft beers this afternoon while the rest of my family (and more than 20 close friends) feasts on the turkey and gravy and stuffing.

Meanwhile, beyond the food focus of the holiday, what other Thanksgiving traditions can conscientious Americans honor in 2006?

There are actually two songs that have become part of the holiday for millions of people. “Over the River and Through the Woods, to Grandmother’s House we Go” captures the wintry, festive atmosphere of the day, and invokes childish delight in a a get –together with family and friends, but never touches on the underlying themes of the celebration—the Harvest Festival notions of gratitude and dedication.

Fortunately, the other enduring Thanksgiving song expresses those themes memorably. The hymn known as “We Gather Together” combines a simple, gorgeous, heart-felt melody with words that reflect relief and appreciation at our undying (and undeserved) deliverance by God from the oppressions and oppressors of this world:

We gather together to ask the Lord’s blessing

He chastens and hastens his will to make known;

The wicked oppressing now cease from distressing

Sing praises to his name; he forgets not his own.

Beside us to guide us, our God with us joining

Ordaining, maintaining his kingdom divine;

So from the beginning the fight we were winning

Thou, Lord, was at our side; all glory be thine!

We all do extol thee thou leader triumphant,

And pray that thou still our defender will be.

Let they congregation escape tribulation;

Thy name be ever praised! O lord, make us free!

The song became popular in the early twentieth century as “The Thanksgiving Hymn” in part because its words fit so well with the story of the Pilgrims and their escape from religious persecution. The hymn is also old enough to have been known by them --- in its original form it was a Dutch folk song called “Wilder dan wilt,” beginning with the words, “Wilder than wild, who will tame me.” In less than twenty years the melody had been adapted by Dutch Protestants fighting against Spanish-Catholic oppression. The new first line, “Wilt heden nu treden” – loosely translated as “We gather together”—described and exalted a revolutionary act, since the nationalist dissenters were forbidden from joining together in worship.

In a fascinating piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2005, Melanie Kirkpatrick traced the roundabout journey of the great song. Since the Pilgrims spent time in Holland before their dangerous (and ultimately deadly) journey to the New World, they might have heard it, learned it and loved it --- but they wouldn’t have used it in church. The Pilgrims sang only Psalms in their services, restricting their hymns to settings of Biblical text. Despite its fervent religiosity, the recently composed words of “We Gather Together,” in either Dutch or English versions, wouldn’t have qualified.

Nevertheless, the song survived after its first appearance in print in a 1626 collection of Dutch patriotic songs and became instantly popular as in the English speaking world after its musical presentation in an arrangement by a Viennese choirmaster (published in Leipzig in 1877) and its subsequent translation by American scholar studying in Leipzig, Theodore Baker, in 1894. He published his English version (the same words we use today) as a choral “Prayer of Thanksgiving” in 1894. By 1903, the song began to make regular appearances in American hymnals.

There’s something profoundly American, of course, in the route taken by “We Gather Together” – from its Dutch (some curmudgeons say Danish) origins as a folk song, to its appropriation by Calvinist rebels as a hymn of faith and defiance, to its musical transmission in Germany, to an American scholar in Europe who provided English words and then sent the song across the sea.

In any event, the themes and the substance of “We Gather Together,” along with more than 100 years of American tradition (an eternity in terms of our young nation) make this hymn one of the most authentic and meaningful aspects of the holiday. The rousing conclusion (“Let thy congregation escape tribulation/Thy name be ever praised! O Lord make us free!) resonates forever among our people who have so often faced threats from the “wicked” who seek to oppress and distress us. Obviously, we face those threats again today, but we can remain thankful and confident that the God of the Pilgrims “still our defender will be.”

In short, whatever you serve at your Thanksgiving table, “We Gather Together” will provide even more nourishment. On this great national festival, let us put aside differences (even those painful di